sdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfg
No more so than the current type of "capitalism" in the west is in actuality, fascism.
Not sure if sarcastic or serious.
I was speaking more along the lines of: "If you think you own something you bought, and can use it as such, we will sue you into the fucking dirt, and spend thousands of dollars on it, just because you didn't pay us $20 for our shitty CD"
It's a bad type of capitalism. Most of the "capitalism" that we see these days, is bad capitalism. Companies preventing competition etc.
True capitalism, in my mind, is supposed to be the economic equivalent of natural selection. Competition based.
Saying this is bad capitalism is like saying stalin practice the wrong kind of communism but i see where you are going with your argument i only see competition bringing more of the same not different .
Competition based on good products and good customer service, companies having to compete by offering those things, would change things for the better.
Rather than companies competing for "who can get the most customers into a closed off room and then slowly suffocate them for money".
If that was the only problem of capitalism we would be ok .
fgddfggfdgfd
I have a good product for you Ventura Mercs Inc., a 100 bn dollars a year industry , i'm thinking of making a kickstarter , first kill 50 % off .
P.S. :We accept bitcoin.
You all seem to have gone completely off topic.
There are a lot of misconceptions about it.
Everything SHOULD be open-source (free, not free of charge), the reasons behind it are very simple, owner of some software (free of charge or paid) should have complete control over it's ownership, therefore, code must be open. Other reasons for it, is security of the owner, if owner have open source software, chances are, that no suspicious code would pass, and even if it does somehow, someone will eventually discover, and negative PR will go towards company/person who did that (well deserved).
Someone might bring the argument about author copyright protection, well, what about books? Every person who have skills of writing/typing, can copy that work also. So, it is up to creator to think of the way of protecting his work in that frame. But as history showed us, people who will steal from authors, will do it anyway, with less or more difficulties (piracy etc.).
Free software and whole open-source community, in my opinion, work exclusively on anrachic principles, far away, and total opposite of communism.
This thread is derailing but in a misguided attempt to keep it serious....:
Assuming that we are talking about what Communism and Marxism actually is (not the Soviet Union/Stalinist bullshit) I can say this:
A bit too simplified as a statement but it has some margin of truth. Free Software is after all a statement of keeping a produced commodity under common own-ship for the sake of greater progress which is a a very Marxist notion. FOSS and commons have created culture that outright rejects the idea of property (intellectual at least) for the sake of freedom, social justice and greater development. A very socialist/communist idea.
That being said FOSS/Commons can be as compatible with capitalism as they can be with Marxist based systems, as it is right now, thus, things are more complicated than that.
Also on the idea of Bad/Good Capitalism. Keeping in character of a Marxist analysis of history there is no such thing as Good/Bad Capitalism. Capitalism is an phase of mankind´s socioeconomic development. An evolution of Feudalism, thus a quite positive step on mankind´s social evolution. But as every system, as it matures it reveals its internal antithesis. In its maturity, it creates huge capital concentration, it saturates development , is unjust and very unsustainable (unless you understand constant crisis that affects the lives of millions as sustainable). This creates the need to surpass it into sth with very different socio-economic relations and different method of production (bazaar anyone?).
TL:DR: There is no bad/good capitalism. Just a system that evolves and when it saturates you either create sth new or bust!
Its more Anarcho-communism or community meritocracy (in terms of communities at least) ...it is not an opposite at all. Unless you understand Stalinism as communism in terms of social organization which is not really.
And let me guess. Windows is a democracy? I need an explanation as how you came to this conclusion as Linux would be a more so an open and (depending on how you use it) transparent example of a metaphorical government. The best one IMO.
Edit: Not to mention, if done correctly a communism could be quite effective considering the mixed abilities of every individual. I wouldn't want a computer scientist as president for example, but rather an intelligent politician as that's what they're specialized in. Please, explain.
Well, I disagree.
In communism, not everyone is free to modify/do... things, only central power (state, micro...) can do it, in anarchy, everyone is free to modify, create, buy, sell...
Clearly, open-source (free, free of charge or not) software goes into category of anarchism, and complete opposite of communism/socialism.
I wonder which is the social system that is working on the iss .
It's called 'common sense'
not any secret but it wasn't nils torvalds who made linux... but Linus. Just saying... and he's not a commie but anarchist.
It's not
Is "communism = inherently evil" some American invention? Thanks McCarthy.
Yeah. The open-source community operates more like a meritocracy than as a communist community, more based on reputation than equality. It's not like everyone has the same base ground, either, depending on what you are running and what you are able to contribute.
I know that @turin231 already compared it with a meritocracy as being similar to communism, but I don't see the similarity in any respect. In the real world, they are vastly different as well.