The Scientific Possibilities of Socialism

[Adil3tr]

What do you are the possibilities for science under a socialist system. I'm not even sure I can imagine what we could do under socialism.

[Blackscare]

Well, for one, intellectual property rights would be basically gone, meaning that a vast amount of resources and time would be saved in parallel research programs.

[hobo8675309]

With the exception of direct democracy, all forms of government surpress intellectualism, because power tends to corrupt our best leaders, and corrupt leaders hate opposition. In several decades, with generous state funding, the workers of the world may not even be a concern, because proletarian jobs will be filled by machines, allowing everyone an equal opportunity to pursue well meaning careers. Unfortunately, a socialist society is not likely to exist in the near future, due to the fact that capitalist propoganda makes communists into traitors only because of an opinion, and state funding is never good enough.

[AK]

I imagine future technologies will be immediately released to the public and not used to generate a profit in some way.

[Aesop]

I imagine future technologies will be immediately released to the public and not used to generate a profit in some way.

This.

Also in addition, under socialism what gets researched would be for the well being of society for example Aids, ocean purification, instead of biological weapons.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I reckon a high-tech classless society is capable of achieving at least something along the lines of "Industrial Revolution v2.0+".

Perhaps not as earth-shaking as a technological Singularity, but still a major historical turning point.

[Aesop]

I reckon a high-tech classless society is capable of achieving at least something along the lines of "Industrial Revolution v2.0+"

Very possible, especially if you look at the sphere of chemistry and engineering which only began to take off in germany after the unification.

[leftace53]

I can only hope that without the "business" (as we know it today atleast) field, science will no longer be for profit, and instead will be for what it is, knowledge. Resources will go to scientists, not accounting firms and CEOs.

[Il Medico]

I think socialism will take the already quick increase in technology and advance it hugely. Mechanization and Space Colonization are two of the thing that I think will probably make huge leaps forward right off the bat. (Why worry about people put out of work if your economic system is not based on wage slavery? Or how there will be no need for immediate profit, which will make putting up the resources to say mine the asteroid belt or start terraforming mars an easier step to make.)

[Kiev Communard]

The development of molecular engineering and nanotechnology as a whole, as well as the automatisation of the means of production should be of the highest concern to any society purporting to become really Socialist, just as the development of heavy industry was for the State Industrialist nations of XX century, because without the overcoming of the material scarcity and the division of labour associated with "traditional" processes of industrial production there could be no such thing as a Socialist society.

[Salyut]

The development of molecular engineering and nanotechnology as a whole, as well as the automatisation of the means of production should be of the highest concern to any society purporting to become really Socialist, just as the development of heavy industry was for the State Industrialist nations of XX century, because without the overcoming of the material scarcity and the division of labour associated with "traditional" processes of industrial production there could be no such thing as a Socialist society.

A working self replicating factory* might be available sooner. Equatorial solar power belt on the moon making antimatter and beaming power? Hell yes.

*Behold! The days when NASA could afford to dream. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Advanced_Automation_for_Space_Missions)

[CommunityBeliever]

Science is already organized very effectively as it is, there are many cases of international cooperation that I can cite.

On the other hand, software development is something that is run very poorly at present, and I could for-see a mandate in a socialist society to make all software open source, and that would be extremely beneficial. To assist in this regard each of you can use Linux, Firefox, and other free software applications instead of their proprietary counterparts. (join the free software group if interested).

As for socialism it could very well exist in a society with few scientists and few scientific discoveries, or it could exist with lots of scientists, who knows.

Or socialism could very well continue to exist as a thing in our minds, never manifesting into existence because nobody actually does anything about it.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

without patent more information would be whithin reach for more people to study them and developing it. Instead of today where companies keep all information about a drug ore enviormental- solution to themselfes for profit reasons, ofcourse.

[Volcanicity]

Well i hope that things would be concentrated on sorting the problems of life on earth to start with.To stop throwing billions at space programs and to make sure people have clean water to drink,rather than seeing if there is any on some other planet.

[tbasherizer]

Damn it! I wrote a massive essay in the quick reply box only to have my session time out before I could hit the "Quick Reply" button!

Well, here's an abbreviation of what I said.

The cooperative unity of a socialist Earth would not only free up the funds (read economic productivity) previously used on, for example, the military, but would mobilize the will of humanity for real effective projects. As a result, there would no longer be any hesitation to populate and industrialize space, find cures for unprofitable diseases, or educate everyone in the sciences.

[CommunityBeliever]

Damn it! I wrote a massive essay in the quick reply box only to have my session time out before I could hit the "Quick Reply" button!

I think this is because the revleft server sets the cookie that holds your user-name to spoil quickly by default, so write your responses in an external text editor, or try using the "remember me" checkbox

[Ovi]

Damn it! I wrote a massive essay in the quick reply box only to have my session time out before I could hit the "Quick Reply" button!

Revleft's the reason I use glipper (clipboard manager). I copy the response and check glipper to make sure it has it. No more moving back and forth between firefox and a text editor ...

[Reznov]

All I want to see before I die is a cure to cancer, AIDS/Hiv and etc...

I am so fucking fed up with seeing children with cancer and other diseases in hospitals and seeing them suffer.

And then, have an actual way of identifying, then curing new diseases like AIDS/hIV cancer etc...

After that, you guys can go to mars have the colonys huge space wars meeting aliens or whatever else you guys want.

[ckaihatsu]

I could for-see a mandate in a socialist society to make all software open source, and that would be extremely beneficial.


This may sound trivial at first, but I think it's worth stating that a socialist society would be able to fully network *all* computer processors (CPU microchips) so as to "liberate" all the bulk processing power that's already materially existing.





In a world liberated from private property and the profit motive I'm sure we would see a much more rational approach to the issue of distribution of processing power -- perhaps with mainframe-type computers for each neighborhood, or population cluster, and stripped-down laptops or tablets (thin clients) for individuals.

All processing would be on a grid basis, with cycles allocated from arbitrary arrays of mainframes that are relatively close to each other.





As for socialism it could very well exist in a society with few scientists and few scientific discoveries, or it could exist with lots of scientists, who knows.


I have a question here -- do you (all) think that the entirety of the physical world's (natural) processes, or physics, has now been discovered, and so science is essentially "done" in that department, or might there be further, significant aspects to probe in the direction of new discoveries?

[leftace53]

I have a question here -- do you (all) think that the entirety of the physical world's (natural) processes, or physics, has now been discovered, and so science is essentially "done" in that department, or might there be further, significant aspects to probe in the direction of new discoveries?
Physics? Conquered?
Absolutely not.

Some may say that the last big thing in physics was Einstein's relativity, but since then there have been quite a number of discoveries ranging from the confirmation of antimatter to Bose-Einstein condensates. We only recently discovered Dark Energy, and observed cosmic microwave background radiation. Particle physics is going through a (hopefully) discovery ridden phase with the discovery of the tau neutrino about 10 years ago, and now a quest to discover the higgs boson. There are still many theories to be worked through such as a unified field theory, or cosmic inflation. And if all that bores us, I'd say we know very little about time, and hell that opens up a whole new can of worms.

[kitsune]

Science is already organized very effectively as it is, there are many cases of international cooperation that I can cite.

On the other hand, software development is something that is run very poorly at present, and I could for-see a mandate in a socialist society to make all software open source, and that would be extremely beneficial. To assist in this regard each of you can use Linux, Firefox, and other free software applications instead of their proprietary counterparts. (join the free software group if interested).

This is true, but imagine if we could apply the same principles of open source software to the practical application of scientific research. Remove the profit motive and the proprietary nature of the work and you would see an explosion of benefit.

Earlier I was reading about a New Zealand company that has devised mechanical legs to provide walking mobility for people who are paralyzed. Now they're looking to market it. It will no doubt be rather expensive.

I see this so often. An amazing discovery or invention seeking investment capital for a profit venture. Imagine if the purpose was the benefit of humanity instead of making a buck. Imagine if the development was not proprietary and secret; thousands of brilliant minds would be focused on the task of making the device better.

I believe the benefits of this approach would be immediate and incredible.

[CommunityBeliever]

I see this so often. An amazing discovery or invention seeking investment capital for a profit venture. Imagine if the purpose was the benefit of humanity instead of making a buck.

I agree. The problem is most of the time people spend on this site is in the realm of imagination, "imagine if", "imagine this", "imagine that." I would like to suggest something you can actually do (utilize free software).


This may sound trivial at first

Yeah, that doesn't really relate to the issue of free software. I think every socialist should support and use free software (otherwise you are messed up ideologically).


Proprietary software is a kind of discrimination. Proprietary software means just one corporation in just one country is going to be developing the software. Free software is international, it is developed by people all over the world, from here to Antarctica (which also has some Internet access now).
There is an increasing movement by our third world comrades to use free software because they cannot afford to pay money to Redmond for windows licenses. Cuba did something like this with Nova OS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTXIzaxfox4&feature=player_embedded).
Transparency: one of our fundamental goals should be transparency and openness instead of being secretive like a corporation.

Anyways, if interested the most popular and supported OS is Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/).


able to fully network *all* computer processors I suppose you realize that we already have the Internet lol

A fundamental problem with that right now is IP address exhaustion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion). We are exhausting our mere 4 billion address spaces, so we need to switch to IPv6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6) immediately.

Your paragraph there was a bit ambiguous (like I don't see how the idea of liberation applies to processors). Do you have any specific points though about how you think we should improve the Internet?


laptops or tablets (thin clients) for individuals.

Rather like the OLPC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child) project. Socialism will put that project to shame by outdoing in every way by providing laptops to literally everyone. However, you should recognize the importance of having non-thin clients for caching purposes and to reduce HTTP requests.


All processing would be on a grid basis, with cycles allocated from arbitrary arrays of mainframes that are relatively close to each other.

You seem to be a strong supporter of cluster computing. You would probably be interested in hearing about the recent work on SASOS (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2 Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.39.6045%26rep%3Drep1%26ty pe%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=using%20a%20distributed%20sasos%20cluster%20comp uting&ei=5NJ5TIyeOoy2sAPB95XtCg&usg=AFQjCNHUlq5IPKhFV24VS5v5mdBYHK4lNg&sig2=PGLMU36tbcgUHg3S65NlSQ&cad=rja)'s. SASOS's are a potential successor to the operating systems used on modern personal computers as well as on computer clusters.

SASOS's have several advantages such as allowing distributed applications to use shared memory without additional setup, the use of primary storage as a cache for secondary storage, eliminating the need for a separate file system, providing a unique name for all resources, and greatly increasing the performance and effectiveness of cluster computing by combining the address spaces of all the distributed computer network into one.

For average users, you wouldn't have to manually do any saving like by going to File/Save because that would happen automatically. When your PC would be turned off (either on purpose or due to black out) you wouldn't lose any of your work, you would always continue from your last point. Application development would be made much easier by eliminating such problems as saving, sharing resources between processes would be much quicker, and when hooked up with other computers you could share all your data, all your memory, and have everything work with high performance.

[ckaihatsu]

Physics? Conquered?
Absolutely not.

Some may say that the last big thing in physics was Einstein's relativity, but since then there have been quite a number of discoveries ranging from the confirmation of antimatter to Bose-Einstein condensates. We only recently discovered Dark Energy, and observed cosmic microwave background radiation. Particle physics is going through a (hopefully) discovery ridden phase with the discovery of the tau neutrino about 10 years ago, and now a quest to discover the higgs boson. There are still many theories to be worked through such as a unified field theory, or cosmic inflation. And if all that bores us, I'd say we know very little about time, and hell that opens up a whole new can of worms.


Yaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn.... Huh, what? Sorry -- were you saying something?

Heh -- just kidding. Seriously, from a political person's point of view we could readily ask if this trajectory of investigation is materially worthwhile. The argument could be that it's just more reductionism and hardly deserving of our attentions and societal resources when other, more-humane issues are far more pressing. Even in a post-capitalist, duress-free society the same argument could very well remain valid, with a collective liberated labor deciding to direct mass efforts towards more-immediately-practical projects.

Just for the record I'll maintain a neutral stance regarding pure research, but as a revolutionary leftist I of course would like to see the ills of capitalism ended once and for all as a matter of political priority.

[ckaihatsu]

I think every socialist should support and use free software (otherwise you are messed up ideologically).


To "break it down" the thing of commercial software is that it's arguably more of a commodity con than anything else that has previously been commodified, to-date.

Considering the vital importance of the average computer in the home or office these days (along with the Internet) the operating system software as a human-made tool is hardly an *optional* possession. So, "doing the math", combining the OS's essential functioning with the infinite-replicability character of digital data, we arrive at a feat of human performance that *should*, *theoretically*, be *more communist* than most communists (and technocrats) may have even imagined.

"Digital production", if you will, leverages human labor to even greater -- basically infinite -- scales than the assembly line ever did for industrial / material production. So while engineering and testing cycles might be roughly analogous across the two domains, for 'digital production' once the final version of the OS (or any other software) has been *finalized* its availability to *all* users can be done in an instant, over the net, with virtually *zero* [manufacturing and] distribution costs.

For *any* owner / pimp to come along and slap that into a box for the sake of retailing is something akin to the privatization of water, or charging people by the word for their own talking, or something similarly outlandish. It's good that, in the digital realm, the problem almost solves itself since people's efforts can't be easily suppressed from reaching the Internet -- thus we have free and open-source software. (I've addressed this in the Mutual Aid / D.I.Y. section -- my fave is Linux Mint 8.)





able to fully network *all* computer processors





Your paragraph there was a bit ambiguous (like I don't see how the idea of liberation applies to processors). Do you have any specific points though about how you think we should improve the Internet?


I mean to compare unused or underused processors (within people's own computers, and all others) as being akin to vacant housing, meaning that there are "raw" resources that could be *socialized* to much more humane and beneficial purposes. Granted, the argument could be made that once everyone picks up a computer these days they're set, and certainly most computers these days far surpass the requirements of the average user. (Btw, check with your local recycling facility as people are getting rid of fully capable, slightly older machines all the time.)

But, instead of being constrained to office apps, multimedia, and video games we might collectively realize much more social, network- and processor-intensive applications of computing power that push the boundaries of artistic and scientific exploration -- fractals come to mind immediately, of course.

[CommunityBeliever]

I mean to compare unused or underused processors (within people's own computers, and all others) as being akin to vacant housing

I don't think that is a good comparison as these unused processors would take up electricity and energy so consider that processor usage isn't really free, we need to save energy.

Also, I don't think the demand for processor power is comparable to the demand for housing.


there are "raw" resources that could be *socialized* to much more humane and beneficial purposes.

Sounds good in theory, but I think you need a way of actualizing that considering the costliness of IO operations and the asynchronous IO problem.

So if you can find something for those processors to do mostly independently from external servers (due to IO costs) entirely well the computer is unused by its users perhaps you can make your own Linux distribution that puts that into practice. I would love to see what you can come up with in that regard.

Maybe you could make it so that when the computer is unused you will optimize the file-system, by going through all memory segments and gzipping the ones that have been unused for several days.


processor-intensive applications of computing power that push the boundaries of artistic and scientific exploration

We could combine all the world's best supercomputers into a single location so that far more complicated operations would be possible, rather then having a bunch of supercomputers spread across a variety of countries, but then that raises the question - where would we put them? Would there been some kind of socialist capital city :confused:

[ckaihatsu]

Also, I don't think the demand for processor power is comparable to the demand for housing.


No, you're correct -- it was a loose analogy for the sake of explanation.





I don't think that is a good comparison as these unused processors would take up electricity and energy so consider that processor usage isn't really free, we need to save energy.




Sounds good in theory, but I think you need a way of actualizing that considering the costliness of IO operations and the asynchronous IO problem.




We could combine all the world's best supercomputers into a single location so that far more complicated operations would be possible, rather then having a bunch of supercomputers spread across a variety of countries, but then that raises the question - where would we put them? Would there been some kind of socialist capital city :confused:


Yeah, these are all *political* issues that would necessarily require *political* decisions. Obviously those decisions are well beyond the scope and context of our current, capitalism-based societal social organization.

Or, a post-capitalist liberated labor authority may very well decide that such a massive re-organization of computational resources *would* be trivial, with mass attention and efforts better directed to *other* concerns.... (I don't see any point in speculating or advocating any further here.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We could combine all the world's best supercomputers into a single location so that far more complicated operations would be possible, rather then having a bunch of supercomputers spread across a variety of countries, but then that raises the question - where would we put them? Would there been some kind of socialist capital city :confused:

Bit of a false dichotomy, don't you think? Why can't we have a supercomputer acting as a central hub for each urban area while having ubiquitous small devices as well as wireless coverage for rural or remote areas?

[kitsune]

I think every socialist should support and use free software (otherwise you are messed up ideologically). This is one of the main reasons I switched completely to FOSS; anything else was inconsistent with my values. I must admit, I stayed with Windows a lot longer than I should have, or needed to. Intellectually I knew that there were plenty of Linux distros available that make switching over a cinch, but emotionally it was just too easy to stick with the familiar. When I finally did blow off Windows, I was sorry I had waited so long.

[ckaihatsu]

Although -- it needs to be said here -- from the *consumer* side of things it really *doesn't matter* whether you go with the commercial software *and* overpay by 1000% or get free and open-source software for free.

That's because -- as we all know -- the consumer has only slightly more political power as an individual, and even as a part of an organized-consumer effort like a boycott, than someone who's *not* a consumer and just mouths off in the 'letters' section of the local newspaper or something.

In other words, it's all about the *point of production*, and therefore only organized labor (hopefully rank-and-file) has any *real* chance of shifting productive policy.

As revolutionary leftists we *cannot* validly critique *anyone* for their *consumer* choices because to do so would be to fall into the soft-left camp wherein the determining politics around government policy is sidestepped and ignored in favor of scapegoating individual consumers who are far from influencing the point of production in any way.

[RebelDog]

We could combine all the world's best supercomputers into a single location so that far more complicated operations would be possible, rather then having a bunch of supercomputers spread across a variety of countries, but then that raises the question - where would we put them? Would there been some kind of socialist capital city

Seems pointless to me given that they could be linked and utalised that way. Also, even though it would be global libertarian socialism we should still guard against deploying such control in one region. There is still the possibility (especially in the early years) that 'rogue elements' opposed to socialism could sieze the computer(s) and cause chaos. We have the internet right now and that at least could be a huge benefit in freely sharing information about technology, production methods, medical research etc, information that at this point in time is guarded due to commercial or state interests.

[CommunityBeliever]

As revolutionary leftists we *cannot* validly critique *anyone* for their *consumer* choices because to do so would be to fall into the soft-left camp

As revolutionary leftists we cannot support using software that is entirely controlled by the enemy!

This is a security concern. Proprietary software like Windows can have back-doors and malicious code that nobody knows about.

Our sworn enemies in the CIA and the NSA have access to the Microsoft codes and they can change them to spy on us and to do other malicious things to hinder development in socialist countries. And they can do this at any time without us even knowing!


ubiquitous small devices

After we provide running water and a stable food source to all our people, then we will provide small Internet-enabled devices.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/OLPC_Class_-_Mongolia_Ulaanbaatar.JPG

Like this OLPC poject times 10000, then everyone will get Internet-enabled laptops of their own.


Seems pointless to me given that they could be linked and utalised that way.

Centering lots of super-computers in one place would be useful if we wanted to do incredibly advanced operations, like calculations for the large hadron collider or spaceflight missions. If they were scattered all over the place that would be an enormous hindrance to performance, as IO operations are far more costly then local processor operations.


There is still the possibility (especially in the early years) that 'rogue elements' opposed to socialism could sieze the computer(s) and cause chaos.

Good point. That could be a problem, and natural disasters like tsunamis could a be a threat as well, so if this were to go down we would have to have a sophisticated security system, backups, and an evacuation system so that we could pick up everything and leave if needed.

[ckaihatsu]

As revolutionary leftists we cannot support using software that is entirely controlled by the enemy!

This is a security concern. Proprietary software like Windows can have back-doors and malicious code that nobody knows about.

Our sworn enemies in the CIA and the NSA have access to the Microsoft codes and they can change them to spy on us and to do other malicious things to hinder development in socialist countries. And they can do this at any time without us even knowing!


Agreed. Besides the average-user stuff I also have a background in desktop publishing and graphics. I've been able to move my entire graphics workflow over onto the Linux OS, from the Mac -- including fonts. I get a lot of mileage out of Java apps, including my main tool, Art of Illusion (3-D modeling and rendering).

[leftace53]

Yaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn.... Huh, what? Sorry -- were you saying something?

Heh -- just kidding. Seriously, from a political person's point of view we could readily ask if this trajectory of investigation is materially worthwhile. The argument could be that it's just more reductionism and hardly deserving of our attentions and societal resources when other, more-humane issues are far more pressing. Even in a post-capitalist, duress-free society the same argument could very well remain valid, with a collective liberated labor deciding to direct mass efforts towards more-immediately-practical projects.

Just for the record I'll maintain a neutral stance regarding pure research, but as a revolutionary leftist I of course would like to see the ills of capitalism ended once and for all as a matter of political priority.

While the topic has moved on in subtopic of conversation, my love of all things science must reply to this.

I do agree that we have to end capitalism, and that should take full priority because the full capability of science and technology cannot exist under a system which exploits for profit. However, I was answering the aspect of the question as to whether or not physics was "done" in a sense, which obviously it is not.

After transitioning to a leftist society, there may indeed be some "lag" where more immediately practical projects will be developed (such as burger flipping robots) in order for scientists to focus their attention in true research about the physical world.

Also, going on topic to the freeware/proprietory thing. Before and during the revolution, I whole heartedly agree that we should use freeware (I use linux!). However, after the revolution, will it not be possible to make windows( a propretory OS) into a free OS, with sourcodes and everything readily available? Granted that will probably use up resources that don't necessarily need to be used, but I'm just trying to make the point that we shouldn't even have such a thing as a proprietory OS/computer app after the revolution.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

After we provide running water and a stable food source to all our people

This goes without saying, does it not? It seems obvious to me that, as important as internet connectivity is, it is superceded by more immediate concerns.

[CommunityBeliever]

we shouldn't even have such a thing as a proprietory OS/computer app after the revolution.

A very encouraging thought :)


However, after the revolution, will it not be possible to make windows( a propretory OS) into a free OS, with sourcodes and everything readily available? Yes. I suspect that at that point we could mix Windows and Linux together and form a vastly superior OS with all the advantages of Windows, like application support, as well as all the advantages of Linux.

Theoretically, if we were able to organize a ton of computer scientists we could develop a SASOS superior to both Windows and Linux.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes. I suspect that at that point we could mix Windows and Linux together and form a vastly superior OS with all the advantages of Windows, like application support, as well as all the advantages of Linux.


And what'll it be called??? (Wait for it....)

* Windex *


(!!!)

(Heh!)(Because it's a kind of spray-on glass cleaner.)(Because it's actually funny, in a joking kind of way.)(Because I *can* make funniness, *that's* why...!)

[Luisrah]

This.

Also in addition, under socialism what gets researched would be for the well being of society for example Aids, ocean purification, instead of biological weapons.

Exactly, if you take profit out of the way, it means everything that comes out of science is to benefit humanity. Not to meantion that with the incentives and simply the fact that there would be free education means that all the potential geniuses will be in fact geniuses. And there is a lot of them.

And not just science, but technology too. Ever got annoyed by the fact that if your cell phone charger breaks, you can't use your brother's because it's of another brand? All gone. One cell phone ''company'', which means all the good things about each get together.

[Ocean Seal]

Socialism would be the ultimate profit for science. Imagine what can be done once education in the schools improves *for all* once we stop the war and allocate many of the resources used for the army on education and healthcare. Students at all levels would be encouraged to strive for the betterment of themselves and mankind. No more CEO's reaping huge bonuses, just people moving forward developing new ideas. Every discovery could have earthshaking applications as it would become public property and everyone would have access to it. No longer would there be the aggravation of accessing a journal article that you find is not covered by your subscription. With an educated populace and all the resources of the world science would move forward at an amazing pace.

[ckaihatsu]

The argument I've been using lately is to point to how our current Information Revolution could leverage an *actual* revolution -- academia has now been open-sourced thanks to Wikipedia, and the same kind of tool could easily keep track of all known assets and resources once private property is abolished in favor of collective public administration. Hell, maybe the Wikipedia format could transfer over *perfectly*, with workplace-specific worker-operator discussions taking place publicly in each page's 'Talk' section...(!)

[tbasherizer]

Although -- it needs to be said here -- from the *consumer* side of things it really *doesn't matter* whether you go with the commercial software *and* overpay by 1000% or get free and open-source software for free.

That's because -- as we all know -- the consumer has only slightly more political power as an individual, and even as a part of an organized-consumer effort like a boycott, than someone who's *not* a consumer and just mouths off in the 'letters' section of the local newspaper or something.

In other words, it's all about the *point of production*, and therefore only organized labor (hopefully rank-and-file) has any *real* chance of shifting productive policy.

As revolutionary leftists we *cannot* validly critique *anyone* for their *consumer* choices because to do so would be to fall into the soft-left camp wherein the determining politics around government policy is sidestepped and ignored in favor of scapegoating individual consumers who are far from influencing the point of production in any way.


It's not a matter of consumer choice to try and make money flow away from capital that drives some socialists' enthusiasm for FOSS, but the methods of development and distribution used by FOSS. The democratic management of an Open Source project, in my opinion, mirrors the way industry could be managed in the future. The development and expansion of the FOSS development framework is a kind of "practice run" for the administration of a socialist economy.

Of course, consumers shouldn't be critiqued for their consumer choices, as they are uneducated choices. (Windows is installed by default on most non-Apple computers, Apple only preinstalls Mac onto their computers, and Windows permeates popular culture in terms of computing, in spite of Linux's clear technical advantage over the other two) However, agitation in favour of FOSS is necessary, as is the smashing of proprietary software, to further the development of a worker-consumer-run economy.

FOSS is a tool of the proletariat against the alienation from their labour, as it puts control of the product directly into their hands in terms of being able to modify the product itself post-production and in terms of being able to control the production process itself.

Sure, producing real, tangible TVs, for example, isn't as easy as making copies of software, but with the advance of industrial technology and science, the applicability of FOSS methods to real life industry is increasing. What future corporations who might make the shift to open-source industry would think is a trendy application of online fads to their business could unwittingly be their undoing, as they would open their business to world-wide worker administration and removal from their control.

[ckaihatsu]

Sure, producing real, tangible TVs, for example, isn't as easy as making copies of software, but with the advance of industrial technology and science, the applicability of FOSS methods to real life industry is increasing. What future corporations who might make the shift to open-source industry would think is a trendy application of online fads to their business could unwittingly be their undoing, as they would open their business to world-wide worker administration and removal from their control.





"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin


bit.ly/aQ3WPa


While the *information* used to manufacture consumer appliances like TVs could very well become open-source, if it isn't already in some cases, the *production plant* and *materials* themselves could *not* readily become open-source in the foreseeable future, as far as I can tell -- I hope I'm wrong, of course.

What's far more promising in the present day are new developments in open-sourcing *information* that was developed with public funds but then kept secret from the public. You may be familiar with the WikiLeaks action -- possibly precedent-setting (I don't know) -- in which the public was *given back* some War-on-Afghanistan-related information that its funds had developed, in the form of a 1.4 gigabyte downloadable encrypted archive file.

So in essence the nationalist intelligence / security agencies' role became more "open-source", since WikiLeaks appealed to the U.S. government to cooperate in the selective protecting of sensitive information from the file, with the possibility of releasing the information verbatim to the public as a fall-back option simply by publishing the encryption key.


Julian Assange accused of rape, arrest warrant retracted

http://www.revleft.com/vb/julian-assange-accused-t140505/index.html