My theory is that free software will self-destruct if all programmers lose their jobs. A lot of people who create free software are volunteers. Most of these people have other full-time jobs that pay for their living. My view is that if NO developers were paid for their jobs (doesn't matter what), then the free software movement will collapse. Thes people would instead spend time searching for jobs to make a living.
What all this means is that what you are saying won't happen (ie. people won't lose jobs). If everyone started losing jobs (I don't think this will happen--other threats like out-sourcing jobs/governments defaulting on debts/currency depreciation/etc will have an impact though), the movement will slow down and die.
To answer your question, the free software environment will exist forever--or at least as long as the programming profession exists. What I said mainly applies to free software; open-source software, on the other hand, is a slightly different matter.
The copyright lobby is trying to change the law to apply various aspects of property rights to copyrights and it's just plain broken. I've seen quotes that the law discriminates against copyright holders because they dont have the same rights as property owners. LOL! They claim that means the law is broken, but that's absurd.
These people DO consider intellectual property to be a form of property. For instance, companies can patent biologically engineered plants (eg. Monsato's weed-resistant crops). This has more to do with patents than copyrights but it is similar in some sense.
The difference is that now bands don't have to get "picked" by a label. They make their music available at will and they make money based on how many people requested their stuff.
I neither understand your position nor the example. Why would the companies buy a CD for thousands or millions of dollars? They will only do that if they can corner the market and make a lot of money. Otherwise, why would they even bother? If alternative systems pop up, I can't see the studios buying people's music for millions of dollars...
Me, I can't see a piece of music at all. Or touch it, feel it, or especially hold it.
Property, by definition, can only be used by a limited number of people at once. Once written, music is not like that.
I don't think your definition is correct (at least according to what happens in the courts). Courts seem to consider anything to be property, including intangible things such as biologically engineered plants (and possibly animals in the future).
There are two conflicting definitions of capitalism. Both are valid, but one (the more "Liberal" interpretation) calls for external intervention to enable competition, even overriding property rights. (This is the justification for anti-monopoly laws, which violate the sancity of property)
Pure capitalists consider that sort of govt intervention as anti-capitalistic. Capitalism calls for no govt intervention, except to protect property rights.
It is the result of government interference: copyright laws. The government (police and courts) spend a fair amount of money helping corporations stop people from duplicating music.
I'm not a capitalist but doesn't capitalism and free markets call for strong property rights? Copyright laws are nothing more than an extension of property rights. I see little difference between a piece of land and a piece of music.
If government-issued copyright went away, a possible (but unlikely!) result is that the free market will settle on a new, lower equilibrium price for music CDs.
If you buy the music company arguments, that won't be true. According to the music companies, they act as banks. In essence, they are providing "loans" to artists in the hope that some of they will pay it off. Many artists fail; but from the few that succeed, the companies make money from them. This was basically Metallica's argument (against Napster)...
Which may get to the root of the the REAL problem, the outrageous cost of music. I think people would purchase if it wasn't so ridiculously priced. I think even "poor college kids" would buy CDs if they were $5.
What's your criteria for saying that music is overpriced? How can one possibly say that under capitalism? In capitalism, the price is whatever the market sets it to (including prices set by monopolies). If you are a capitalist--I think you are--you cannot possibly claim that music is too expensive. This is especially true given that music is only like $20. What is affordable? $15? $10? $1? 50cents?
I think what he is talking about is more like a private corporation that is closely held. What you are saying doesn't apply to these. For instance, there are many small corporations (small still means millions of dollars in market cap) that are privately owned. Not all corporations are owned by institutional investors. A good example would be a lot of the small military or weapons manufacturers. Most of the small ones are closely held and owned mostly by a few individuals.
Also, the goal of the corporation would NOT be to make money. In other words, it won't be a profit-maximizing corporation. Because of that, the people that you mention (investment bankers, investors seeking to profit, etc) won't be interested in it.
As a matter of fact, I don't think his idea would work well unless it is a co-op. Or perhaps a non-profit corporation (like Red Cross).
Maybe I just don't get this idea, but to sum up, the product / service a company provides is (and should be) totally separate from its stock.
What he is proposing isn't a traditional corporation that acts in a traditional manner. Instead, it is something radical and new. The traditional behaviour is for investors to stay away from the corporations' assets (ie. products and services). Here, he is proposing a corporation whose whole purpose is for the investor to interact with the assets.
Property taxes are "factored" into the price of rent. You may not pay for it directly but you are paying. It's similar to how you pay for the roads via a gasoline tax (at least in Canada; I think the gasoline tax does't cover all of the costs so people pay via income/sales taxes too I think). You don't pay directly for the roads but you pay indirectly.
If those movies have an R rating, you shouldn't be letting your daughter watch it... or at least that's how it is supposed to work. It all comes down to age though. If your daughter is, say 12 years old, I don't think she should be watching any R films at all (I don't care why the film was slapped with the R--just my opinion). However, if she is say 15 or 16 then I'm not too sure what to say. In this case the content can play a role (eg. one film may get R simply for coarse language; whiel another may get R for nudity; yet another gets R because of a combination of all).
As far as Oscar winning films being mostly R, what's the problem with that? Those awards are for ADULT films, and hence should reflect that. If a Disney film kept winning the Oscars, I would have a problem with it--but I guess you wouldn't:)
If what he said becomes true, capitalism will collapse for sure. Capitalists will be in denial but one has to admit that the benefits of technology is skewed towards a small number of people.
Of course, I'm talking about large-scale systematic changes (i.e. robots "equivalent" to humans). Replacing fast food personell alone will have no impact...
I wonder how all this is going to play out... I'm guessing most will settle out of court like that guy they cite (who paid $12000).
RIAA will probably make more out of lawsuit settlements than through their music;) What's the lifetime value of a consumer to RIAA? I imagine it is less than $12000...
I don't think capitalism is the problem, it's greed. Ambition or efficiency is one thing, greed is something else.
I claim that capitalism is the CAUSE of greed. If anything, capitalism REWARDS greed!!!
Furthermore, I claim that capitalism will result in oligopolies and monoplies of corporations. Under capitalism, corporations have been gaining power for the last 100 years. Every year, they gain a bit more strength, become larger, and corner a market. Eventually there will only be a few coporations controlling the industries. Already, the mergers & acquisitions of the last 10 years resulted in only a few large corporations in each sector (eg. media/entertainment (AOL/TW, Disney/ABC/ESPN, etc), aircraft (Boeing, Airbus), cars (ever paid attention to the worldwide mergers?), etc).
Capitalists like yourself might be in denial (just like how aristocrats & monarchs were in total denial) but one day you will realize it. Unfortunately, it might be too late for you by then. Just don't be shocked when it happens...
I expect capitalism to collapse within my lifetime, although I don't expect it to happen in USA first. Having said that, if it does collapse in USA, it should be easy to tell when it is about to happen. I expect that USA will go into a deflation for a long period of time (10+ years)...kind of like Japan. Or it will start defaulting on its debt.
...and, no I don't think the rich will be on the same level as the others, they'll still stay on top.
If capitalism collapses, the elites, who are the rich, will be gone. The wealthy class is the next one to go. Collapse of monarchy resulted in the elimination of the monarchs and the aristocrats. Collapse of capitalism will result in the elimination of the elitists and "capitalists" (i.e. wealthy property owners, aka shareholders).
Of course I'm talking about the case where a left-wing system triumphs. In the case where a right wing system takes over, I don't know if the elites will be still around...
I don't think resorting to the stock market is the right way to resolve this. Even if their stock drops, they don't care. If anything, they might be more desperate when the stock drops and do more.
I doubt that. It's not like I'm sheltered from extremist opinions. I watch CNN.:-)
I guess you are a conservative eh? You can tell where someone is on the econopolitcal spectrum by their opinion of media. Conservatives bash CNN; liberals bash FOX; and people left of left (ie. left to far left; like me) bash all media cuz they are elitist and controlled by a few groups.
Right wingers might say the same thing, except that everyone has an equal opportunity to be a self-made man.
Except for the fact that... the opportunity for an individual to succeed can result in greater harm to others. For instance, if I become rich, resulting in greater power, then I can hurt you by hoarding a resource (which capitalism allows, except in rare cases when the govt steps in and breaks up the company or something). This happens all the time. You need to look no further than the California energy crisis. A few companies (one of which was Enron incidentally) hoarded the resource (energy in this case) and artifically inflated prices. THe people as a whole were worse off. Can you imagine the richest state/province in the world having blackouts and brownouts? According to the right wing, this would be perfectly ok (individuals have the right to become "successful"); the left, obviously, would be totally against it.
Basically you can't get away from it: you are either egalitarian or elitist. No IFs and BUTs. The right wing is simply elitist, and leans towards the individual rather than society.
Well, I do notice that you tend to equalize everything. Just as with race, you make double sure not to imply that mens' strengths outnumber womens' strengths [or vice-versa:-)].
I try to live by the way I preach:) The worst thing one can become is a hypocrite... If you believe in something, say it and uphold it; otherwise don't!
I think there's a big difference between believing in classes and believing in a system that may lead to classes.
To me, there is little difference between believing in classes and believing in the system that will create that. You are "guilty" regardless.
Otherwise, I might ask "Why do socialists believe in economic collapse?"
Socialists do NOT believe in economic collapse (I think you have socialists and anarchists mixed up, although we are allied quite often:) ). We certainly don't want economies to collapose. That causes harm. However, we believe that capitalism is not the best system and hence would like to see it replaced. Clearly, this can only happen if capitalism collapses. Good will come out of the collapse of capitalism. To most socialists, capitalism is just as evil as monarchy was/is.
Some Marxists believe in the theory of continuous revolutions. This is basically the view that humans progress through revolutions, and these revolutions happen continuously--hence we progress continuously. I actually support that view but not in the near to medium term. I think that theory is only applicable over the long period. I don't think one can forumate a strategy or opinion based on continuous revolutions (maybe if we all lived 500 years;) ).
To sum it up, consider the collapse of capitalism as not a desire, but rather a side-effect.
What bothers me is that there are plenty of GPL apologists who say "There will always be jobs for programmers." Sure there will be, just not very many of them. The American standard of living will decline to meet that of the rest of the world.
I just don't think the GPL will cause that much harm. It WILL impact the industry--but not so negatively. I'm going to start up a left-wing technology website and hopefully I'll get a chance to interview RMS one of these days. I'll ask him about your concerns.
I think the decline of the American standard of living will happen for other reasons. Americans just overconsume
capitalism: an economic system based on private ownership of capital
You are relyin on a simplistic defintion. By that definition, even monarchy, feudalism, and merchantilism are forms of capitalism--which they are not! There is more to capitalism than that. Free markets are a core principle of capitalism. Similarly, your simplistic definition of socialism is misleading to a large extent. For instance, a core principle of socialism is egalitarianism, especially the creation of a classless society. Classless society is far more important to socialism than market/central-authority.
There is no free market SYSTEM. Free market is a principle, like democracy, or freedom or whatever. Free market, in and of itself, make no sense. For instance, if you claim to support free markets but (say) not capitalism, then what party would you vote for?
Objections should be directed where they are justified.
My objections are with capitalism. I don't care about free market in and of itself, although I don't support market-based systems.
If they have truly been "running" the economy, then this is the reason it is in shambles. You cannot "run" an economy as the former Soviet Union demonstrated. You must let it run (ie. make it a free market, not a planned economy since that is an intractable problem).
Actually that's what USA has been doing. It has been breaking down all the barriers, eliminating nationally owned resources, etc. So it is doing exactly what you mean.
Personally, I would actually attribute a great deal of the economic troubles to the political upheaval. Perceived political instability == less investor confidence == economic downturn.
The vast majority of hte South American problems were initiated by USA. The CIA has been behind numerous atempts at overthrowing governments, as well as supporting dictators. In any case, South America is more stable than Africa or Asia. Yet where is the benefit?
Both driven by private funding in R&D labs which went on to produce viable products.
I just love how capitalists (or free-market supporters) love taking credit for all the science. In case you haven't figured it out, humans have been developing technologies and furthering science for ages. Private R&D labs are irrelevant. Many of the key discoveries and developments have nothing to do with profit motives (eg. Newton's works, Einstein's work, cures for many diseases, astrophysics, etc).
Many argue that countries with less "management" actually do better.
You know... there are more than one type of "management". It's not just central management. When the capital markets are "managed" by banks and other private institutions, that's management too. When IMF strips down national policies, that's management too. The most successful country in your eyes (I'm guessing) would be USA and it's "managed" more than many others. What gives?
Can't run a military without capital. Can't get capital without a powerful economy. Can't get a powerful, stable economy without capitalism. Note that I did say stable.
You are correct in the general case. However, there are extreme cases where you are wrong. Since military power is realized through wars, I think the extreme cases are what matter. Nazi Germany and Soviet Union are considered to be two of hte top militaries in the last 100 years, yet they lacked capital. Germany was extremely poor, and Soviet Union was a 3rd world country. The world could easily have been painted with a swasticka or a sickle & hammer. You don't really need resources for a strong military; you just need people willing to die for you! Resources can come later...
Perhaps the best example of that are the Mongols. The Mongols are the #1 militaristic tribe/civilization/country ever. Yet they rose from some poor region with very little resources. If they wanted to, they could have easily conquered all of Asia, Europe and North
England, Canada, the US, Japan, etc. all got where they were thanks to private enterprise and their focus on the bottom line. We were just as poor as these poor countries are now. It took us hundreds of years to get where we are.
England was one of the richest country 50 years ago. Canada was rich 50 years ago too. Japan was an Imperial power, that was unmatched by any Asian country 50 years ago. Your examples are just plain wrong. These countries were already at or near the top of the world 50 years ago (even 100 years ago). Even USA was wealthy 50 or 100 years ago (although not like now).
With our help, it could take these poor countries as little as 20.
Well, like I said, your "experiments" in South America are doing well alright:(
In any case, you are missing one of my arguments that capitalism mortgages the future for the present.
But slow lines is a problem for users...but also for getting updates.
heh... I can attest to that. Linux isn't so bad for updates (since you generally download individual packages and they aren't that large (unless it is openoffice or something)). But on the Windows side, it is horrible. I have avoided updating things like Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player precisely because they take so long to download the updates.
Although I should note that since I run Linux most of the time, updating Windows programs is a low priority for me...
Ftp-install is next to useless if you are on a low-speed line. It is very slow and if something goes wrong, you have to connect again and so on. When your speed is slow, this is a major problem.
Another problem with ftp-install is it is highly inconvenient to install on a new or non-functional system (especially if there are network card problems, like I had recently (I salvaged an old system but its network card was flaky)).
You are looking at it from a Linux fan's point of view. I'm talking about the general user. These are the people who drive the industry. Teens may be familiar with the technology but they aren't driving it. As a matter of fact, teens are more prone to pirating software, in which case it would make no difference. What matters are the older people (families and the like) who actually purchase software that they use (often for simple things like surfing the web, writing documents, etc)...
Slashdot Mirror
An important issue...
My theory is that free software will self-destruct if all programmers lose their jobs. A lot of people who create free software are volunteers. Most of these people have other full-time jobs that pay for their living. My view is that if NO developers were paid for their jobs (doesn't matter what), then the free software movement will collapse. Thes people would instead spend time searching for jobs to make a living.
What all this means is that what you are saying won't happen (ie. people won't lose jobs). If everyone started losing jobs (I don't think this will happen--other threats like out-sourcing jobs/governments defaulting on debts/currency depreciation/etc will have an impact though), the movement will slow down and die.
To answer your question, the free software environment will exist forever--or at least as long as the programming profession exists. What I said mainly applies to free software; open-source software, on the other hand, is a slightly different matter.
KoalaBear33
The copyright lobby is trying to change the law to apply various aspects of property rights to copyrights and it's just plain broken. I've seen quotes that the law discriminates against copyright holders because they dont have the same rights as property owners. LOL! They claim that means the law is broken, but that's absurd.
These people DO consider intellectual property to be a form of property. For instance, companies can patent biologically engineered plants (eg. Monsato's weed-resistant crops). This has more to do with patents than copyrights but it is similar in some sense.
The difference is that now bands don't have to get "picked" by a label. They make their music available at will and they make money based on how many people requested their stuff.
I neither understand your position nor the example. Why would the companies buy a CD for thousands or millions of dollars? They will only do that if they can corner the market and make a lot of money. Otherwise, why would they even bother? If alternative systems pop up, I can't see the studios buying people's music for millions of dollars...
I'm not really sure what you are saying.
KoalaBear33
Me, I can't see a piece of music at all. Or touch it, feel it, or especially hold it. Property, by definition, can only be used by a limited number of people at once. Once written, music is not like that.
I don't think your definition is correct (at least according to what happens in the courts). Courts seem to consider anything to be property, including intangible things such as biologically engineered plants (and possibly animals in the future).
There are two conflicting definitions of capitalism. Both are valid, but one (the more "Liberal" interpretation) calls for external intervention to enable competition, even overriding property rights. (This is the justification for anti-monopoly laws, which violate the sancity of property)
Pure capitalists consider that sort of govt intervention as anti-capitalistic. Capitalism calls for no govt intervention, except to protect property rights.
KoalaBear33
oh.. didn't see the difference head vs horse)... my bad :)
KoalaBear33
It is the result of government interference: copyright laws. The government (police and courts) spend a fair amount of money helping corporations stop people from duplicating music.
I'm not a capitalist but doesn't capitalism and free markets call for strong property rights? Copyright laws are nothing more than an extension of property rights. I see little difference between a piece of land and a piece of music.
If government-issued copyright went away, a possible (but unlikely!) result is that the free market will settle on a new, lower equilibrium price for music CDs.
If you buy the music company arguments, that won't be true. According to the music companies, they act as banks. In essence, they are providing "loans" to artists in the hope that some of they will pay it off. Many artists fail; but from the few that succeed, the companies make money from them. This was basically Metallica's argument (against Napster)...
KoalaBear33
Which may get to the root of the the REAL problem, the outrageous cost of music. I think people would purchase if it wasn't so ridiculously priced. I think even "poor college kids" would buy CDs if they were $5.
What's your criteria for saying that music is overpriced? How can one possibly say that under capitalism? In capitalism, the price is whatever the market sets it to (including prices set by monopolies). If you are a capitalist--I think you are--you cannot possibly claim that music is too expensive. This is especially true given that music is only like $20. What is affordable? $15? $10? $1? 50cents?
KoalaBear33
I think what he is talking about is more like a private corporation that is closely held. What you are saying doesn't apply to these. For instance, there are many small corporations (small still means millions of dollars in market cap) that are privately owned. Not all corporations are owned by institutional investors. A good example would be a lot of the small military or weapons manufacturers. Most of the small ones are closely held and owned mostly by a few individuals.
Also, the goal of the corporation would NOT be to make money. In other words, it won't be a profit-maximizing corporation. Because of that, the people that you mention (investment bankers, investors seeking to profit, etc) won't be interested in it.
As a matter of fact, I don't think his idea would work well unless it is a co-op. Or perhaps a non-profit corporation (like Red Cross).
Maybe I just don't get this idea, but to sum up, the product / service a company provides is (and should be) totally separate from its stock.
What he is proposing isn't a traditional corporation that acts in a traditional manner. Instead, it is something radical and new. The traditional behaviour is for investors to stay away from the corporations' assets (ie. products and services). Here, he is proposing a corporation whose whole purpose is for the investor to interact with the assets.
KoalaBear33
(I don't pay taxes tho as I rent)
Property taxes are "factored" into the price of rent. You may not pay for it directly but you are paying. It's similar to how you pay for the roads via a gasoline tax (at least in Canada; I think the gasoline tax does't cover all of the costs so people pay via income/sales taxes too I think). You don't pay directly for the roads but you pay indirectly.
KoalaBear33
If those movies have an R rating, you shouldn't be letting your daughter watch it... or at least that's how it is supposed to work. It all comes down to age though. If your daughter is, say 12 years old, I don't think she should be watching any R films at all (I don't care why the film was slapped with the R--just my opinion). However, if she is say 15 or 16 then I'm not too sure what to say. In this case the content can play a role (eg. one film may get R simply for coarse language; whiel another may get R for nudity; yet another gets R because of a combination of all).
:)
As far as Oscar winning films being mostly R, what's the problem with that? Those awards are for ADULT films, and hence should reflect that. If a Disney film kept winning the Oscars, I would have a problem with it--but I guess you wouldn't
KoalaBear33
If what he said becomes true, capitalism will collapse for sure. Capitalists will be in denial but one has to admit that the benefits of technology is skewed towards a small number of people.
Of course, I'm talking about large-scale systematic changes (i.e. robots "equivalent" to humans). Replacing fast food personell alone will have no impact...
KoalaBear33
You guys missed the joke. He is referring to The Godfather movie, where that is exactly what happens.
KoalaBear33
I wonder how all this is going to play out... I'm guessing most will settle out of court like that guy they cite (who paid $12000).
;) What's the lifetime value of a consumer to RIAA? I imagine it is less than $12000...
RIAA will probably make more out of lawsuit settlements than through their music
KoalaBear33
I don't think capitalism is the problem, it's greed. Ambition or efficiency is one thing, greed is something else.
I claim that capitalism is the CAUSE of greed. If anything, capitalism REWARDS greed!!!
Furthermore, I claim that capitalism will result in oligopolies and monoplies of corporations. Under capitalism, corporations have been gaining power for the last 100 years. Every year, they gain a bit more strength, become larger, and corner a market. Eventually there will only be a few coporations controlling the industries. Already, the mergers & acquisitions of the last 10 years resulted in only a few large corporations in each sector (eg. media/entertainment (AOL/TW, Disney/ABC/ESPN, etc), aircraft (Boeing, Airbus), cars (ever paid attention to the worldwide mergers?), etc).
Capitalists like yourself might be in denial (just like how aristocrats & monarchs were in total denial) but one day you will realize it. Unfortunately, it might be too late for you by then. Just don't be shocked when it happens...
KoalaBear33
I expect capitalism to collapse within my lifetime, although I don't expect it to happen in USA first. Having said that, if it does collapse in USA, it should be easy to tell when it is about to happen. I expect that USA will go into a deflation for a long period of time (10+ years)...kind of like Japan. Or it will start defaulting on its debt.
KoalaBear33
So basically become a hawk to survive? :(
KoalaBear33
Enlist.
I guess you fail to consider the possibility that you might be killed too...
KoalaBear33
...and, no I don't think the rich will be on the same level as the others, they'll still stay on top.
If capitalism collapses, the elites, who are the rich, will be gone. The wealthy class is the next one to go. Collapse of monarchy resulted in the elimination of the monarchs and the aristocrats. Collapse of capitalism will result in the elimination of the elitists and "capitalists" (i.e. wealthy property owners, aka shareholders).
Of course I'm talking about the case where a left-wing system triumphs. In the case where a right wing system takes over, I don't know if the elites will be still around...
KoalaBear33
Actually the value of the stocks are going up (or at least not dropping)... otherwise why would these companies move off-shore?
Someone is profiting from this. It just isn't you...
KoalaBear33
I don't think resorting to the stock market is the right way to resolve this. Even if their stock drops, they don't care. If anything, they might be more desperate when the stock drops and do more.
This has to be dealt with in other ways...
KoalaBear33
I doubt that. It's not like I'm sheltered from extremist opinions. I watch CNN. :-)
:-)].
:) The worst thing one can become is a hypocrite... If you believe in something, say it and uphold it; otherwise don't!
:) ). We certainly don't want economies to collapose. That causes harm. However, we believe that capitalism is not the best system and hence would like to see it replaced. Clearly, this can only happen if capitalism collapses. Good will come out of the collapse of capitalism. To most socialists, capitalism is just as evil as monarchy was/is.
;) ).
I guess you are a conservative eh? You can tell where someone is on the econopolitcal spectrum by their opinion of media. Conservatives bash CNN; liberals bash FOX; and people left of left (ie. left to far left; like me) bash all media cuz they are elitist and controlled by a few groups.
Right wingers might say the same thing, except that everyone has an equal opportunity to be a self-made man.
Except for the fact that... the opportunity for an individual to succeed can result in greater harm to others. For instance, if I become rich, resulting in greater power, then I can hurt you by hoarding a resource (which capitalism allows, except in rare cases when the govt steps in and breaks up the company or something). This happens all the time. You need to look no further than the California energy crisis. A few companies (one of which was Enron incidentally) hoarded the resource (energy in this case) and artifically inflated prices. THe people as a whole were worse off. Can you imagine the richest state/province in the world having blackouts and brownouts? According to the right wing, this would be perfectly ok (individuals have the right to become "successful"); the left, obviously, would be totally against it.
Basically you can't get away from it: you are either egalitarian or elitist. No IFs and BUTs. The right wing is simply elitist, and leans towards the individual rather than society.
Well, I do notice that you tend to equalize everything. Just as with race, you make double sure not to imply that mens' strengths outnumber womens' strengths [or vice-versa
I try to live by the way I preach
I think there's a big difference between believing in classes and believing in a system that may lead to classes.
To me, there is little difference between believing in classes and believing in the system that will create that. You are "guilty" regardless.
Otherwise, I might ask "Why do socialists believe in economic collapse?"
Socialists do NOT believe in economic collapse (I think you have socialists and anarchists mixed up, although we are allied quite often
Some Marxists believe in the theory of continuous revolutions. This is basically the view that humans progress through revolutions, and these revolutions happen continuously--hence we progress continuously. I actually support that view but not in the near to medium term. I think that theory is only applicable over the long period. I don't think one can forumate a strategy or opinion based on continuous revolutions (maybe if we all lived 500 years
To sum it up, consider the collapse of capitalism as not a desire, but rather a side-effect.
What bothers me is that there are plenty of GPL apologists who say "There will always be jobs for programmers." Sure there will be, just not very many of them. The American standard of living will decline to meet that of the rest of the world.
I just don't think the GPL will cause that much harm. It WILL impact the industry--but not so negatively. I'm going to start up a left-wing technology website and hopefully I'll get a chance to interview RMS one of these days. I'll ask him about your concerns.
I think the decline of the American standard of living will happen for other reasons. Americans just overconsume
capitalism: an economic system based on private ownership of capital
You are relyin on a simplistic defintion. By that definition, even monarchy, feudalism, and merchantilism are forms of capitalism--which they are not! There is more to capitalism than that. Free markets are a core principle of capitalism. Similarly, your simplistic definition of socialism is misleading to a large extent. For instance, a core principle of socialism is egalitarianism, especially the creation of a classless society. Classless society is far more important to socialism than market/central-authority.
There is no free market SYSTEM. Free market is a principle, like democracy, or freedom or whatever. Free market, in and of itself, make no sense. For instance, if you claim to support free markets but (say) not capitalism, then what party would you vote for?
Objections should be directed where they are justified.
My objections are with capitalism. I don't care about free market in and of itself, although I don't support market-based systems.
If they have truly been "running" the economy, then this is the reason it is in shambles. You cannot "run" an economy as the former Soviet Union demonstrated. You must let it run (ie. make it a free market, not a planned economy since that is an intractable problem).
Actually that's what USA has been doing. It has been breaking down all the barriers, eliminating nationally owned resources, etc. So it is doing exactly what you mean.
Personally, I would actually attribute a great deal of the economic troubles to the political upheaval. Perceived political instability == less investor confidence == economic downturn.
The vast majority of hte South American problems were initiated by USA. The CIA has been behind numerous atempts at overthrowing governments, as well as supporting dictators. In any case, South America is more stable than Africa or Asia. Yet where is the benefit?
Both driven by private funding in R&D labs which went on to produce viable products.
I just love how capitalists (or free-market supporters) love taking credit for all the science. In case you haven't figured it out, humans have been developing technologies and furthering science for ages. Private R&D labs are irrelevant. Many of the key discoveries and developments have nothing to do with profit motives (eg. Newton's works, Einstein's work, cures for many diseases, astrophysics, etc).
Many argue that countries with less "management" actually do better.
You know... there are more than one type of "management". It's not just central management. When the capital markets are "managed" by banks and other private institutions, that's management too. When IMF strips down national policies, that's management too. The most successful country in your eyes (I'm guessing) would be USA and it's "managed" more than many others. What gives?
Can't run a military without capital. Can't get capital without a powerful economy. Can't get a powerful, stable economy without capitalism. Note that I did say stable.
You are correct in the general case. However, there are extreme cases where you are wrong. Since military power is realized through wars, I think the extreme cases are what matter. Nazi Germany and Soviet Union are considered to be two of hte top militaries in the last 100 years, yet they lacked capital. Germany was extremely poor, and Soviet Union was a 3rd world country. The world could easily have been painted with a swasticka or a sickle & hammer. You don't really need resources for a strong military; you just need people willing to die for you! Resources can come later...
Perhaps the best example of that are the Mongols. The Mongols are the #1 militaristic tribe/civilization/country ever. Yet they rose from some poor region with very little resources. If they wanted to, they could have easily conquered all of Asia, Europe and North
England, Canada, the US, Japan, etc. all got where they were thanks to private enterprise and their focus on the bottom line. We were just as poor as these poor countries are now. It took us hundreds of years to get where we are.
:(
England was one of the richest country 50 years ago. Canada was rich 50 years ago too. Japan was an Imperial power, that was unmatched by any Asian country 50 years ago. Your examples are just plain wrong. These countries were already at or near the top of the world 50 years ago (even 100 years ago). Even USA was wealthy 50 or 100 years ago (although not like now).
With our help, it could take these poor countries as little as 20.
Well, like I said, your "experiments" in South America are doing well alright
In any case, you are missing one of my arguments that capitalism mortgages the future for the present.
KoalaBear33
But slow lines is a problem for users...but also for getting updates.
heh... I can attest to that. Linux isn't so bad for updates (since you generally download individual packages and they aren't that large (unless it is openoffice or something)). But on the Windows side, it is horrible. I have avoided updating things like Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player precisely because they take so long to download the updates.
Although I should note that since I run Linux most of the time, updating Windows programs is a low priority for me...
KoalaBear33
Ftp-install is next to useless if you are on a low-speed line. It is very slow and if something goes wrong, you have to connect again and so on. When your speed is slow, this is a major problem.
Another problem with ftp-install is it is highly inconvenient to install on a new or non-functional system (especially if there are network card problems, like I had recently (I salvaged an old system but its network card was flaky)).
KoalaBear33
You are looking at it from a Linux fan's point of view. I'm talking about the general user. These are the people who drive the industry. Teens may be familiar with the technology but they aren't driving it. As a matter of fact, teens are more prone to pirating software, in which case it would make no difference. What matters are the older people (families and the like) who actually purchase software that they use (often for simple things like surfing the web, writing documents, etc)...
KoalaBear33