The Problem with Planned Economies

[MassDemocrat]

The continued existence of revolutionary leftists in our enlightened era disturbs me. Communism as an ideology dates to a simpler technological age, before human science had come to grips with the complexity of life processes and their presence in sociological phenomenon. Any sort of planned economy -- be it communist or socialist -- seeks to enforce optimal outcomes via the intelligences of a discrete group. No man can comprehend the preference structure of society. Furthermore, institutions created to execute this goal are inherently subject to corruption and abuse of power.

Please, for a second, disregard every negative talking point a fellow radical leftist has thrown your way. Forget greed, forget gluttony, forget exploitation. Think about rationalism.

Society is complex. Individuals have wildly varying preferences, values, and ideologies. Whereas I might want to eat a hot dog, you want goulash. If an economic system's goal is to efficently satisfy as much of the public's preference as is possible, how can planned policy account for this variation? Think about that, and someone give me an answer.

Now consider the brilliance of capitalism. In a free market, devoid of market failure, individual consumers exercise free expression of their preference structure and their decision-making process requires only information about the choice at hand. If I want a hot dog, I go to the store and pick out my favorite brand -- all I need to know is that I'm hungry for one. Collectively, these decisions act as feedback to the market, which adjusts its price (in emergent, non-intelligent fashion) to optimize supply and demand. Price equilibrium reflects the point where no forces will push it up or down -- it perfectly represents the preferences of suppliers and demanders.

I think that the debate between Creationism and evolution is an excellent analogy to that between communism/socialism and capitalism. Creationists often deny the capability of emergent processes -- to them, only an intelligence could create organisms of the complexity we observe on earth. Evolutionary biology and studies in computer science, however, have clearly demonstrated that simple rules can create ultra-complex patterns. Fundamentally, radical leftists have the same issue with capitalism. Your argument is this: only deliberate human intelligence can structure an economy with equality and welfare in mind. Like evolution, though, capitalism is a set of simple rules (voluntary market exchange using universally acceptable currency, etc) that can produce complex, optimal patterns. Could engineers design a better gazelle than nature? Of course not!

Capitalism works because it relies on decentralized information. Individual consumers make individual choices and individual suppliers make individual choices. The market, as a structure, automatically determines the optimal distribution of production, price, and consumption. Communism asks humans to do that with limited knowledge of the populace.

Why do I bother making these arguments? You're on the Internet, a medium that puts a similar premium on individual choice, emergent processes, and Pareto optimization -- I know you can see the light. As a medium, the Internet has so much resonance with capitalism; unlike TV with its content domination and monopolies. I think that by using the web and thinking about capitalism in this manner you can start to abandon this archane ideology and start making contributions to political discourse. Markets aren't perfect -- the government must intervene to correct failures. Convening in self-reinforcing, radical, almost masturbatory discussions of irrelevant ideologies doesn't do anything for anyone. Find the rationalism and intellectual beauty inherent in capitalism and work to make it the best it can be.

[NovelGentry]

The continued existence of revolutionary leftists in our enlightened era disturbs me. Communism as an ideology dates to a simpler technological age, before human science had come to grips with the complexity of life processes and their presence in sociological phenomenon. Any sort of planned economy -- be it communist or socialist -- seeks to enforce optimal outcomes via the intelligences of a discrete group. No man can comprehend the preference structure of society. Furthermore, institutions created to execute this goal are inherently subject to corruption and abuse of power.

Please, for a second, disregard every negative talking point a fellow radical leftist has thrown your way. Forget greed, forget gluttony, forget exploitation. Think about rationalism.

Society is complex. Individuals have wildly varying preferences, values, and ideologies. Whereas I might want to eat a hot dog, you want goulash. If an economic system's goal is to efficently satisfy as much of the public's preference as is possible, how can planned policy account for this variation? Think about that, and someone give me an answer.

Now consider the brilliance of capitalism. In a free market, devoid of market failure, individual consumers exercise free expression of their preference structure and their decision-making process requires only information about the choice at hand. If I want a hot dog, I go to the store and pick out my favorite brand -- all I need to know is that I'm hungry for one. Collectively, these decisions act as feedback to the market, which adjusts its price (in emergent, non-intelligent fashion) to optimize supply and demand. Price equilibrium reflects the point where no forces will push it up or down -- it perfectly represents the preferences of suppliers and demanders.

I think that the debate between Creationism and evolution is an excellent analogy to that between communism/socialism and capitalism. Creationists often deny the capability of emergent processes -- to them, only an intelligence could create organisms of the complexity we observe on earth. Evolutionary biology and studies in computer science, however, have clearly demonstrated that simple rules can create ultra-complex patterns. Fundamentally, radical leftists have the same issue with capitalism. Your argument is this: only deliberate human intelligence can structure an economy with equality and welfare in mind. Like evolution, though, capitalism is a set of simple rules (voluntary market exchange using universally acceptable currency, etc) that can produce complex, optimal patterns. Could engineers design a better gazelle than nature? Of course not!

Capitalism works because it relies on decentralized information. Individual consumers make individual choices and individual suppliers make individual choices. The market, as a structure, automatically determines the optimal distribution of production, price, and consumption. Communism asks humans to do that with limited knowledge of the populace.

Why do I bother making these arguments? You're on the Internet, a medium that puts a similar premium on individual choice, emergent processes, and Pareto optimization -- I know you can see the light. As a medium, the Internet has so much resonance with capitalism; unlike TV with its content domination and monopolies. I think that by using the web and thinking about capitalism in this manner you can start to abandon this archane ideology and start making contributions to political discourse. Markets aren't perfect -- the government must intervene to correct failures. Convening in self-reinforcing, radical, almost masturbatory discussions of irrelevant ideologies doesn't do anything for anyone. Find the rationalism and intellectual beauty inherent in capitalism and work to make it the best it can be.

Your whole argument turns to shit when you look at examples of community gift production/consumption like the open source movement and how much more choice it offers compared to the capitalist market. Of course, technology has not advanced far enough for every portion of our production and consumption to follow the same rules that this one example does, but that is what communist theory is all about really. You say that it was spawned in a less technologically advanced time, but it's primary clause was that productive forces have to move forward, evolve, advanced, progress, etc, before we can see the conditions necessary to allow and for that matter dictate changing property relations.

Your points were debunked before you even typed this, you just never read enough about what you were arguing against to know it.

[JKP]

This may surprise you, but communism does not have a command economy. Assuming you typed all of that yourself, you could at least have done some elementary research on the subject.

[Zingu]

Your arguement is similar to Von Mises's, but it still makes the same flaw; you assume that "Communism" is centralized command economy.

But the arguement really doesn't hold up to decentralized economics; which Communism is all about.

[Guest1]

Well, it does have elements of a command economy, simply as a consequence of the extension of democracy to control over the economy. Certain priorities will be set through democracy, such as environmental concerns, health, education, an end to weapons production, etc...

But those are overarching concerns, not day to day production plans. You'll still get your hot og and goulash.

[MassDemocrat]

the open source movement and how much more choice it offers compared to the capitalist market

Think harder. The concept of "open source" is theoretically related to capitalism. I'm going to tackle this issue as systematically as possible, so I can be clear.

First: Characteristics of Open-Source Products

It's important to think about the innate characteristics of open source products.
a) Monetary production costs are minimal
b) No distribution costs
c) They exhibit nonrivalness; utilizing an open source product does not prevent someone else from utilizing it
d) Heavy reliance on decentralized information -- as a corollary, they're largely non-excludable, since exclusion limits the resources from which you can draw knowledge

Open-source products, to me, largely fit the definition of public goods. Public goods exist under capitalism, they're mostly provided through government intervention. National defense, for example, is a public good. Open-source products are unique in that they have almost no monetary costs associated with them. That's a crucial distinction, because they can be provided by private collective action rather than government action -- they aren't capital-intensive.

Second: How Open-Source is Theoretically Similar to Capitalism

Surface analysis of open-source products might give the impression that they are communistic -- one might conceptualize them as "shared property". But they're really narrow, specific markets of ideas utilized by a collectivity to provide an optimized good.

Let's look at Wikipedia as an example. The open source encyclopedia asks its users to contribute to any subject where they have expert knowledge. Instantly, we know that information is decentralized -- Wikipedia is not planning the structure of this encylopedia nor its content, but asks individuals to exchange their expertise. Contributors receive solidary benefits, as well as free access to others' expertise. All articles face fitness tests, though -- they're subject to the criticisms of other users.

A socialistic digital encyclopedia would not rely on such decentralized information. Instead, it would be the product of an individual, who wrote an encyclopedia in its entirety before offering it as freeware.

The difference is feedback. Wikipedia is a complex, adaptive system that relies on feedback (the fitness test I spoke of) to moderate the submissions of its users. Through this feedback, the encyclopedia is optimized -- suppliers include what they want, demanders what they want, until equilibrium is reached.

Socialistic systems don't have feedback mechanisms. They're the result of human planning, and any feedback comes long after production. A Five Year Plan dictates the goods an economy will produce and its success isn't realized until after a disastrous five years.

Third: Look at Theory and Resonance, Not Where a Product Originated

I'd guess the idea that open-source products are innately communist came from the notion of the Internet as a communist utopia, where products are free. But the free exchange of products on the Internet has nothing to do with communism -- when production/distribution costs are zero, the optimal price for society will be near zero as well under a free market.

You need to consider capitalism as an example of an emergent complex adaptive system that relies on feedback. Theoretically, communism is a system of monolithic structures exhibiting virtually no dynamism.

[MassDemocrat]

I've done plenty of research on the subject, don't worry about me.


But the arguement really doesn't hold up to decentralized economics; which Communism is all about.

Communism is not about decentralized economics. If we're talking about actual communism -- which, in terms of theory, is actually socialism -- then the state controls production and clearly must run a command economy.

If you want to discuss theoretical communism, which has yet to exist beyond isolated communes, it's still a command economy despite a smaller scale. Even when workers control production, whether it's as part of a workers union or a comprehensive commune, planning is key to the economy. Production may be the result of local collaboration between individual end-users, but it's still an example of planning economic use over time. There's no feedback mechanism, unless we're talking about economies on such a small-scale that production will occur daily to fit immediate need -- and no actual society can exist with a system such as this.

[MassDemocrat]

One more thing, NovelGentry --


Of course, technology has not advanced far enough for every portion of our production and consumption to follow the same rules that this one example does, but that is what communist theory is all about really.

I guess I'd agree with you there, in a sense. When production and distribution costs of all products are near zero, a free market would dictate that prices are near zero. So although the market may still exist, functionally, we'd have a communist society.

But when, exactly, do you expect costs to be so negligible?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If we're talking about actual communism -- which, in terms of theory, is actually socialism -- then the state controls production and clearly must run a command economy.

So then, since you realize this, you should have spoke of socialism directly, and not communism.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:37 PM

But when, exactly, do you expect costs to be so negligible?


When the means of production support it.

Look at agriculture for instance: (from wikipedia)



"For example, average yields of corn (maize) in the USA have increased from around 2.5 tons per hectare (40 bushels per acre) in 1900 to about 9.4 t/ha (150 bushels per acre) in 2001, primarily due to improvements in genetics. Similarly, worldwide average wheat yields have increased from less than 1 t/ha in 1900 to more than 2.5 t/ha in 1990. South American average wheat yields are around 2 t/ha, African under 1 t/ha, Egypt and Arabia up to 3.5 to 4 t/ha with irrigation. In contrast, the average wheat yield in countries such as France is over 8 t/ha. Higher yields are due to improvements in genetics, as well as use of intensive farming techniques (use of fertilizers, chemical pest control, growth control to avoid lodging)."

And that's not even counting genetic engineering.

If we have the abilty to feed the world, should we not?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The only thing you sound like you have "extensively" read is the standard libertarian arguments against their straw-man version of communism.
Furthermore, yr understanding of capitalism clearly falls within the niavely idealistic end of the spectrum - practically speaking, capitalism never has, nor ever will, provide a choice between hot dog or goulash for the great majority, or, for an appallingly high number, even an option or opportunity to consume the necessary calories to sustain life.


Theoretically, communism is a system of monolithic structures exhibiting virtually no dynamism.

Because, damn, democratic participation in the institutions of the economy totally doesn't constitute feedback - only a oligarchical system of narrow dominance of the world markets can tell us what we really need (and, evidently, people in sub-saharan Africa don't really need AIDS medication).

[Zingu]

Communism is not about decentralized economics. If we're talking about actual communism -- which, in terms of theory, is actually socialism -- then the state controls production and clearly must run a command economy.

If you want to discuss theoretical communism, which has yet to exist beyond isolated communes, it's still a command economy despite a smaller scale

When I'm talking about Communism; I'm talking about Communism. The one and only Communism. :rolleyes:



Think harder. The concept of "open source" is theoretically related to capitalism. I'm going to tackle this issue as systematically as possible, so I can be clear.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nobody makes any capital off the open source movement, therefore it
isn't capitalist!


Instantly, we know that information is decentralized -- Wikipedia is not planning the structure of this encylopedia nor its content, but asks individuals to exchange their expertise. Contributors receive solidary benefits, as well as free access to others' expertise. All articles face fitness tests, though -- they're subject to the criticisms of other users.

A socialistic digital encyclopedia would not rely on such decentralized information. Instead, it would be the product of an individual, who wrote an encyclopedia in its entirety before offering it as freeware.

The difference is feedback. Wikipedia is a complex, adaptive system that relies on feedback (the fitness test I spoke of) to moderate the submissions of its users. Through this feedback, the encyclopedia is optimized -- suppliers include what they want, demanders what they want, until equilibrium is reached.

Socialistic systems don't have feedback mechanisms. They're the result of human planning, and any feedback comes long after production. A Five Year Plan dictates the goods an economy will produce and its success isn't realized until after a disastrous five years.

You're making shit up.

In Capitalism we don't have any say on what goes into an encyclopedia anyways; the company does that for us; and we have to read it...and believe it. Which is usaully filled with capitalist propaganda and lies




You need to consider capitalism as an example of an emergent complex adaptive system that relies on feedback. Theoretically, communism is a system of monolithic structures exhibiting virtually no dynamism.

Again, complete shit!
In Communism, people decide what they want and need; there is no need for feedback, because its the people themselves who themselves control the means of production; they can make changes as they see fit.


Communism is not about decentralized economics. If we're talking about actual communism -- which, in terms of theory, is actually socialism -- then the state controls production and clearly must run a command economy.


Sure you know what your talking about. :D

[NovelGentry]

a) Monetary production costs are minimal

Which will become true of all goods over time as technology advances.


b) No distribution costs

The internet doesn't cost money? What you mean to say is that the consumer covers the distribution cost, one of the few places there actually is a cost (and by that I mean price) in open source software.


c) They exhibit nonrivalness; utilizing an open source product does not prevent someone else from utilizing it

No more than buying apples prevents someone from buying other apples. There is a distinction here admittedly. We find that virtual products are essentially infinitely reproducable in their consumption form, HOWEVER, it is far more important to note that unlike apples and other food items, other necessities in general, the productive power necessary to create the total good is far more intensive -- more, the product is never really finished.

Software of any sorts maintains an almost infinite production time, is there any doubt if you applied such a production time to other goods you would see them in such supply? Not necessarily ifinite, but in over-abundance?

You can look at this far more economically and you'll see even more strange things about this aspect which you wrongly perceive as simply, "nonrivalness."


d) Heavy reliance on decentralized information -- as a corollary, they're largely non-excludable, since exclusion limits the resources from which you can draw knowledge

Indeed.



Open-source products, to me, largely fit the definition of public goods. Public goods exist under capitalism, they're mostly provided through government intervention. National defense, for example, is a public good.

Problem being that public goods are still paid for and still restricted in consumption by both material and non-material forces.


Open-source products are unique in that they have almost no monetary costs associated with them.

How so? Do you mean price? You are right that they generally have little to no price, you are completely wrong if you are saying that it does not cost anything to produce them.


That's a crucial distinction, because they can be provided by private collective action rather than government action -- they aren't capital-intensive.

But they are, far more capital intensive than most things. The entire internet becomes a portion of their means of production. Open source software could not function the way it does without it. Every computer which contributes to it, every necessary morsel of food for the individuals coding it, all the resources (books, compilers, etc) required for them to code it.

Programming of any sorts, particularly that which produces a high quality and intricate program is one of the most capital intensive things there is.

The only thing which has changed is the relative value of the capital necessary to produce it. But this is not unique to OSS, it is found everywhere.


Let's look at Wikipedia as an example. The open source encyclopedia asks its users to contribute to any subject where they have expert knowledge. Instantly, we know that information is decentralized -- Wikipedia is not planning the structure of this encylopedia nor its content, but asks individuals to exchange their expertise. Contributors receive solidary benefits, as well as free access to others' expertise. All articles face fitness tests, though -- they're subject to the criticisms of other users.

Sounds like communism. Decentralized productive control (in the hands of the producers), Gif economy you give your labor and expertise and we ask, but do not require, for you to give yours. Contributors recieve solidary benefits (respect from fellow workers, thankfulness of community)... and their labor too faces fitness tests, subject to the criticism of their fellow workers and the consumers of that good.


A socialistic digital encyclopedia would not rely on such decentralized information. Instead, it would be the product of an individual, who wrote an encyclopedia in its entirety before offering it as freeware.

Do you know how to deconstruct words? A "social"-istic digital encyclopedia could never be the product of an "individual."


The difference is feedback. Wikipedia is a complex, adaptive system that relies on feedback (the fitness test I spoke of) to moderate the submissions of its users. Through this feedback, the encyclopedia is optimized -- suppliers include what they want, demanders what they want, until equilibrium is reached.

Uh-huh.


Socialistic systems don't have feedback mechanisms. They're the result of human planning, and any feedback comes long after production. A Five Year Plan dictates the goods an economy will produce and its success isn't realized until after a disastrous five years.

And now we see the true flaw in your thinking. Like I said before, "you just never read enough about what you were arguing against to know it."


when production/distribution costs are zero

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Aside from thinking that the soviet union is a respectable model of communism or for that matter socialism, your second biggest issue is falling into the same type of trap you're trying to prove I fell into. Throughout this response you have posited that I have only looked at the "face" of open source software and come to find it to be communist. It seems you are the one only looking at the face of it, you have not in any way examined the real productive/distributive costs of open source software, which whether you want to believe it or not, are frequently much higher than that of commercial software -- you have instead assumed, without any further inquiry, that the cost of the product is an automatic reflection of the cost of it's production.

Now here is the most hilarious part. If it wasn't for certain descrpencies in the actual mode of production for open source software, you would have just blatantly assumed that the labor theory of value holds true, you would have just bowed down to Ricardian/Marxist economics and admitted fully and openly that supply and demand doesn't mean shit when it comes to price. Afterall, if these goods are infinitely reproducable, should not all software have such a minimal price?

There are of course descrepencies which mash this whole thing up... in the end, you make some very clear and fale assumptions by merely looking at the "face" of the issue. You nearly use Marxist economics to prove it -- and fall completely on your ass when it becomes completely apparent that the production of open source software is quite equivalent to that of commerical software in terms of necessary capital, man-power, etc, but differs merely in method/mode.

[MassDemocrat]

Zingu:

Nobody makes any capital off the open source movement, therefore it
isn't capitalist!

That has no relevance. You have a limited conception of capitalism. It doesn't mean 'business' or 'money'.


In Communism, people decide what they want and need; there is no need for feedback, because its the people themselves who themselves control the means of production; they can make changes as they see fit.

Right, and the main idea of the open source movement (and capitalism) is that people can't adequately decide for themselves on what to produce -- thus they create a PROCESS by which EVERYONE can interact with the system and contribute feedback, objectively molding a Pareto optimal solution.

NovelGentry:

The internet doesn't cost money? What you mean to say is that the consumer covers the distribution cost, one of the few places there actually is a cost (and by that I mean price) in open source software.


Open source itself doesn't cost money. We can assume that its users would pay Internet subscription fees either way.

Opportunity costs (time, effort, etc) may exist, but they're immediately offset by the obvious benefits contributors derive. It's a hobby. So later, when you say that there are costs associated with them, I agree. But only those who gain non-material benefits outweighing the non-material costs will contribute.

You're wrong to say that programming isn't capital intensive. One can create software in his own home, with his own computer, and with little investment. There are very few fixed costs associated with production. Coal mining is capital intensive; software production is not.


No more than buying apples prevents someone from buying other apples. There is a distinction here admittedly. We find that virtual products are essentially infinitely reproducable in their consumption form, HOWEVER, it is far more important to note that unlike apples and other food items, other necessities in general, the productive power necessary to create the total good is far more intensive -- more, the product is never really finished.


Nonrivalness is a fundamental economic idea that's crucial when establishing a typology of goods. If I eat an apple, you can't eat it too. However, if I access a Wikipedia article, I'm not stopping you from doing the same thing.

The product may not be complete, but it is 'finished' in the sense that it is usable. That's what really matters.


you would have just bowed down to Ricardian/Marxist economics and admitted fully and openly that supply and demand doesn't mean shit when it comes to price. Afterall, if these goods are infinitely reproducable, should not all software have such a minimal price?


This part actually made me laugh out loud. Thank you. Now, think about what "infinitely reproducable" means in terms of supply. It's infinite! Capitalism estimates the social costs of production -- if these are zero, price should be zero. That's not communism, it's basic free market operations.

What you're saying about costs has some truth, but is really irrelevant. I mean, if I go outside and play baseball, there are costs associated with that -- opportunity costs, physical exertion, etc. But I don't deserve to be paid for that, because the benefits I derive from the activity immediately compensate myself.

[NovelGentry]

Open source itself doesn't cost money. We can assume that its users would pay Internet subscription fees either way.

You call this an argument? Assume all you want that they will pay internet subscription fees either way, that doesn't take away from the fact that they need to pay them in order to acquire it, it simply means that the cost of it cannot be equated directly to their internet subscription fees as that cost is dispersed among a many varied goods.


Opportunity costs (time, effort, etc) may exist, but they're immediately offset by the obvious benefits contributors derive. It's a hobby. So later, when you say that there are costs associated with them, I agree. But only those who gain non-material benefits outweighing the non-material costs will contribute.

This doesn't remove the costs, it merely says the costs are "worth it" to the developers. You denied such costs existed.


You're wrong to say that programming isn't capital intensive. One can create software in his own home, with his own computer, and with little investment. There are very few fixed costs associated with production. Coal mining is capital intensive; software production is not.

I'll take it you meant that, "I'm wrong to say programming is capital intensive." But no, I'm not.... at least not for what we're talking about. It may be completely true that it's not capital intensive to produce a simple script that adds two numbers inputted by the user, but the type of software we're talking about requires a vast amount of capital for it's development. Inluding thousands of computers, some desktops, some servers, the means to link these computers, etc..etc. Again, just because the capital that it requires is already in the hands of the people does not mean that it doesn't require it.

But this is what Marx argues. Productive forces develop and relationships to these productive forces change. It was the bourgeoisie, born of the merchants, wealthy peasants, and handicraftsmen of feudal society who acquired the loam which began to transform this relationship until the entire mode of production had to change to accomidate this type of change everywhere.


Nonrivalness is a fundamental economic idea that's crucial when establishing a typology of goods. If I eat an apple, you can't eat it too. However, if I access a Wikipedia article, I'm not stopping you from doing the same thing.

But nonrivalness simply presumes a certain productive output. It exists for an apple if there is overabundance of apples too.


Now, think about what "infinitely reproducable" means in terms of supply. It's infinite! Capitalism estimates the social costs of production -- if these are zero, price should be zero. That's not communism, it's basic free market operations.

Where do you think the basis for communist property relations exists in? Thin air? It's the theory of overproduction in a capitalist market which brings us to communist property relations. Again, you lack any understanding whatsoever about what you're talking about. Communism is the abolition of private property -- that is all. Communist theory presumes this to be the eventual product of changing property relations under capitalism due to overproduction.


I mean, if I go outside and play baseball, there are costs associated with that -- opportunity costs, physical exertion, etc. But I don't deserve to be paid for that, because the benefits I derive from the activity immediately compensate myself.

And again, this does not mean no such costs exist, it merely means that it is somehow worth the costs. There are such costs, as well as other more material costs associated with all actions, whether or not the action is worth the cost is another question.

[Morpheus]

MassDemocrat,

You are attacking a straw man. Many contemporary revolutionary leftists do not support a command economy and are highly critical of past command economies. Most of those who do advocate a command economy only see it as a transitional phase, which will evolve into something else.

Furthermore, your arguements can easily be used to discredit your own position. What's called capitalism is really a system of interlocking command economies called corporations. To decry large scale command economies yet advocate smaller command economies - companies/corporations - seems utterly contradictory to me. All this talk about capitalism being based on a "free market" with "feedback" and such is just a fantasy designed to make capitalism look good, it has no bearing on reality. Nobody makes living making widgets & trading them for thingimabobs. We go to work and take orders from a boss, where there's a chain of command. That's what capitalism is really about. A command economy is really just a highly monopolistic version of capitalism.

Also, open source itself may not directly cost cost a huge amount of money but it does cost a large amount of volunteer labor, which any good capitalist will realize has monetary value. If labor can be donated in such a way to create programs then the same can potentially be done with houses, roads, medical care, food & other things so long as the means of production necessary to do such things aren't controlled by corporations or capitalists who will refuse to let us use them.