new | show | ask | jobs Github

osti 6 hours ago

Maybe open source == communism

▲

darkwater 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Good ol' Steve "Developers! Developers! Developers!" Ballmer said so a long time ago. What a visionary!

▲

tadfisher 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nah, open source means those who do the work own the result. It's supercapitalism.

▲

pheggs 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I dont think thats right, the models and the gpus are the means of production.

in capitalism the people with the capital get the profit, not the people who do the work. however, workers are said to benefit too through their salary, just less so

▲

tadfisher 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The reason regular-capitalism worked is that all production used to depend on workers bottlenecking the free flow of capital by demanding salaries in exchange for their labor. Now that we've removed that obstacle, capitalism demands workers seize the means of production in order to maintain the status quo. Hence, supercapitalism.

	▲	throwaway-blaze 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		regular capitalism works but now that the means of production are not factories, the workers have to become more entrepreneurial. Then they will control their destinies.
	▲	pheggs 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		workers seizing the means of production is by definition socialism and not capitalism though, that's the whole idea behind socialism

▲

konart 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But China is not communist event though the rulling party the word in its name.

▲

pheggs 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

what makes you think that china ever gave up its communist goals? I personally see that everything they do aims towards that goal. From the one child policy, the huge amounts of empty apartments they build, the stuff they produce for almost free, the fishing.. open sourcing the models perfectly fits that culture too, it's the means of production

▲

Saline9515 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

China is a ruthless capitalist country managed by an authoritarian regime. Planning and lack of respect for the individual or the rule of law are not communist per se.

▲

otterley 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The one-child policy died a long time ago. Also, the accumulation of wealth by connected politicians and businesspeople flies in the face of what communism is supposed to stand for.

There is a reason real estate values in popular cities has skyrocketed, and it’s not due to the locals getting wealthier. It’s where Chinese and other oligarchs put their ill-gotten wealth (well, besides Bitcoin).

▲

bwv848 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One-child policy did not die, it just morphed into Three-child policy, still a form of family planning, and still would probably fine people for having more than three kids.

▲

pheggs 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The one-child policy died a long time ago.

true, but as far as I understand it did because birth rates got too low. so they replaced it with a two-child policy and later with a three-child policy

> Also, the accumulation of wealth by connected politicians and businesspeople flies in the face of what communism is supposed to stand for.

Yeah, I am sure there's a lot of cases for that. But as far as I know the amount of billionaires has started declining in China, and I don't see how that means that they as a country moved away from the goal, it just means there's issues

> There is a reason real estate values in popular cities has skyrocketed, and it’s not due to the locals getting wealthier.

I don't know about that, you could be right. A google search for real estate prices in china reveal a lot of news articles how they are going down though.

> It’s where Chinese and other oligarchs put their ill-gotten wealth (well, besides Bitcoin).

Wouldn't be surprised if rich people in china invest in real estate. They don't have free capital flow, so its not easy to invest abroad and it becomes an obvious choice. Bitcoin is banned in China for that reason too

But again, as far as I know that does not mean the country moved their goals of trying to reach communism one day

▲

otterley 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> I don't see how that means that they as a country moved away from the goal, it just means there's issues

They're further from Communism than they've ever been since the PRC was founded. The gap between rich and poor is growing there, not shrinking.

> A google search for real estate prices in china reveal a lot of news articles how they are going down though.

They're investing outside China (Vancouver, Toronto, NYC, London, Sydney, Melbourne, etc.) because their assets are safer there (these countries all have strong property protection laws). Like Bitcoin, freedom of capital flows may be restricted, but the wealthy seem to be evading these restrictions with impunity.

	▲	pheggs 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> They're further from Communism than they've ever been since the PRC was founded. The gap between rich and poor is growing there, not shrinking. I suppose it depends on what time frame you look at, it's shrinking since 2010, but inequality rose more than that in the 80s: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/China/gini_inequality_index... However, that's not my point - I did not mean to say that they are going to be successful but rather that it still appears to be a long term goal for them. > Like Bitcoin, freedom of capital flows may be restricted, but the wealthy seem to be evading these restrictions with impunity. I don't know about that, without any source of data I guess I just have to take your word for it. I would not be surprised if you were right in this case though.

▲

fragmede 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea would like a word.

▲

osti 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh i’m fully aware of that lol