Thoughts on capitalism, greed and other things

[Sander]

Greed is, perhaps, one of the most primal instincts man has ever known: It is the will to possess more than the other person, to out-class the other person and, in short, to be better than the other person. Greed, therefore, has led to a lot despicable things: War, poverty, exploitation and general inequality.
Yet greed might also be the necessary ingredient for a society as advanced as ours; for, without greed, why would anyone do anything? Would Bill Gates have started his multi-billion dollar company Microsoft, and would he have been able to spend that much money on charity as he has now? Would we be living in a world that has industrialised and "modernized" as much as this one? Would I have been able to do this; to write something for the entire world to see?

I dare say that would not have happened. I dare say that greed and capitalism are two necessary ingredients for the world to continue the way to work as it works now. To make sure that the world das not devolve into a boring place, without technological advances, without new thoughts, and, most importantly, without this system we have now.

This has also started to make me think. Why would I still support a socialist system, and why would I still vote socialist, even, if this socialist system would not work? People will not be motivated to make new discoveries, people will waste their talents, people will produce garbage because they'll get their pay anyway: In short, a socialist system will not work.
So it is capitalism that is needed. Modified capitalism, then? Capitalism where you pay taxes, and pay a lot more taxes when you earn more? Because, in an ideal world, everyone would get the same. The principle of equality is simple like that: If every human is equal, then every human should get the same rewards.
But the world does not work like that. The welfare state does still work, though, if applied correctly. If applied correctly, it will work. It will support those who are elderly and cannot work, it will support those who are out of work, and it will support those who, for some other reason, cannot provide for themselves.
And if you then deny those who don't try to make money at all their money, then there is no problem with people simply living off welfare without doing anything.

But here comes the kicker: immigration.
If this is such a free world, everyone should be able to live wherever they want to live. After all, I'm just lucky because I was born in this nice place, right? So why would other people be denied the right to live here?
But this, again, does not work too well. People emigrate out of their own countries to lead better lives, but a welfare state can only take so many people, and it cannot support everyone who wishes to live here. So perhaps the number of people immigrating should be limited? Is this morally correct, or is this simply necessary?

And then there's democracy. Oh lovely democracy, you do not work too well. If the people want gays to have less rights, then the people can do that. If the people want a dictator to lead the country to kill all of the jews, again, the people can decide to do that. Democracy, in short, is severely flawed.
But what else do we have? Dictatorship? No, that wouldn't work... Oligarchy then? Well, we had that a couple of times, and again, that didn't work. Then what? WHat is left? Anarchy, perhaps. And that probably won't work. (There has been a debate about this before, although it was undecided (IIRC), anyone care to dig it up? Not me anyway...).
So what am I now? Have I stopped being an idealist, and started to turn realist? Have I begun to see matters as they are, instead of how they should be? Shall I continue to think this way? I do not know. You do not know...

Some food for thought, but what is, then thought for food? Ah well....

 

[Wooz]

This has also started to make me think. Why would I still support a socialist system, and why would I still vote socialist, even, if this socialist system would not work? People will not be motivated to make new discoveries, people will waste their talents, people will produce garbage because they'll get their pay anyway: In short, a socialist system will not work.

There are tons of socialist systems. The Soviet "socialist" system wasn't socialist, for one.

An ideal system would be one that allows individuals to develop their talents/abilities freely and excel in them.

And again, you have to find an alternate solution for the "each man on its own" dog-eat-dog capitalism and complete sponsoring slackers by welfare.

Then what? WHat is left? Anarchy, perhaps. And that probably won't work. (There has been a debate about this before, although it was undecided (IIRC), anyone care to dig it up? Not me anyway...)

I'll kill you for that.
More on it this evening, gotta go now.

 

[Sander]

There are tons of socialist systems. The Soviet "socialist" system wasn't socialist, for one.

YOu don't need to tell me that. I'm talking about the ultimate socialist ideal, though: perfection distribution of wealth.

An ideal system would be one that allows individuals to develop their talents/abilities freely and excel in them.

Yet here is the problem: Most people won't care to develop their talents and just do the easiest job around, instead of actually working.

And again, you have to find an alternate solution for the "each man on its own" dog-eat-dog capitalism and complete sponsoring slackers by welfare.

Well, sponsoring slackers by welfare is easy: You make looking for a job(really looking) compulsory for anyone wanting welfare.

Yet the dog-eat-dog capitalism may not need a solution, it might just only need moderation. Or perhaps a full-out liberal economic system would be best...

I'll kill you for that.
More on it this evening, gotta go now.

If you respond on anarchism, I'd appreciate it if you were to respond to it in the original anarchism topic. Heh.

 

[King of Creation]

Well, greed is definitely one of the driving forces behind human nature. The humanists in the 18th and 19th centuries thought human nature was basically and inherently good and rational. This idea was destroyed, however by the Irrationality movement, in which people like Freud and Nietzche said human nature was inherently irrational, and that our behavior was dictated by subconscious, irrational processes. Desire was a subconscious driving force. According to these principles, its just human nature to want to compete with and be better than your fellow humans. Humans will have the will to progress, therefore, under a capitalist system. They wouldn't have the motivation to progress and work under any other economic system. Capitalism fosters the capacity of the individual.

As for Democracy, its really the only governmental system that can work well now a days. Its the most stable form of government out there. Western liberal democracies are the way to go. These forms of governments are inherently easy for the people to adjust to suit their needs or desires, which is key in preventing things like revolutions. Under the Marxist philosophy, the workers would hold a revolution in order to get their needs taken care of (when Marx came up with his various ideas, he was writing with the thought in mind that the working class conditions would fall drastically, and they would be the dredges of humanity. that didn't happen, however, instead, the working class became the fastest growing class, with ever increasing standards of living). Under a liberal democracy, however, revolutions would never need to take place. One of the main reasons there weren't any socialist/marxist/communist/etc. revolutions in places with established liberal democracies was because those people living in those countries were enjoying freedoms and standards of living that were unprecendented for the time. Liberal Democracies gave the people the oppotunity to choose for the government to intervene on their behalf. As a result of rapid urbanization during periods like the Industrial Revolution, liberal democratic governments passed numerous social, political, and economic reforms, all for the good of the people. Going back to the shortfalls of Marx, during and after the industrial revolution, the standard of living in cities became the best it had ever been. Therefore, there wasn't a disillusioned working class to stage an uprising. They were a fairly content working class, enjoying new reforms and higher standards of living all the time.

So basically, I'm trying to say that Capitalism and Liberal Democracies are the best. They appeal to the desires (whether subconscious or not) of the people. Capitalism appeals to greed and power, while liberal democracies appeals to the needs of people to have social and political equality. And with liberal democracies, the governments are put in place to protect the Natural Rights of the people. It is even a principle of Liberal Democracies that if the government begins to infringe on the Natural Rights of its citizens, or if it stops protecting those rights, then the people have the right and duty to change their government. Therefore, that avoids any bloody and violent revolutions. Its best for everyone.

Whether or not these things can be put into place in countries that are so rooted in their traditional systems is another story. The US was a special case, because we saw the liberal ideals that came about as a result of the French Revolutions, and we built our government on those ideals. We were established like that from the begining. The French and British are two shining examples in Europe. Other major countries, like Italy, Germany and Spain had some bumps in the road, but still kinda made it. The main point, though, is that Capitalism and Liberal Democracies are the way to go. Any other forms of government or economy are just becoming not feasible in the world, especially with the global economy we have now.

 

[Sander]

I'm going to pick out the things I disagree with, KoC.

Capitalism fosters the capacity of the individual.

Yet it also fosters oppression and exploitation: unrestricted capitalism does not work.

when Marx came up with his various ideas, he was writing with the thought in mind that the working class conditions would fall drastically, and they would be the dredges of humanity. that didn't happen, however, instead, the working class became the fastest growing class, with ever increasing standards of living

And this was because Marx had not thought about the possiblity of equalisation and workers' rights happening without a revolution. And that was the way it happened, under the pressure of prevailing moralist thinking of the upper classes (socialism was very popular) and populist pressure groups.
However, when Marx wrote his books, he was living in the time of the industrial revolution. The conditions of the workers and the people in the cities were actually WORSE than they had been before the industrial revolution.

One of the main reasons there weren't any socialist/marxist/communist/etc. revolutions in places with established liberal democracies was because those people living in those countries were enjoying freedoms and standards of living that were unprecendented for the time

This is not true. This is probably in part an example of Westernized history: A large part of the reason why those revolutions did not happen was the USA and it's fervent support of almost anyone opposing those regimes. (No, this will not devolve into USA bashing. But this is a necessary point).

Liberal Democracies gave the people the oppotunity to choose for the government to intervene on their behalf.

And here you make a mistake: Revolutions do not need to happen with a majority support. Revolutions can happen and have happened in liberal democracies anyway.

As a result of rapid urbanization during periods like the Industrial Revolution, liberal democratic governments passed numerous social, political, and economic reforms, all for the good of the people.

Next mistake: by far not all of the reforms were for the good of the people,. even though there were a lot of good reforms. Some even took a very long time to happen.

Going back to the shortfalls of Marx, during and after the industrial revolution, the standard of living in cities became the best it had ever been. Therefore, there wasn't a disillusioned working class to stage an uprising. They were a fairly content working class, enjoying new reforms and higher standards of living all the time.

And this is a huge mistake. During the industrial revolution the standards of living in cities dropped to a depressingly low point. For the poorer classes, the conditions were so bad, we almost can't imagine. Thiese conditions were also the main reason for Engels and Marx to write these books, and to support the theory of communism. Engels has written several telling things about it, and I'll see if I can find a nice quote somewhere...
Only after the industrial revolution did standards of living improve, with such things as the abolition of several laws, in England most notable the Corn Law.

And with liberal democracies, the governments are put in place to protect the Natural Rights of the people. It is even a principle of Liberal Democracies that if the government begins to infringe on the Natural Rights of its citizens, or if it stops protecting those rights, then the people have the right and duty to change their government. Therefore, that avoids any bloody and violent revolutions. Its best for everyone.

Then what about the case of Germany, in the 1930s? They had a liberal democracy, yet they gell a long way.
In fact, those natural laws acn pose a lot of problems. Just look at equal racial rights during the 70s and 80s, or gay marriage now...

Lastly, you name France and Britain as shining examples. That's not really true, (in fact, it's far from true), both Britain and France are not the most liberal, nor are they really shining examples. I'd sooner list Scandinavian countries, or perhaps the Netherlands or Belgium(none of those were, by the way, founded on those ideals). But that's probably nitpicking.

 

[Brother None]

I am wrath, watch me disagree

Greed is, perhaps, one of the most primal instincts man has ever known: It is the will to possess more than the other person, to out-class the other person and, in short, to be better than the other person. Greed, therefore, has led to a lot despicable things: War, poverty, exploitation and general inequality.

Inherent in greed is a society people have both the ability and the choice to rise above other people.

A society where people do not have the ability to rise above others is not a greedy society. While a society completely built on this form of non-competition doesn't exist, there have been social classes through-out history, like slaves and the non-free, who had no purpose for "greed", because they couldn't gain anything

More interesting is a society in which people have no choice in the matter of greed. Say you're running a small printing company in a town where you're the only printing company. You have satiated the market, and you are content. Then another printing company pops up. What choice do you have? None. You have to expand simply to survive

The "survival" element is essential for greedy societies. I never explored the psychology of greed much myself, but it would seem to me that since, in Western history, greed is a relatively new notion, certainly new as a prominent notion, and to think it is somehow inherent of human nature is like saying aggressivenes, stupidity or any other trait are inherent of human nature. They are, but their prominence in human nature is variable.

The will to survive is probably the only truely inherent trait of human nature. All others derive from those, and the way they do depend on the circumstances

Yet greed might also be the necessary ingredient for a society as advanced as ours; for, without greed, why would anyone do anything? Would Bill Gates have started his multi-billion dollar company Microsoft, and would he have been able to spend that much money on charity as he has now? Would we be living in a world that has industrialised and "modernized" as much as this one? Would I have been able to do this; to write something for the entire world to see?

You are confusing greed with the will to move forward, to be inventive. True, the only incentives we have for that now are greed and fame, but that does not mean they're the only incentives available.

This has also started to make me think. Why would I still support a socialist system, and why would I still vote socialist, even, if this socialist system would not work? People will not be motivated to make new discoveries, people will waste their talents, people will produce garbage because they'll get their pay anyway: In short, a socialist system will not work.

You vote socialists? You mean you vote for the CPN? If you're not aware; the SP and GroenLinks aren't "socialist" parties, they're social democrats, and they also believe in capitalism and as such aren't "socialists" in the Marxist sense of the word.

So it is capitalism that is needed. Modified capitalism, then? Capitalism where you pay taxes, and pay a lot more taxes when you earn more? Because, in an ideal world, everyone would get the same. The principle of equality is simple like that: If every human is equal, then every human should get the same rewards.
But the world does not work like that. The welfare state does still work, though, if applied correctly. If applied correctly, it will work. It will support those who are elderly and cannot work, it will support those who are out of work, and it will support those who, for some other reason, cannot provide for themselves.
And if you then deny those who don't try to make money at all their money, then there is no problem with people simply living off welfare without doing anything.

Oh, if only it was so easy

In any case, you're confusing many political movements here. "Capitalism", for one, isn't a political movement. The political movement carried by Paars 1 and 2 and now by Balkenende 1 and 2 (these ministries in face share the same course, even tho' they'll fervently deny it, the only difference is Paars had a lot of money to waste, while Balkenende has to squeeze every penny to waste money) is very typical of both the VVD, D66 (for a part), LPF and the right-wing of the CDA; Marijnissen, in one of his books, aptly labelled it Neo-Liberalism. Directly applying ideas from another culture (the American) to the Dutch culture; dropping state-ownership of the KPN, PTT, NS is an essential bit of it, but the generaly detooling of the wellfare state is another.

Different cultures need different political modes, it's not that hard a concept to get. Certainly, some political modes have proven themselves to have failed completely; communism, Thatcher's iron-fist neo-liberalism, fascism...But that doesn't mean there're political systems that "just don't work" and others that "just do". Times change, and thanks to democracy, so do political systems. And some systems that work fine in one country fail miserably in others. US systems don't work in Germany. Austrian systems don't work in England. Finnish systems don't work in Russia. And so on and so forth.

To try and think of an "ideal political system" that works regardless of the culture is daydreaming.

If this is such a free world, everyone should be able to live wherever they want to live. After all, I'm just lucky because I was born in this nice place, right? So why would other people be denied the right to live here?
But this, again, does not work too well. People emigrate out of their own countries to lead better lives, but a welfare state can only take so many people, and it cannot support everyone who wishes to live here. So perhaps the number of people immigrating should be limited? Is this morally correct, or is this simply necessary?

'cor it's necessary. As long as the concept state exists, the concept nationalities exist, and the concept of limited immigration is a necessary evil.

And then there's democracy. Oh lovely democracy, you do not work too well. If the people want gays to have less rights, then the people can do that. If the people want a dictator to lead the country to kill all of the jews, again, the people can decide to do that. Democracy, in short, is severely flawed.

Are you suggesting any country in the world is truely a democracy?

Doubtful, Henry, very doubtful.

America, the front-runner of democracy, is a constitution-based federal republic. The constitution is, essentially, above democracy. And this is true for most countries. People can't just "vote for a dictator to run the country and kill Jews" because such a dictator and such genocide are constitutionally illegal all over the Western world.

ts the most stable form of government out there.

Not really. It's a relatively young and unproven form of government, and has shown wild forms of instability; the US civil war, the German rise of nazism...

Also, while it is relatively stable as in "it can tie a country down for one concept for a longer time", it is very unstable and untrusteable internationally speaking. Who knows what the US will be doing in 10 years? England? The Netherlands? Russia could turn communist at any moment.

Spain is a good example of the untrustworthiness inherent in a democracy

Yet it also fosters oppression and exploitation: unrestricted capitalism does not work.

Unrestricted capitalism doesn't exist and never has. Remember that Mercantalists and Librtarians have never really ruled a country. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand theory has never been proven in practice.

So it's a bit weird to discuss its pros and cons.

This is not true. This is probably in part an example of Westernized history: A large part of the reason why those revolutions did not happen was the USA and it's fervent support of almost anyone opposing those regimes. (No, this will not devolve into USA bashing. But this is a necessary point).

Yes it is true. A lot of Western countries never had a communist or other form of revolution simply because there was no popular support to carry this revolution. Remember Troelstra, Sander? The reason his "revolution of the people" was never carried out, even when he said it would at the return of the Queen of Holland, was because there was *no* popular support for such a revolution

Only after the industrial revolution did standards of living improve, with such things as the abolition of several laws, in England most notable the Corn Law.

In fact, the improvement of situations of working, the so-called "Social Legislation" determining minimum wages and other demands for living conditions, was a reaction to the rising rumble in France and Germany, the threat of a worker's revolution as Marx and Engels predicted.

 

[Sander]

Inherent in greed is a society people have both the ability and the choice to rise above other people.

A society where people do not have the ability to rise above others is not a greedy society. While a society completely built on this form of non-competition doesn't exist, there have been social classes through-out history, like slaves and the non-free, who had no purpose for "greed", because they couldn't gain anything

More interesting is a society in which people have no choice in the matter of greed. Say you're running a small printing company in a town where you're the only printing company. You have satiated the market, and you are content. Then another printing company pops up. What choice do you have? None. You have to expand simply to survive

The "survival" element is essential for greedy societies. I never explored the psychology of greed much myself, but it would seem to me that since, in Western history, greed is a relatively new notion, certainly new as a prominent notion, and to think it is somehow inherent of human nature is like saying aggressivenes, stupidity or any other trait are inherent of human nature. They are, but their prominence in human nature is variable.

The will to survive is probably the only truely inherent trait of human nature. All others derive from those, and the way they do depend on the circumstances

True.

You are confusing greed with the will to move forward, to be inventive. True, the only incentives we have for that now are greed and fame, but that does not mean they're the only incentives available.

No, I'm not confusing them. I'm saying that greed is the only incentive to be better, and to improve, that we have (besides fun, but most people don't think that working to do your best is actually realy fun, and do get tired.). This has been proven in the Soviet republics, where workers did NOT do their best, since they didn't HAVE to do their best. That makes a lot of products crappy.

You vote socialists? You mean you vote for the CPN? If you're not aware; the SP and GroenLinks aren't "socialist" parties, they're social democrats, and they also believe in capitalism and as such aren't "socialists" in the Marxist sense of the word.

Yes, I know that. But even they want to go as far as possible, and frankly, the SP was simply communist for a while (in the beginning). But I'm afraid it'll turn into a central party (PvdA 2, so to speak) under the influence of general popular support. (They're becoming more and more popular. It's almost a fad to start supporting the SP. Bah. )

Ehmm...anyway, let's not turn this into a Dutchie debate.

My point, however, was that even supporting those parties seems futile. Maybe I should turn D66 or VVD.

In any case, you're confusing many political movements here. "Capitalism", for one, isn't a political movement. The political movement carried by Paars 1 and 2 and now by Balkenende 1 and 2 (these ministries in face share the same course, even tho' they'll fervently deny it, the only difference is Paars had a lot of money to waste, while Balkenende has to squeeze every penny to waste money) is very typical of both the VVD, D66 (for a part), LPF and the right-wing of the CDA; Marijnissen, in one of his books, aptly labelled it Neo-Liberalism. Directly applying ideas from another culture (the American) to the Dutch culture; dropping state-ownership of the KPN, PTT, NS is an essential bit of it, but the generaly detooling of the wellfare state is another.

I never said that capitalism was a political system. I know exactly what it actually IS.

And yes, Paars and Balkenende have a lot in common, but that's probably due to VVD (D66 seems to have been absolutely unimportant), and I think that it's been the VVD who're actually running the country.
Although I wonder whether Paars would've done the same with regards to immigration (Verdonk).

Different cultures need different political modes, it's not that hard a concept to get. Certainly, some political modes have proven themselves to have failed completely; communism, Thatcher's iron-fist neo-liberalism, fascism...But that doesn't mean there're political systems that "just don't work" and others that "just do". Times change, and thanks to democracy, so do political systems. And some systems that work fine in one country fail miserably in others. US systems don't work in Germany. Austrian systems don't work in England. Finnish systems don't work in Russia. And so on and so forth.

To try and think of an "ideal political system" that works regardless of the culture is daydreaming.

This is an interesting notion, that seems to be based on the complete difference between cultures. But even though cultures differ, I think that you can say, in general, what systems can and cannot work. But only generally...

Furthermore, it is too....impractical to start thinking that way. It allows the simple argument of "Oh, but that won't work in their culture" to be used on practically anything. And that is not practical, it promotes stagnancy.

'cor it's necessary. As long as the concept state exists, the concept nationalities exist, and the concept of limited immigration is a necessary evil.

And that's my point...
And why I think I'm turning realist. Hmm...

Are you suggesting any country in the world is truely a democracy?

Doubtful, Henry, very doubtful.

No, I'm not.

America, the front-runner of democracy, is a constitution-based federal republic. The constitution is, essentially, above democracy. And this is true for most countries. People can't just "vote for a dictator to run the country and kill Jews" because such a dictator and such genocide are constitutionally illegal all over the Western world.

And that's what i've said a lot of times as well. The problem is that every constitution can be amended, and this necessary, since the world changes. This makes these things possible, they only require a larger majority.

Unrestricted capitalism: Yep, it's a bit weird to discuss pros and cons. But you can still discuss those pros and cons.

 

[King of Creation]

And that's what i've said a lot of times as well. The problem is that every constitution can be amended, and this necessary, since the world changes. This makes these things possible, they only require a larger majority.

This is not true. You're forgetting that one of the principle tenets of a Liberal Democracy is that the government protects the Natural Rights of the people (Natural Rights being one of the principle tenets of Liberalism, started waaay back when). When, and if, the government ceases to protect the natural rights of ALL people, then it is no longer a liberal democracy. They people then have the right to change the government. So say George Bush decided to start rounding up muslims or something, pogrom-like. And he made changes to the government to that effect. Then, we, as citizens of the United States, have a right to change our government, remove him from office, etc.

If a government, or constitution, is changed in such a way that they would start killing off Jews or whatever, it completely ceases to be a Liberal Democracy.

 

[Sander]

This is not true. You're forgetting that one of the principle tenets of a Liberal Democracy is that the government protects the Natural Rights of the people (Natural Rights being one of the principle tenets of Liberalism, started waaay back when). When, and if, the government ceases to protect the natural rights of ALL people, then it is no longer a liberal democracy. They people then have the right to change the government. So say George Bush decided to start rounding up muslims or something, pogrom-like. And he made changes to the government to that effect. Then, we, as citizens of the United States, have a right to change our government, remove him from office, etc.

If a government, or constitution, is changed in such a way that they would start killing off Jews or whatever, it completely ceases to be a Liberal Democracy.

Yes, but this doesn't mean anything at all. If you have the right to instate a new government after the old government that GAVE you those rights is gone, then those rights mean nothing at all.
Furthermore, the fallacy of democracy is that these things can happen in a legal way. If a 2/3 majority of the people supported something in a pure democracy, then that could happen. If a two-third majority of the parliament supports killing all jews, then laws to do that could be instated. THAT is the fallacy of democracy: The thought that the opinions of a majoriy is somehow better than the opinions of a minority.

 

[John Uskglass]

Go Capitalism.

And

Russia could turn communist at any moment.

Nope. It won't. Because the only time it could be considerd Communist was pre-WW2. After that it was an Athiest Slavophile state, like the Empire run by Wooz.

And what we have seen is something of a return of slavophilia in certain nationalistic respects, with a desire for China like trading democracy for economy. The Russophile in me hopes for a return of the Monarchy.

 

[Wooz]

[On topic debate on another, soon to be digged-up zombie thread]

Nope. It won't. Because the only time it could be considerd Communist was pre-WW2.

As a matter of fact, the communist party candidate in Russia had the biggest population support behind Putin in the elections he was first nominated president.

After that it was an Athiest Slavophile state, like the Empire run by Wooz.

Huh?

 

[welsh]

Couple quick thoughts, while K of C tells a nice story of liberal democracy and capitalism, the transitions were not nearly as smooth as indicated. It did take until the 1930s for the US to develop social policies pertaining to labor and social justice in part because of pre-existing theories of "freedom of contract" that were used by the Supreme Court to shoot down those ideas. Why- because the Court was comprised of fat cat corporate lawyer types.

I would also argue that the notion of the social contract that is the basis of Liberal Democracy- the ideas of Hobbes and Locke, are philosophically nice but historically flawed. Rare, if ever, has one seen subordinate populations contract with militarily powerful tyrants over the tyrant's right to be power and call himself king.

Oh, and we often forget but the Resistance in France and Italy during the Second World War were commies. After the war the CIA and others helped limit their ability to establish communist governments. But yes, generally in developed western countries there has been little revolution because there has been little need.

Which is why Adam Przeworski (not sure if the spelling is correct) found that in countries where people make about $6,000 per capita you never see revolutions. Why rock the boat when things are going well.

 

[John Uskglass]

As a matter of fact, the communist party candidate in Russia had the biggest population support behind Putin in the elections he was first nominated president.

Too bad it's almost extinct with Putin's absurd popularity.

Huh?

It was exactly what the Russian Empire would be if it where run by Athiests or Seculars.

 

[Wooz]

Stalin's URSS was probably a bit more bloodthirsty than the Empire, IMO. The Tsar at didn't organize such a terror state, such deportations, ethnic cleansings on that scale and massive prisoner camps in Siberia, nor exterminated the whole of an occupied country's intelligentsia in one blow (Katyn).

 

[welsh]

Here's something related.

How far can the "open source" model go? What do you think?

Do you think it can move us past capitalism or is symptomatic that we are moving into a post-capitalist soceity?

Open source

Beyond capitalism?

Jun 10th 2004
From The Economist print edition


The open-source model can be applied to goods other than software, but it has its limits

THAT “open source” is a good way to make software is beyond question. For those unfamiliar with the term, the open-source model allows many people to collaborate on the development of a piece of software by making its underlying programming instructions, or source code, open to everyone, usually by publishing them on the internet. The resulting program is then given away too: open-source software is shared, not sold. Commercial software vendors, by contrast, jealously guard their source code because only by keeping it secret can they protect their ability to demand money for their products.


By far the best-known example of open-source software is Linux, an operating system that is maintained by volunteers around the world, runs on everything from wristwatches to mainframes and now powers one in five of the world's server computers. Open source's other successes include Apache, a piece of software that powers two-thirds of the world's web servers, Sendmail, a program that dispatches most of the world's e-mail, and MySQL, a database program.

Advocates of open source argue that it produces software that is secure, reliable and, of course, cheap. All this is clearly true, despite the fact that open source's opponents—chief among them Microsoft, the world's largest software company—try to deny it. Now many people want to apply the open-source model in many fields other than software. There is already an open-source cola recipe, an open-source encyclopedia and open-source academic journals. The model is also being applied in medical research (see article). Some zealots even argue that the open-source approach represents a new, post-capitalist model of production. Are there no limits to the power of open source?

Of course there are. The model is particularly well suited to information-rich goods, of which software is merely the most obvious example, since it is pure information. The surprisingly good open-source encyclopedia (see Wikipedia.org) is another example. Like software, it is modular, which allows different people to work on different bits. Drugs, too, are information-rich goods, and searching for candidate molecules and performing clinical trials may be amenable to open-source-style distributed collaboration. So far, so good. But building, say, an open-source car is rather more problematic, since information (in the form of design and specifications) constitutes only a minor ingredient: the costs of materials and manufacturing would remain. Until someone invents a “universal replicator” capable of synthesising any object from software specifications, it is hard to see how the open-source model can be applied to manufactured goods.

The model has other limitations as well. It is not clear, for example, that the open-source model can be genuinely innovative—most open-source software merely imitates existing commercial products. Furthermore, the open-source software movement is driven by the desire to dethrone the proprietary software model, embodied by Microsoft. This shared goal makes its members more willing to contribute their efforts to the common cause, which may not apply in other fields.

A force for good
Is open source really a new post-capitalist economic model? In fact, open source might be said to be parasitic upon capitalism. IBM, for example, pays an army of programmers to work on Linux, both for the greater good and as a competitive ploy against Microsoft. And many people who contribute to open-source projects do so with the approval of (and using the resources of) their employers, be they universities or firms. Ultimately the open-source approach may prove to be symbiotic with capitalism. Computing firms including Novell, Sun and Apple are adopting hybrid models in which they “open source” (yes, it is a verb) some bits of some of their products.

Even where the open-source model is not adopted, however, it can still have beneficial effects. The very existence of open-source alternatives often acts as a force for greater openness and transparency. Microsoft, despite its hatred of open-source, now allows certain large customers to inspect its source code, though not to share or modify it. A similar “open-sourcesque” concession was recently made by Reed Elsevier, a publisher of scientific journals. Stung by comparisons with the openness of internet-based journals, it will now allow academics to post papers that have been accepted for publication in its journals on their own websites too.

The open-source model will never replace capitalism or live up to the most Utopian claims of its most enthusiastic supporters. Nevertheless technology-enabled collaboration among large groups of people working without pay for a common aim, whether it is called “open source” or something else, can be a powerful force for good, and is to be welcomed.

 

[Brother None]

I find it strange that this article doesn't pick up on the fact that open-source is non-profit, and an economy can not run on non-profit items within the capitalist system. In other words, within the contraints of modern capitalism, open source only works in non-profit areas (like the internet. And medicine),

The system of "somebody's buying, hence someone else can get paid" is the core of capitalism, and open source lacks just that. I'm kind of puzzled as to how open source would propose to replace that system.

PS: Sander, to dig up something else. The level of the post you made above...if you're planning to write an entire book on the same level of pretty inane and underdeveloped thinking, and label it "profound". Forget it. Just warning you.

 

[Sander]

PS: Sander, to dig up something else. The level of the post you made above...if you're planning to write an entire book on the same level of pretty inane and underdeveloped thinking, and label it "profound". Forget it. Just warning you.

'S not on that level.

Welsh: Article==silly. Open Source works just fine, except for people who want to make money. Which means that people who work on Open Source, while being able to make wonderful things, will never be able to make a living out of it. They'll need to have a side-job, and that doesn't work right now, not in this world. There are only a few people in the open-source community who've been able to live off of doing open-source stuff, most notably the creator of the first Linux kernel, Linus Thorvalds, and several other "famous" figures. But it doesn't work in a capitalist system. And it certainly doesn't work outside of the information sector.