• J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
    11·
    1 year ago

    Software is something that can be freely duplicated without cost to its producers, so what applies to it cannot be applied to all capital. Open source is largely developed by a few dedicated contributors or employees of large corporations. Regardless, there needs to be an incentive for people to work on socially valuable projects even in open source rather than on their pet projects.

    What could this process look like in a sector such that it wouldn’t be basically prices?

    • poVoq@slrpnk.net
      M
      2·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t really matter that software can be freely replicated when talking about means of production that already exist. Withholding them from other people when you are not actually using them with the purpose of extracting some sort of personal benefit is a net negative to society.

      Ultimately, money isn’t a particularly good motivator (beyond preventing starvation and homelessness) for people to work on valuable projects for society. I think once you realize that and stop thinking about everything in terms of prices, it is easy to see how such a process could look like. But you need to take that first step to get rid of that capitalist brainworm yourself.

      • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
        11·
        1 year ago

        More money allows production to use more resources. Even altruists need prices. Prices signal how much people value certain goods, and ensure that the goods’ production get the resources warranted.

        A good’s value is the future rentals’ discounted present value. There is no value-based moral contrast between renting and owning capital (explicitly excluding land)

        Without prices, how do you make resource allocation decisions?

        Prices are not capitalism; some anti-capitalists were in favor of them