this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
1615 points (98.9% liked)
People Twitter
5230 readers
790 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's just not true. Capitalism is what happens when there is no force. Human nature is such that society would probably devolve into despotic states, but the economic system would likely still be capitalist.
Government prevents degrading into anarchy, and is a useful tool to prevent the worst of the bad outcomes (e.g. slavery, murder, etc).
You'll even see capitalism existing within authoritarian situations, like prison, dictatorships, etc. It's the default economic system people reach for.
But it does. Capitalism didn't cause /u/spez to choose ads over a subscription model, that was his free choice. There are multiple viable profit models, and he chose one that I didn't like.
Don't blame the economic system, blame the CEO.
And I think you're putting politics where it doesn't belong.
FOSS isn't inherently socialist, just like a tractor isn't. It's a tool, and it can be used to socialist and capitalist ends.
For example, the AGPL is frequently used to prevent competitors from effectively using a service, while also getting free contributions from the community. Those orgs often require signing over copyright for any contributions as well, so the work becomes the property of the company. At all points, the corporation has sole ownership of the source code. So who owns the "means of production" in this case? The corporation.
On the flipside, you have projects like Linux where contributors retain their own copyright and the software is essentially communally owned. So who owns the "means of production" in this case? The community as a whole.
It's not the license that's socialist, but the project management. FOSS is merely a grant to use, modify, and redistribute changes to a work owned by someone else. It's not a grant to share in ownership, otherwise you wouldn't have the limitations specified in the license.
Oh, you're genuinely one of those people.
No, Capitalism isn't what happens when there's no force, that's absurd. Capitalism requires a divide between Workers and Owners, which itself is forced hierarchy, and is upheld by a state. Government can be useful, yes, but Capitalism as an economic system is built on force.
You're also twisting the quote around its original meaning, "don't hate the player, hate the game," when it would've been more accurate to keep it as is. "Don't hate spez, hate Capitalism," as Capitalism is what created the conditions and incentives for spez to make money via making Reddit shit.
FOSS is a tool with expressed non-ownership and a rejection of taking profit. If a hammer was free for everyone to use and anyone could clone it, that would be a leftist hammer too.
You're trying really hard here, but given that you somehow think Capitalism is when you don't have force means you really do need to go back to the drawing board.
But it doesn't, owners and workers can be the same individuals. I am a worker in my 9-5 job, and an owner through my retirement plan based on stocks. There's no class divide, just different roles.
Here's a decent definition of capitalism:
This is the common definition of capitalism as near as I can tell, and nowhere in there is a monopoly on force required.
Saying capitalism requires a state is like saying socialism requires a state. You can have socialism within capitalism unless the state forbids it (e.g. co-ops and other forms of worker owner orgs), and you can probably have limited capitalism within socialism if the state permits it. They're just different ways of producing goods, and both can exist without the state.
No, FOSS is a tool with expressed granting of rights, but not complete rights, to a work. If we restrict ourselves to "free software" (FOSS covers open source as well), you get the four freedoms: use, distribute, modify, and distribute modifications. That's it, you don't get full rights of ownership. Some FOSS licenses expand or reduce these freedoms, but we'll stick with the FSF definition for now.
But that only matters if there's a practical difference between ownership and non-ownership. With something like Linux, there are so many owners over various parts of the code that everyone practically has the same rights. However, with projects like MongoDB, all contributors sign over rights, so Mongo the company retains more rights than anyone else. You could call Linux "effectively socialist," whereas that's not true with Mongo.
FOSS explicitly doesn't reassign copyright (i.e. ownership), so it cannot be social ownership. It's individual ownership of parts of the means of a product and a grant of rights both for the product and (for copyleft licenses) future derivative works, so it's more like a publicly traded company (shareholders are the contributors) than a cooperative..
But my point here is that FOSS isn't an economic system, it's a license grant, so comparing it to socialism or capitalism misses the point entirely.
Those who own stock, but not enough to live off of, are Proletarian. Small business owners that must work are petite bourgeoisie, and large business owners that do not need to work are bourgeoisie. All of these are examples of Capitalist classes, the primary 2 being Proletarian and Bourgeoisie.
Capitalism requires a monopoly on force to exist, because Capitalism cannot exist without enforced property rights. A monopoly on force is the only way to, at scale, solidify absentee ownership of the products of another person's labor based on ownership of the tools.
FOSS is a rejection of such a system, and is leftist as such.
I thinking probably is that you're looking at everything through a Marxist lens. When all you have is a hammer...
Marx oversimplified things to make his point. In real world capitalism, there is no clean separation of classes, especially modern capitalism where everyone can by a part owner in something. I think he makes some good points, but I disagree with his conclusion that a worker led uprising is inevitable or even desired.
In my opinion, the main problem isn't with capital accumulation, but generational wealth. Capitalism generally rewards those whose labor makes a greater impact, but that doesn't hold if capital can just be given to someone who hasn't made such an impact. If we remove the reward, we remove a lot of the incentive to excel, relying only on internal motivations instead of external motivations.
But none of this is particularly relevant to FOSS, and that's kind of my point.
No, property rights can be protected through consensus instead.
Look at cryptocurrencies, there's no central authority enforcing your ownership of a certain amount of property, it's done through consensus. When we talk about proof of stake, it's absolutely a capitalistic system since you staking capital is how the system decides who processes the transaction. It's perhaps the purest form of capitalism that exists, and no force is needed to perpetuate it, even at scale.
To be clear, I'm not saying cryptocurrencies are good or bad (I don't want yet another rabbit hole discussion), just that they're an example of a capitalist system not requiring force to establish property rights.
But it's not. FOSS is just a way to share code in a way that requires users of the code to share their modifications with everyone if they share with anyone. That's it. It doesn't grant ownership and it doesn't limit owners.
Look at Richard Stallman, the man who came up with the GPL. He doesn't seem to be a socialist, and I have trouble placing him with any ideology. My guess is that he's some kind of green libertarian, he pushes progressive narratives, but mostly about ecological issues, justice (i.e. committing a crime in a corporation shouldn't protect you), etc. He's very opinionated on his website, but he doesn't really talk about political or economic structure, he just calls out stuff that seems bad to him. A lot of the free software community (the F part of FOSS) is pretty leftist/anarchist, while a lot of the open source community (the OS part of FOSS) is libertarian. But those views are generally separate from the licenses themselves.
Capitalist corporations use all kinds of agreements to cut costs and increase profits. Sometimes that's proprietary software owned solely by them, sometimes it's software that they work on with other corporations (I've had to sign NDAs when collaborating with other orgs), and sometimes it's FOSS (no NDA needed). Sometimes FOSS projects want copyright to be signed over (the FSF does, for example), sometimes they don't. I consider a copyright assignment to be against the spirit of FOSS since it benefits only the copyright holder (another reason I don't like Mongo), but whatever.
But again, all of this is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what political opinions Stallman, the FSF, or other FOSS communities hold, what matters are the principles FOSS is founded on.
Copyleft isn't even part of it, that's an FSF-specific thing (i.e. "Free Software").
You can run your project such that you don't accept input from anyone (definitely not socialist), or you can run it collaboratively where decisions are democratically agreed on (a bit more socialist?), or something in the middle. The licenses themselves aren't socialist, nor is the mindset that created them, they're merely the embodiment of the general principle of "it's good to share." Both capitalists and socialists agree with that (except maybe Objectivists like Ayn Rand, but that's another tangent).
Whether a project is socialist or capitalist depends on how it's run, not what license they use, the license is just a tool.
There weren't these simple, clean breaks in most classes in Marx's time either, which is why he spoke in aggregates.
Capitalism does not reward those whose labor makes a greater impact, it rewards those who own Capital. Capitalism doesn't care about how great the impact of labor is.
You can have a profit-motive within Socialism.
Property rights cannot be accepted without enforcement. If just one factory owner claims to own every chair produced, why would anyone accept that unless there was threat of violence?
FOSS is a rejection of ownership and profit, simple as.
It does reward those who make a greater impact. Entrepreneurs don't get rich if their use of capital doesn't have a far reaching impact.
Look at Elon Musk, he was able to use his capital to build compelling EVs and rockets, such that both became very popular products with far-reaching impact. Yes, he himself didn't build the EVs or the rockets, but his capital was necessary to fund development of those products. If he didn't invest in those products, we likely wouldn't have had such growth in those markets because he essentially created the demand for those products.
There are a ton of success stories that could be labeled "good" or "bad," but at the end of the day, they all have far-reaching impact through some mixture of capital and work that wouldn't have happened without both.
The problem with capitalism isn't capital itself, but how it's accumulated. My argument is that capital accumulated from entrepreneurship using capital generated by the individual is the system working at intended, and capital accumulated across generations is a corruption of that system. In other words, individual ownership is desired, inherited ownership is not.
Consensus is the alternative to centralized threat of force. Various anarchist constructions have ideas on how that could work.
I personally reject all anarchist constructions as fanciful, but there are extant systems that demonstrate that (e.g. cryptocurrencies).
No, FOSS is a rejection of restrictions.
Richard Stallman didn't create GNU and the GPL to "socialize the means of production," he did it because he was annoyed at not being able to modify software that you bought. He didn't particularly care who owned the software, only that he could modify it for his own personal use and share those modifications with others. He didn't want to own the original code, only his changes to that code to the extent that he could share his changes. In essence, he believed producers shouldn't be able to restrict their users through licenses, and this was largely a new thing under the Copyright Act of 1976 (i.e. "fair use" as a concept).
The whole intent was to preserve hacker culture, and is very similar to the Right to Repair movement for physical goods. Like the GPL, Right to Repair doesn't seek to change ownership rights to the product (i.e. you don't get a patent grant), it merely seeks to enable users to make modifications and repairs on their own without needing to go through the original vendor/manufacturer.
That said, FOSS attracts people from all over the political spectrum. Socialists like it because it looks like shared ownership (even though it's not), libertarians like it because it empowers the individual, capitalists like it because it's a way to share the cost of maintaining a common system (i.e. forcing competitors to share fixes), etc. But at the end of the day, it's not an economic system, it's not even a change in ownership, it's merely a license to share code. Don't make it more than it is.
Capitalism does not reward those who make a greater impact, it rewards ownership. Any reward of higher impact is immediately dispelled when you consider the massive impact of garbage men on society yet paltry pay.
FOSS is a rejection of individual ownership and of the profit motive, it is absolutely leftist.
Claiming something doesn't make it true.
We're going around in circles at this point, and I think I've made my point clearly. So I'll leave the discussion here.
I am amazed by your patience with this obvious troll.
I doubt they're a troll, they have very common misconceptions.
They seem too articulate to be this genuinely dense. And the arguments are too perfectly dumb - it comes across as targeted satire.