Find Whirlpool Deals at Lowe’s
Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Is "Open source" the new socialism?...Wired article...
Is "Open source" the new socialism?...Wired article...
by shmody - 5/27/09 6:04 AMIs "Open source" the new socialism?...Wired article...
http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism
excerpt:
*****
Bill Gates once derided open source advocates with the worst epithet a capitalist can muster. These folks, he said, were a "new modern-day sort of communists," a malevolent force bent on destroying the monopolistic incentive that helps support the American dream. Gates was wrong: Open source zealots are more likely to be libertarians than commie pinkos. Yet there is some truth to his allegation. The frantic global rush to connect everyone to everyone, all the time, is quietly giving rise to a revised version of socialism.
[...]
We're not talking about your grandfather's socialism. In fact, there is a long list of past movements this new socialism is not. It is not class warfare. It is not anti-American; indeed, digital socialism may be the newest American innovation. While old-school socialism was an arm of the state, digital socialism is socialism without the state. This new brand of socialism currently operates in the realm of culture and economics, rather than government—for now.
*****
The article is a good read and brings up some *BIG* issues.
Philosophically, I've been wondering if socialist/communist tendencies or behaviors have simply accelerated as a result of the increasing divide between the haves/have-nots and ability for people connect and broadcast their views using an electronic social network - the internet. Related, the resulting breakage/fracturing of what Confucius called "fellow-feeling" may be the reason for such movement to not just come into existence, but to also gain prominence and affect policy, etc.
Thoughts?
Best,
Shalin
This is the original socialism
by Nicholas Buenk - 5/27/09 8:37 PM In reply to: Is "Open source" the new socialism?...Wired article... by shmodySocialism was distorted by the likes of Stalin and others, when Marx always wanted to create a moneyless stateless system.
However I think software is the only place this can really work, because there's no scarcity of resources to ration out, and not everyone is required to contribute to open source for it to work.
On the other hand, it does seem interesting that all Linux seems to do is play catch up to innovations by Microsoft and Apple. I think corporate structure actually gives single direction and/or power to the person with the vision. Rather than having to convince a whole community that something is an idea worth going after.
Great Article!
by n74jw - 5/28/09 6:58 AM In reply to: Is "Open source" the new socialism?...Wired article... by shmodyI enjoyed the article very much as one of the rare gems that comes out of WIRED. I consider myself a Socialist, and often get frustrated with how people mistake the definition.
Capatalism Doesn't Work Either
by Renegade Knight - 6/2/09 12:08 PM In reply to: Is "Open source" the new socialism?...Wired article... by shmodyA true market economy has no barriers to entry and has true competition. Without that you get crap like Vista.
Take a typwriter. Word processors rightfully replaced them. At first they were "pay once" use as long as you can for the business model. Juse like the typrwiter they replaced. In time the concept of subscription came out for the propriatary software as complete market dominance came along. Picture replacing your typwriter every 3 years because the "Bios" just quit even though everthing is working great. It's nothing more than a method to make more money and keep companies that are artifically large, artifically large.
Thankfully open source software counters this trend.
No....
by Nicholas Buenk - 6/2/09 9:50 PM In reply to: Capatalism Doesn't Work Either by Renegade KnightThere is a real reason behind that in computers. Moore's law. It means everything can improve over time, software has more resources to use.
Not Really...
by Renegade Knight - 6/4/09 11:43 AM In reply to: No.... by Nicholas BuenkBigger, Better, etc. Sure all great reasons to upgrade.
However My Quicken 2006 was going the job just great. I needed no help from Intuit to run it. Had it set up and wham. They imposed a built in "quit working" bug in the program to force me to upgrade. It's a 3 year subscription model on a product that worked great.
Subscription models are about the money. Not the users needs.
Companies that got fat and happy off of the frequent computer cycles and the resulting upgrades are hitting financial walls as we are extending the cycles. I use 4 and 5 year old computers now that I buy used as my main computers. They do what I need. XP is old, people like it just fine for an OS. Word 2003 is great. 2007, not better by any material measure unless you need some new feature. Word 2010? Ha! No thanks. I've got enough versions of 2003 and 2007 to last me.
The problems with Socialism...
by Slikkster - 6/2/09 1:36 PM In reply to: Is "Open source" the new socialism?...Wired article... by shmodyCapitalism is far from perfect. As a matter of fact, a twist on Churchill might be apt: Capitalism is the worst economic system in the world, except all the others.
My problems with Socialism is that it rewards slackers and punishes innovators. I keep hearing this mantra about fairness and equality where finances are concerned. It's bunk. If I bust my a** and produce something of true value that no one else has or better than anyone else has, I should be paid the same as the guy doing the honorable --but less skilled-- job of janitor in an elementary school in the collective model? Or worse, the same as some lazy bum who doesn't contribute a thing to society? There would be no incentive to excel, and hence, no advancement of society --or technology.
Now, granted, this isn't the core thesis of the Wired article. But the author does try to make the comparisons to the political/economic model we know as Socialism. He talks about "Sharing" as one of the main attributes of this brave, new world. I agree that the internet has exponentially opened the pathways for worldwide sharing. But he notably leaves out that one of the primary items that people like to share is copyrighted material, not just Flickr photos.
He talks about communities of people giving their time and effort toward a collective end (e.g. software), and that's great. That's akin to volunteerism. They get accolades, while schlumps like us get to use the products they create for free. But it's a relatively very small number of contributors compared to beneficiaries. At the end of the day, <b>even these people need to eat and pay the rent</b>. Contributing to a freeware project isn't going to help in that regard.
Using Wikipedia as a model for collective success is misplaced, in my view. Here, there are lots of contributors --each with potential biases-- who are edited by a relative few. That's very problematic, as has been demonstrated time and again. That's not to say that Wiki is a failure; far from it. But anyone who would take it as gospel needs a clue.
And one can't help but see the irony in one statement he made: "Imagine if all the employees of GM weren't paid yet continued to produce automobiles!" Wow. How timely.
Hey, I enjoy freeware as much as the next person. But I also know that more often than not (in my experience) there are commercial products that far outstrip the freeware in many respects. Not always true, of course, but often times is. Why is that? Because the people who are financially contracted to produce the products have a real incentive to do so. Getting props in the internet community isn't going to buy that fancy car, be it GM or otherwise. People want to be rewarded for their talents, not just lumped in with everyone else. It's part of what separates us as <i>individuals</i>. The collective model would rather meld us all together as clones. No thanks.
For all its faults, I'll stick with Capitalism...for now. And, maybe share a photo or two.
Uhh, well...
by Nicholas Buenk - 6/2/09 10:13 PM In reply to: The problems with Socialism... by SlikksterI agree that fairness is often just code for redistributing resources to freeloaders, when what you want to do is reward work and innovation. But on the other hand, it is unacceptable to let people go homeless and without food and medical care through no fault of their own in countries with as much resources as ours. So we don't want socialism as an ideology, but we'll still need some social services.
And in regard to wikipedia, I think it's foolish to take any single source as gospel. People are very critical of wikipedias accuracy, but I think people are forgetting that everything should be regarded as suspect, there are biases every where. And I trust the wisdom of the crowd to be a better editor than a small number of expert editors, that I think there is just as much reason to mistrust.
Can't find much to disagree with
by Slikkster - 6/3/09 4:00 AM In reply to: Uhh, well... by Nicholas BuenkI agree about the social services -- to a degree. The problem in the USA, at least, is that politicians just love to create these huge bureacracies under the umbrella of social services. But there's never any accountability as to whether they actually work, whether they are efficient, etc. It simply becomes a ploy to get reelected. Once created, these entities are almost impossible to dissolve. That this has happened over decades is one of the reasons we are in the economic position we are today.
Medicare and Medicaid (US subsidized Health Programs for elderly and poor) are great in principle, but fraud is rampant. Government is just a total failure when it comes to oversight and management. On the other hand, insurance companies would be biased 180 degrees in the opposite direction were they to manage it all. A dilemma, for sure.
But to your larger point, yes, it's absurd and immoral that people in wealthy countries such as ours can go homeless and without other basic assistance. It's undoubtedly true that many people are a paycheck or two away from being in that position. We need a better way to have effective safety nets without all the crap that comes with them (fraud, mismanagement, etc.).
Fellow feeling is fading
by biergeliebter - 6/2/09 2:00 PM In reply to: Is "Open source" the new socialism?...Wired article... by shmodyShalin,
Good discussion starter. Because a larger group of people under 30 believe socialism is better than capitalism (according to a Rasmussen poll - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism )
I think you may be right that 'fellow-feeling' has fallen by the wayside. Those of us that are older grew up riding bikes and playing kick ball with our neighbors, having neighborhood picnics, and generally had more of a sense of community. The 30 and under crowd has experienced the internet for a third to half of their lives where many 'chat' with internet friends, whether it be on facebook, in IRC, or while battling online, but can't tell you the name of 3 of their neighbors. In the old days if a man needed a barn for his horses the whole community would come out and have a barn raising. These days if a man needs a barn he can get USDA funds to not build it, because if he builds it he might start producing something that will compete with others in the market and the government apparently thinks that is a bad thing.
If the government could stay out of our lives and communities and younger people could get involved with theirs, we could take care of our own problems without government intervention.
Is "Open source" the new socialism?...Wired article...
by wizkids32 - 6/4/09 2:26 PM In reply to: Is "Open source" the new socialism?...Wired article... by shmodyReally why in the world would anyone would think that Open Source is Socialism at all. Open Source is for every one to work on the product that isn't Socialism at all.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
