On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 03:56:14PM -0500, Todd Walton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Martin Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The whole picture, as I see it, is that an unintended side affect of the
> > availability of home computers is that people are gaining the means to
> > produce content of all kinds.
> 
> It wasn't unintended.
The internet was designed this way, but the designers were probably
thinking of universities and government applications.  Technology
advanced, pcs and workstations won over mainframes, common people got
computers, and the internet grew.  The designers of the internet are not
the same people who sell computers and internet service, and the battle
over net neutrality proves that the internet as it is today is not the
internet that the corporations would like it to be.  That is why I think
the internet, in the public sector, at least, can be said to be an
unintented development.

> Capitalism != Consumerism
No, but they are intrinsically related.  That is, however, besides the
point.  The fundamental rule of capitalism is competition.  When people
become producers, whether free software hackers, independent musicians,
or whatever, their golden rule is often cooporation.  They collaborate
on thier works and release thier products under terms that allow future
ideas to be built off thier efforts.  The two are polar opposites, and
its not surprising that its often hard to integrate the smaller
cooporative communities into the competitive framework of our economic
system, to make money with GPL'ed code, for example.

> Community is profit.
Care to elaborate?  Profit is the difference between what the employees
of a company are paid and the value they produce.  This difference goes
to the 'owners' of the corporation to which the employees belong, people
who, because of thier legal position, did not have to do any work to
recieve that surplus value.  These owners are, in a sense, robbing the
community.

Even if that value was not taken from the people who produced it, the
objective of the corporation is not the benefit of the community, the
sustainable production of its goods and ecological preservation, or any
other lofty objective.  The objective is money, and any benefit to the
community that arises from its pursuit is unintended, incidental.  A
corporation would just as easily destroy the world as save it,
deliberating by means of a cost-benefit analysis.

-- 
Martin Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP Key ID: 2B01DD81  Keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu


-- 
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Reply via email to