Political Memes

Today, 4 billion people live on less than $10 a day. How many billions around the globe suffer and die unnecessarily in capitalist countries? Why are the deaths of communism seen as a failure of the system as a whole whereas the exploitation of the land, labor, and resources of billions is seen as merely a problem with regulation? Capitalism has shown that it does not respect the environment, human rights, or even human life.

Yes, there were abuses and missteps in communist countries. But we have to place this history within the context of an economic system that was resisted by the U.S. because it threatened profits. The diplomatic isolation, trade embargos, and political assassinations that socialist countries attempted to withstand necessitated a strong centralized government. Of course, this provides fertile ground for corruption and abuse, but the goal of communism is to eradicate the state entirely! Whereas the goal of capitalism is a never-ending increase of profit at the expense of everything else.

Okay, so just so we're clear, you are not a good faith actor, then? I'll go ahead and directly break down why you're full of shit in that case.

Software development can be a place with employees, it’s not limited to freelance. So I don’t really get your point.

In your previous comment you said, "Can I come to your home and take your PC?", which implies a single person, doing their own thing - a freelancer. Now you're moving the goalpost. But okay, whatever. We're talking about a case where you're a part of a group of people, providing a product or service together? Then what gives you the right to be a dictator? All members of the group should have an equal stake and ownership of the properties being utilized for whatever is being made, and management of the group should be run in a way that is democratized.

But even in your new scenario, how is the outlandish idea of someone coming to your house to take your pc even in the realm of realistic possibility? If we're talking about a group of people making software, then realistically all members probably have their own computers, and are using those to make their contributions. In this case the thing at stake is the software product. There's already precedent for situations like this - it is possible to make an entire software compilation available to the public under one common license, and at the same time make it the case that all code and content contributions are under ownership of each individual making their contributions. Of course this is a case of permissive or copyleft license systems being applied on top of the wider framework of private intellectual property law. I'll address that more in your next points.

But let's go even more unrealistic. Let's say for some weird reason that you are the only one who could afford a PC to work with, in a landscape where private property has been abolished. If we're talking about a case where you're a freelancer, no one else has a stake in your PC. Even if you're using it as a "means of production", it's arguable the hardware should still be considered "personal property," since it blurs a line between something you're using for work-related activities as well as personal activities, in addition to the fact that no other workers have any kind of stake in it.

But then on the case of groups, then things start to change. As previously mentioned, no, you shouldn't get exclusive rights to software you didn't create yourself, as a start. As for the hardware - we already live in a landscape where there are regulatory hurdles you have to jump through in order to start a business. In a system with no private property, you would likely be expected to enter your PC and any other relevant hardware into some kind of property trust before you could even legally start to hire (or otherwise cooperate/collaborate with) other people. In that case, you have already voluntarily made the agreement that what was your PC is no longer just yours anymore. In such a case you would still have a partial ownership of your PC, but every other member of your team - likely under the umbrella of the organization that you would have had to have founded - would also have equal ownership.

And in this highly highly specific case, in which you were either too poor or too negligent as a founder to bother getting a real office to run your organization out of; if people are coming into your house and taking "your" PC, it implies that it's YOU who has criminally done something to break the social contract that YOU agreed to. In which case, every other stakeholder would be well within their rights to get the disputes settled in the courts of law that would exist in this hypothetical scenario.

Government, and thus, laws, aren’t supposed to be the moral guide. This is not a church.

So people should be allowed to steal, assault others, and kill? Please try to make less sense.

As much as I dislike proprietary software, it’s their right to do so.

It sounds like you're operating with a complete misunderstanding of what free software is, and why it exists. FOSS is not just another kind of product. It's not a brand, and it's not a commodity. It is a fundamental rewiring of the social and legal relationships between people, within the digital landscape. The foundational premise of free software is that when someone provides software to you that does not respect your rights to use, study, copy, modify, and share that software, then what they are doing is establishing an unequal - and thus unjust - power relationship over you. You can see this in practice when an app uses drm to lock you out of features, as well as when companies embed surveillance into virtually all the software we use these days - inevitably becoming direct supporters of oppressive regimes.

So yes, proprietary software is inherently unjust, and it should be supplanted, and abolished.

Moreover, free software and free culture, in my view, is the premier blueprint alternative to private property in tangible form. You should read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, because it shows the history of the public domain - our original informational and cultural commons - how Disney built their empire on the foundation of that public domain, and then turned around to use lobbying to effectively kill it.

When you look at the full picture of how a commons often reciprocally allows wealth and abundance for many, and how ventures of private property inevitably drain, restrict, and ultimately kills that wealth and abundance for everyone except those few parasites, it starts to become clear that private property is, in fact, theft.

And it’s completely on users that we tolerate that, instead of voting with our money by donating to FOSS. But then again, if you compare how much money you can get from selling proprietary software and from donations on FOSS, it’s clear that FOSS isn’t doing great, cause they haven’t find a way to attract the same volume of money.

Your argument here is based on the loaded assumption of private property as something that's default and justified, which I already pointed out is wrong. But to address your point about the profitabilty of FOSS, that's just plain wrong. Sure, many choose to simply give free software away, and try relying on donations. That model only really works when a piece of software becomes widely depended on, critically so, and their struggles for funding gets enough public attention - like the case of GPG.

But that doesn't mean that's the only model. Everyone struggles for basic survival in our capitalistic hellscape, but that said, in the case of games for instance, ID used to have a decent model - separate engine and content, open-source the engine after some years. Continue selling the game anyway. Dwarf Fortress did something similar - they started life donation-based, then later built some quality of life improvements and sold the game on Steam - and made tens of millions.

Or the classic example, Red Hat. Their products are completely open-source. They sell it anyway. Some people opt for the free versions, and plenty of people still pay for the official ones - because the continuing support is worth it.

You're also conflating monetary hoarding, with success of actual use. Sure, Microsoft is one of the richest companies in the world, but Linux is so ubiquitous on servers that it's fair to say Linux runs the fucking internet. Windows might still dominate the desktop space (a position that is eroding now more than ever btw), and yet Linux's ubiquity even goes so far as to power Android, which prevented Windows from ever dominating the mobile space (granted Android has problems of it's own).

This needs to be situated in context too. The existing legal landscape loves private property. Its loves oligarchy. It wants to give every advantage to billionaires. And despite all of that, free software and free culture are probably two of the most successful and enduring lowkey anticapitalist movements in human history. They take private property law, and turn it against itself, creating a whole new commons that can't be taken away. It is the Brazilian jiu-jitsu of anticapitalism. And it is the story of the Tortoise vs the Hare.

If you support FOSS, then you are already against private property - you just don't realize it yet.