Well, if you demand nobody use anything that their ideological opponents produce, then anticapitalists can't use anything ever produced by a company (like this router), and libertarians can't use anything ever produced by a government (like the internet). Then only apolitical flexible people are allowed to even get online at all...
Said router is probably as much a product of DARPA and other government subsidized research as whatever organization produces the actual machine itself. (Anybody who thinks a pure economic system is possible, whether libertarian or socialist, is a naive fool.)
IIRC, Linksys originally used a Linux variant for its firmware (I've forgotten the details of the transitions that the "L" model line went through.)
So... not entirely a "capitalist corporation" product.
Also, having spent a number of years in the seat at one of those corporations, I was not infrequently pissed at how often / how much they were taking a "free ride" on "free" software products without contributing back to the respective software projects, in code/support nor in dollars.
A "capitalist" is not infrequently a self-serving opportunist. Some of the more obnoxious of them thinking that "they" are the "magic factor", rather than all the shared wealth they rest upon.
EDIT: My mistake, it was the "G" line that was originally based on Linux:
The "GL" and similar are a subset of this line, that provided Linux support after they switched the "G" line to vxWorks. I don't recall and don't feel like digging up all the details, but I seem to recall there was some tension in their initial use of Linux that may have ultimately contributed to the "G" line being and staying as open, firmwarewise, as it has been.
Anyone, feel free to correct me on my deficiencies of memory and/or understanding.
Which makes it even more important that alternative organizations be created that produce what we need. All you're saying is that capitalism has taken over pretty much everything and enforced particular hierarchies and relations upon us. You're stating how urgent the situation really is.
The 'occupywallst' project's description reads: 'Stomping out capitalism, one line of code at a time'. Is that truly the goal; to eradicate capitalism?
Depends on who you ask, and how broadly you define "capitalism". On the definition side, some people define capitalism really broadly as anything that involves markets, while others distinguish between capitalism per se (driven by investment of large accumulations of capital) and market competition in other arrangements, like mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)). I would guess that some people want to get rid of the narrower kind, others want to get rid of the broader kind, and others have separate goals entirely (perhaps more reformist ones, like European-style welfare-state capitalism).
Your guess is as interesting as mine, but from direct experience, the people with framed posters of Hugo Chavez in their living rooms are well represented in OWS.
It's a bit more nuanced than that; they really mean 'stomping out capitalism for all values of capitalism that involve political corruption and destroying the middle class'.
Seriously? That seems to speak to a lack of knowledge about how economics actually works. Would they say 'stomping out programming tools that let people write evil code' ?
My confusion stems from the fact that political corruption and the plight of the middle class have less to do with 'capitalism' (an economic theory involving free markets) and more to do with 'some people are evil.' There seems to have been as much 'political corruption' and 'middle class stomping' in the Soviet Union and they didn't actually have capitalism as an economic theory. That is why it confuses me when capitalism seems to be the target.
The institutions in the US that protect citizens have been under served by people who they represent. That I get. How many times have you heard someone ask for ideas for 'avoiding doing jury duty' or 'only one loser is running for school board seat 12'. Those institutions, the justice system, local governments, are the pre-cursor institutions of Congress and federal departments.
What is more impressive to me is that you have to let someone serve who gets elected and a lot of places you can get elected just by throwing your name in the hat (I'm talking various cities and counties around the US, no Congress).
So why isn't it "OccupyLocalGovernment" ? Then you could do stuff like prevent disasters of Bell California [1]. You know, "Think nationally, serve locally." kind of thing. Get some experience running the city, move up to the county, then state, then you'll be well trained and positioned to run for Congress and fix things. Frankly if folks did that it would scare the crap out of the New American Century types.
I can not agree with this more. Take your local government seriously. Serve your civic duty. Maybe you don't like it, but it is like writing documentation. Something that needs doing but few like. Do the job with humility, and then finish out your time. Administration and government need to not be given up to those simply seeking power.
It is interesting -- in a conspiracy sort of way -- that we knee jerk assume that participating in local government is boring and tedious. It can actually be quite fun: makes me wonder about why we try to convince everyone it is boring... maybe so they don't pay attention? ...
Completely agree. However, I think where your confusion lies is the belief that this movement is grounded on a rational argument, its not, its built on emotion.
I don't disagree with you. I was just clarifying what they probably believed.
The power of local government is amazing. What is even more inspiring is how local sherifs, mayors, etc can effect 'big' public policy (immigration for example) by refusing to enforce laws from the state (or fed).
Noone knows what the goal of Occupy Wall St. is. Their general assembly has to agree (by consensus) before any goals can be said to be the goals of OWS. About a month ago, a list of (outrageous and self contradictory) demands was published on the OWS website and made the rounds in the media, but the page was quickly prefixed with a message explaining that this was the draft of one participant and that it hadn't been accepted by the GA. Also, it called the media "irresponsible" for reproducing it.
In a way, it's a very clever and convenient strategy: With no common goals stated, they are free from the obligation to engage in informed debate (with others or themselves), and anyone opposing the movement can (correctly) be accused of not knowing what they are talking about.
Personally, I sympathise with many of the grievances voiced by the movement, but I am certain that it eventually will get run over by the professional anti-capitalists, which I can't support.
No. The idea is to cause chaos because bankers are paid in bonus instead of base salary. Also, occupying streets is more fun that sitting in your mom's basement skipping class.
The thought that you bothered to type out such a content-free comment on HN baffles me. It's about on par with insightful comments like stereotyping anyone who works in tech as pimply-faced, socially retarded nerds.
Talking to the OWS protesters at LaSalle/Jackson in Chicago, this is about all I got out of them. They also run around with signs saying "democracy, not anarchy" as they block traffic during rush hour. The irony amuses me, but doesn't say much for their movement.
Hah, I read it as "the open source code powering Wall Street". Was all set for some hot tips about tweaking your kernel for high-frequency currency arbitrage, but no...
I don't really understand how that's relevant. Either his stuff contributes positively to the project and makes it in/stays in, or it doesn't and it's replaced with code that does. What's the point of this comment, aside from saying "someone involved with this project is a bad programmer, because an anonymous guy on the Internet says so"?
That should come as no surprise. The OWS movement is composed of White neo-plebeians: they want free stuff, and they want it NOW.
Thanks to the effort of this folk, especially in the 1960s, the Western civilization is way past its peak.
