Capitalism doesn't work? Maybe we can put it another way.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tadelste Oct 07, 2005 2:19 PM EDT |
It doesn't really matter if one calls it capitalism or not. Commerce works. But, when one can take advantage of a market by knowing information others don't know -- that's where the breakdown occurs and then you have unemployment, poverty, etc. The whole issue has much confusion and bad metaphors around it. People simply react when they hear or see these labels. People who value money as a commodity over human life can't deal with others who know they will ultimately come to an end and that nothing they have accumulated will matter. No U-Haul trailers in the funeral procession one might say. So, if you care about the quality of your life and realize that the game is bigger than any one individual, especially oneself, then behavior modifies. People become interested in making a difference. That's not anti-capitalism, it's about making a contribution and knowing it has something of a benefit to others. It's done without expectation of getting something for it. That's also known as giving. People think they can cheat and get away with it. But ultimately, we all face the same fate. Open source is not about who has the most applications and who gathers the most money and piles it up. One can be successful with open source as easily as with proprietary software. It's about who can offer value, has the agreement of the world about the value and can have the symbol of value for some period of time. Some people walk around with their noises in the air in $3000 Italian suits and live on marble floors and don't look at others, ridicule others and pretend to be invincible. So, what, all that and 75 cents will buy you an 8 ounce coca cola. |
| salparadise Oct 07, 2005 3:30 PM EDT |
It would have been better if I had said "unfettered, free market (as it is today rather than in a fair state) capitalism doesn't work". Meaning the polluting, politician buying, scientist buying, patent filing, ultra-letigious companies.
If trade is fair then trade is OK. (Ideally, trade for the sake of making up each others lack, but that's a dream.) It comes down to what is considered as profit? A pile of money or an improved community/person. Unfortunately, several thousand years of human history answer that one. On a different note... It's like when the Bible first came out in the common tongue, Previously it was in latin and it was read in latin and the priests had the only "correct interpretation". The appearance of the Bible caused a storm because here it was in English, read it yourself and decide for yourself what it means and what your response to it is. Sort of a bit like open sourcing the Word. And Windows is encrypted and we have to take it from the mother church what is what and when and how much. And we are taxed for their sins. Except they're our sins because the EULA says so. And Bill periodically issues Papal Bulls. And along comes Open Source and they're doing the media equivalent of burning people at the stake, attempting to discredit the idea, preaching from the pulpit against it. But the printing presses (distros/cd-burners) keep springing up everywhere and the code is out and the idea is out and the stable alas, is empty. |
| tadelste Oct 08, 2005 9:53 AM EDT |
WOW. Excellent articulation on both topics. I particularly found considerable substance in the "unfettered" discussion . One the second, the parallel makes for an excellent metaphor. Thanks! |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2005 10:01 AM EDT |
Frankly, I find it all a bit tedious. It's easy to rip something to shreds without offering a workable alternative. So far, that hasn't happened. Capitalism works beautifully as an economic system. It requires a functional government doing the things that a government should do (watchdog the environment, adjudicate disputes, promulgate and enforce such laws as needed to protect the interests of all citizens, etc.). |
| salparadise Oct 08, 2005 10:40 AM EDT |
It's easy to rip something to shreds without offering a workable alternative. So far, that hasn't happened. The open source community model provides such an alternative or at least a workable basis for one. I'm not unrealistic enough to think we can just toss the present system out of the window. I only pointed out that the present system isn't working for the majority. All of which sprang from the feeling that we need people who periodically say things that make us uncomfortable. And that accepting those people and bothering to at least listen and consider what they are saying is more grown up than stifling free speech by insisting on the party line being kept to at all times, or, worse, stifling free speech "lest we upset the sponsors". |
| tadelste Oct 08, 2005 11:52 AM EDT |
Do you consider Microsoft, for example, a force in making sure capitalism works or doesn't work? Personally, I believe we need serious reform in every area of government because a company like Microsoft can control how politicians vote, call in favors when regulators want to investigate their business practices and make the market truly unfair. To say capitalism works when a monopoly controls the technology market is wishful thinking. I can't buy a DVD and watch it on my computer because of some screwed up law? And if I am suspected of piracy, US Marshalls show up at my door and take all my equipment and records away and I don't see them again for months maybe years. Hey, I called the FBI once to report computer crime, they took the compromised computer and I got it back eighteen months later and nothing happened. It was then a worthles piece of junk. Capitalism works occassionally in the present environment. Unregulated, it doesn't work - look at Russia and the mafia. When regulation is bought off - Al Capone, it doesn't work. When politicians become pawns, it doesn't work. That's not to say that people can't own the means of production. It means somebody is fooling around with people's ownership and basically confiscating the means of production from those who can provide the value in the community. |
| salparadise Oct 08, 2005 1:47 PM EDT |
Arguably, to be anti-competitive is to be anti capitalist. Locking the market in to a cycle of often costly upgrades and doing deals with governments to tie public services into legally questionable contracts is not anything approaching free market economics. Bill Gates's vision is for "one world, one net, one program". Doesn't sound to me like he's planning on sharing it with anybody. If the market is seen as, and is allowed to be, a cut throat place of under handed deals and merciless competition and moral compromise when expedient, then it follows that companies will be the same. This is also true of politics. The issue of whether or not to keep religion and state affairs separate has been a major one in history. Perhaps we should consider whether to keep business and state apart. It is wrong that companies can influence policy to their advantage and evade the law by abusing the legal system. Take the recent EU fine for Microsoft. To make things a little fairer the fine should have been paid straight away and put into an account. At the end of the trials, if Microsoft win, they get their money back. The interest goes to help the homeless of Europe. A system like this would encourage better behaviour by corporations and at the same time, reduce the amount of time and money wasted on endless appeals. This isn't likely to happen though, several administrations in this country (the UK) have come into power promising reform and the end of corporate sleaze and the closing of "tax loopholes" and little has changed. Twas ever thus. A somewhat daunting task is in front of us. To change. To change the economic system so it doesn't rely on a constant stream of profit generated by an endless circle of produce-consume-discard. It can only come from the consumers, via education. And education by example not by dictat. Which in turn means using the media. Where you come up against the influence of the "multi-nationals" again. I suspect the coming months and years will be most interesting. Can the open source model really invade consciousness to the point where it begins to change society and government? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!