[Sussex] Linux is capitalism, Microsoft is communism?

[Mark Harrison]

Time for a new thread, based on one that's just started on another (non-UK)
LUG....

It's deliberately not technical, but an attempt to have an ECONOMIC debate
about why Linux is actually the informational heir to capitalism.... and I'm
setting this up to be kicked at, because I believe that the ideas almost
certainly AREN'T perfect, and the best way to refine them is through the
challenge of open debate....

The reason I think that this debate is important is that I believe that we
need
to start influencing "think-tanks" and government policy bodies into WHY
the OpenSource movement is fundamentally compatable with our society,
and why letting MS go on as they are presents a threat.


I'm about to summarise much of what Robert Heilbroner writes in Chapter 2 of
"The Worldly Philosophers", an excellent and readable introduction to the
development of economic thought, and blessedly free of equations.

His analysis is that there have only been three ways in which societies have
functioned so as to guard against collapse:

1: Use of tradition. Engrave the "rules" of society such that the social,
unquestioned, norm is to do what our parents did. Whether one chooses
Pharonical Egypt, or the Indian Caste system, setting up a society so that
no-one even questions what they need to do does give stability, and ensures
that you don't run out of farmers. (Generally, religions have been used to
enforce this mindset, and challenging the status quo, or even wanting to do
a different job from your father was a case of sacriledge.)

2: Use of authority. The pyramids weren't built because a contractor decided
to build them. The five-year-plans of the Soviet Union weren't about
historical tradition. Both were command societies, where a top-down, central
planning group ordered everything. (Egypt shows that it's possible to
combine this with the "tradition" society, USSR shows it doesn't have to be
combined.)

3: Use of the "market system". Everyone acts independantly to do what's to
their "best advantage" (however they choose to define that, and taking into
account that everyone has a different perception of advantage, possibility,
and starting position.) Instead of the pull of tradition or the whip of
authority, everyone goes their own way, but the interplay of person against
person, product against product, service against service, innovation against
innovation, means that society ends up with its necessary tasks completed.
(Because as food starts to run out, it becomes more advantageous to become a
farmer, no matter that there's no one with a gun telling you to get out into
the field.)

Now, the point about the market system is that it fosters, cultivates, and
rewards innovation, wheras type 1 economies reject it, and type 2s make it
possible, but put in place the very, very, unweildly processes caused by
massive centralisation, making it hard for new ideas to become adopted.

Which of these sounds like Microsoft? To me, Microsoft sounds very much like
a "type 2" economy. A central command authority sets technical strategy, and
products are produced to meet this strategy.

Which of these sounds like the OpenSource movement? Well, to me it sounds
like a "type 3" economy, where the "economics" aren't necessarily about cash
in the traditional sense, but about kudos, intellectual challenge, and
pragmatism in that getting the job done involves working with others who
want to get their jobs done.

I'm not saying that MS aren't very nimble. They are, if you'll pardon the
term, a GOOD (effective, whatever) type 2 economy!

However, which came up with:

- The World Wide Web?
- Instant Messaging?
- The Internet itself?
- Voice telephony?
- The automated switchboard? [1]

[1] is a great example. The first automated switchboard was invented by the
owner of a small-town funeral parlour. He invented it because calls for him
were being put through to the OTHER funeral parlour in town, by the
"operator", who literally answered every call, and plugged in patch cables
to connect.... the local operator's husband ran the other funeral parlour!
So automated exchanges weren't actually invented by a phone company :-)

So, your comments?


Regards,

Mark