No, Kevin, this is not "socialism" | Lessig Blog
Popularity Report
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank
URL Tag Cloud
Bookmark History
Saved by 13 people (-1 private), first by anonymouse user on 2009-05-29
- Ibbertelsen on 2009-06-25 - Tags socialmedia , socialism
- Iguana on 2009-06-24 - Tags no_tag
- Daviding on 2009-06-20 - Tags emergent , public goods , adam smith , hayek , economics
- Cedricyto on 2009-06-04 - Tags socialism , lessig , kk , kelly , wikipedia , web 2.0
- Burt_flaxton on 2009-06-03 - Tags Lessig
Public Sticky notes
That statement is flatly wrong. It is completely unreasonable to call that "socialism" -- at least when the behavior described is purely voluntary. It's like saying "Because Stalin set up a competition between different collective farms, it's not unreasonable to call that free market capitalism." Both statements are wrong because they point to a feature that is common, and ignore the feature that is distinctive. At the core of socialism is coercion (justified or not is a separate question). At the core of the behavior Kelly celebrates is freedom.
Highlighted by cedricyto
Language is the simplest example -- language is a quintessentially public good, but no central coordinator is necessary to produce language.
Highlighted by iguana
Socialism is using the power of the state to force a result that otherwise would not have been chosen voluntarily by the people
Highlighted by cedricyto
If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful
Highlighted by iguana
But all of the examples of proper "socialism" begin with pointing to coercion by the state.
Highlighted by cedricyto
On this account, none of the things that Kelly (and I) celebrate about the Internet are "socialist." No one forces Wikipedia editors to build a free encyclopedia
Highlighted by cedricyto
The type of communism with which Gates hoped to tar the creators of Linux was born in an era of enforced borders, centralized communications, and top-heavy industrial processes. Those constraints gave rise to a type of collective ownership that replaced the brilliant chaos of a free market with scientific five-year plans devised by an all-powerful politburo. This political operating system failed, to put it mildly. However, unlike those older strains of red-flag socialism, the new socialism runs over a borderless Internet, through a tightly integrated global economy. It is designed to heighten individual autonomy and thwart centralization. It is decentralization extreme.
Instead of gathering on collective farms, we gather in collective worlds. Instead of state factories, we have desktop factories connected to virtual co-ops. Instead of sharing drill bits, picks, and shovels, we share apps, scripts, and APIs. Instead of faceless politburos, we have faceless meritocracies, where the only thing that matters is getting things done. Instead of national production, we have peer production. Instead of government rations and subsidies, we have a bounty of free goods.
Instead of gathering on collective farms, we gather in collective worlds. Instead of state factories, we have desktop factories connected to virtual co-ops. Instead of sharing drill bits, picks, and shovels, we share apps, scripts, and APIs. Instead of faceless politburos, we have faceless meritocracies, where the only thing that matters is getting things done. Instead of national production, we have peer production. Instead of government rations and subsidies, we have a bounty of free goods.
Highlighted by takuya514
It is a fact that in America the term "socialism" is a smear
Highlighted by cedricyto
Whatever "socialism" could have become, had it not been hijacked by revolutions in the east, what it is in the minds of 95% of America is not what Wikipedia is.
Highlighted by cedricyto
Public Comment