I mean that paying for software keeps the people who write the software from starving to death, or having to fall back on corrupt behaviour (e.g. accepting bribes from the advertising industry) to survive. It is, of course, not a guarantee of continued work quality, but it helps avert the material conditions that inevitably destroy it.
I am not entirely convinced that capitalism is the best system for producing software, especially established "infrastructure" software like OSes, web browsers, office suites, etc.
I'm open to the idea, and recognize there are problems with non-commercial software, too. But the critical difference between software and physical commodities is that replication of software, once written, has a marginal cost approaching zero.
I suspect that this difference significantly changes the calculus.
My personal feeling is we should really think outside the box here. I like some sort of hybrid system with government-funded software bureaus producing FOSS code to replicate successful and important "infrastructure" commercial products after five to ten years or so. People get cutting-edge software created by the market, and exploitative rent seeking on critical software is minimized.
This is absurdly false. The serfs can become kings as evidenced by newly minted millionaires every year. However, the reverse is also true as there are plenty of fortunes lost as well.
The odds of a poor person becoming a rich person in America is extremely low and socioeconomic mobility in the US is getting worse all the time. I'd guess that most poor people have better odds of getting hit by lightning. A lot of new millionaires are property owners. Anyone who gets their money from real estate is not a serf.
I don't know if it is that simple. Paying by people who develop software will tend to keep the software in good shape, but there's no guarantee.
Also, the developer doesn't necesarily need to own the code to improve it, or build you a copy.
I mean that paying for software keeps the people who write the software from starving to death, or having to fall back on corrupt behaviour (e.g. accepting bribes from the advertising industry) to survive. It is, of course, not a guarantee of continued work quality, but it helps avert the material conditions that inevitably destroy it.
I am not entirely convinced that capitalism is the best system for producing software, especially established "infrastructure" software like OSes, web browsers, office suites, etc.
I'm open to the idea, and recognize there are problems with non-commercial software, too. But the critical difference between software and physical commodities is that replication of software, once written, has a marginal cost approaching zero.
I suspect that this difference significantly changes the calculus.
My personal feeling is we should really think outside the box here. I like some sort of hybrid system with government-funded software bureaus producing FOSS code to replicate successful and important "infrastructure" commercial products after five to ten years or so. People get cutting-edge software created by the market, and exploitative rent seeking on critical software is minimized.
That's just propaganda. Our society is more like kings and serfs that capitalist these days.
This is absurdly false. The serfs can become kings as evidenced by newly minted millionaires every year. However, the reverse is also true as there are plenty of fortunes lost as well.
Yes, yes, we're all temporarily-displaced millionaires.
3 replies →
The serfs can become kings
The odds of a poor person becoming a rich person in America is extremely low and socioeconomic mobility in the US is getting worse all the time. I'd guess that most poor people have better odds of getting hit by lightning. A lot of new millionaires are property owners. Anyone who gets their money from real estate is not a serf.
Being a millionaire is table stakes for a minimal retirement, not being fabulously wealthy. Not something particularly impressive
1 reply →
That's what the word "capitalism" was coined to mean – if you ascribe to the theory that Louis Blanc coined it.