I have similar feelings where I really don't do good things at my programming day job.
I see a lot of the evils of the world as systemic issues caused by capitalism and globalization. I've been chipping away at the seed of an alternative system https://opensocialism.com
This site details some ugly points about the world we live in. The goal is to convince people that there is a real and serious problem of exploitation and our work (particularly for IT people) supports it.
My hope is that there may be other like minded people who may be interested in spending their open source efforts on attacking this problem (or others like it eg. the environment). I'd rather work on these sort of projects in my spare time that have a greater purpose.
I think both are highly valuable. But I agree that it is remarkable that we appear to be putting in little effort into trying to resolve our societal issues.
I think a new system is required. https://opensocialism.com is my very alpha initial version that I'm trying to iterate on. Are you interested in helping? :O
1. Capitalism is poor at providing value to the majority (eg. globally the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 99%) and ensuring the long term survival of the species (eg. protecting the environment).
2. However, until there is actually a viable alternative it is a moot point. People who criticize capitalism tend to be caught up in marxism which in reality is an old, overly simplistic and unstable system.
3. Use the open source model to build a compelling alternative to capitalism which can then be promoted.
I've completed a very alpha version which details the system reasonably well but I guess the current goal is to get help, which I have found difficult.
I agree people seem to be either "the free market solves all problems" or "capitalism is slavery and must be destroyed" (but don't focus on an actual viable alternative).
I'm chipping away on my own alternative which is a bit of a hybrid. Competition and inequality between individuals but not between groups within society.
I applaud the effort, and I wish more people focused on a first principles approach to fixing society as you do. But I strongly disagree with some of your claims, and stopped reading as a result:
"Software people are in a great position to design a new system"
What makes you believe this? Many people, myself included (and I write software), think software people would be poor at this. People, society and culture aren't code. Social and emotional intelligence are critical.
"We are great at being objective and not being caught up in the zealotry that is coupled with the classical systems of capitalism, communism etc."
With all due respect, are you kidding? That is very naive to say the least. To say more, it smacks of Silicon Valley arrogance and smugness, against which, as you may be aware, there is a rising distrust and backlash.
> What makes you believe this? Many people, myself included (and I write software), think software people would not be so great at this, because society isn't code. Social and emotional intelligence are critical.
I think there are in general 3 areas of information that are useful when contributing to the development of a societal system. Those being:
* Research (History / modern economic research)
* The Cutting Edge (Technology / modern business, project and team management / open source model)
* Domain Knowledge (Specific and detailed knowledge of a particular domain)
Software people have 2 of the 3. Plus they can collaborate easily using the open source model. I think wikipedia is proof that great things can be done without requiring "experts" with a great collaboration model.
I also think that a lot of economics is not relevant if you are going for a "no free enterprise" based system.
> "We are great at being objective and not being caught up in the zealotry that is coupled with the classical systems of capitalism, communism etc."
> With all due respect, are you kidding?
No one is perfect and we aren't free from bias. However, a big part of our jobs is choosing between options eg. technologies. We strive to diminish our egos and bias to make good choices. I think this attribute is very useful for the topic of societal systems which tends to be extremely polarizing (eg. https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/).
It isn't so much the inequality itself is bad, but rather having distinct groups that compete with each other. (Group inequality is an inevitable outcome of this but not the root issue). Group competition is bad simply because it is less efficient if your goal is for the maximum good for all people.
Say you have a valley and two tribes in it. If they fight for control of the valley they are expending resources in that competition. If they merge into one tribe then all resources can be spent on the good of all people.
Of course then there is the argument of 'but you can't get everyone to work together in the one group!' but with modern technology I think this is a solvable problem.
> Group competition is bad simply because it is less efficient if your goal is for the maximum good for all people.
Humans are lazy and self interested. They work hard when they need to and competition provides the need. That goes for individuals as well as groups.
Would people try as hard to woo their future spouse if they were matched and promised to each other at birth? Why did my comcast service get faster and cheaper as soon as verizon entered my community?
Competition is painful, but it motivates us to be better.
With the right system though competition between individuals is sufficient. Humans will try and get ahead to woo their spouse by whatever means are available. Having individuals compete for prestige and salary is enough to engage humans to strive for excellence.
Group competition doesn't relate to this aspect though. In a one group system individuals incentivized by individual reward won't be lazy or they lose out so group competition is not necessary.
For example, take a series of tribes in one area competing for resources. If all but one tribe die out due to disease, the individuals of that tribe won't suddenly become lazy. Why? Because they still need their personal acclaim to attract a mate and be successful.
In a multi group system (capitalism) there is no incentive for groups to compete (as in increase consumer value at the expense of profit) without competition, so yes in this system group competition is necessary. However, this attribute is not true of all systems.
> Ignoring [the mental state of the people being optimized for], what is wrong with inequality between groups?
A bit cheeky, I know, but I don't think you can just write off emotional results of systems.
But to answer in better faith: I think [Rawls's Veil of Ignorance thought experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance) is a good response here. In short (skipping how he arrives at the conclusion): when judging the quality of life a system produces, measuring by maximums (or even averages) is probably not the way to go. Median and mode are also very important dimensions to pay attention to.
Also worth noting: if we did live in some future utopia where "inequality" really meant the difference between "all my needs are easily met with little stress" and "I experience nearly constant bliss"... yea, we can have some inequality. But, pockets of the developed world aside, we're not there yet. Not even close. So long as we have around 50% of the world in poverty, and more than 1 billion children in extreme poverty, aiming to "lift all boats" faster than the amount a "rising tide" does is a discussion worth having.
...which is why I spent my entire last paragraph discussing why addressing inequality is often considered as a way to tackle inequality. We don't get to pretend they're separate things for at least another few centuries.
- Those in power have too much power and cannot be deposed democratically. As such they will assuredly become corrupt.
- 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' means that people aren't incentivized to strive and will be lazy and won't invent and innovate.
These are criticisms people say on the streets, and they vague, empty and lack explanation. Although I also find your answers vague and empty, it's nice that you tried to answer them.
Anyway, I think it is safe to ignore that discussion, because it is way too common and biased.
My humble suggestion is that you should start on the purely economic side of the high-level discussion. This[1] is something that raised a lot of discussion (pro and against the socialist side) between top economists of the previous century and that has lasted many years. I think you should start there.
Thanks. I did some research on that book. The 'economic calculation problem' seems to be the main point. I disagree that market forces are the only way to price goods and services. Why can't goods be priced that factor in the aspect of supply and demand, but also factor in the cost of offering those goods and services, both the immediate cost and the cost to the environment? It doesn't seem like an impossible problem, just that it takes deliberate effort by the state.
Note that in open socialism goods and services (including food, clothing etc.) are priced.
I generally agree that around 100 years ago when 'Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis' was written socialism was difficult to impossible. Now with modern technology I think that it is possible and has less problems than capitalism.
Is there some key flaw in socialism that you think prevents it from being viable?
The idea of the State coming up with a method to calculate prices taking account of supply, demand and cost, was a topic of intense debates that followed the publication of that book.
See, for example, Oskar Lange and Henry Douglas Dickinson proposals, and Friedrich Hayek's rebuttals.
What I am begging you is to stop thinking you have all the right answers before getting to know what other people have already said on the topic.
The essence of open socialism is to have a cooperative system without free enterprise. I think most people would accept that without resources expended due to competition and controlled wealth inequality, a cooperative system is more productive since everyone is working primarily on the good of society, not for their own personal gain. A large proportion of the surplus created can be reinvested into the good of society and not go to a small percentage of wealthy people where it often does more harm than good. I think on paper this type of system is much better for the majority and for long term progress.
The traditional (valid) criticism of such systems (eg. communism) is that the 'state' has too much power in these and those in control will become corrupt. Open socialism is quite focused on this key flaw and primarily addresses it by having society run much like an open source project, with all deliberation and operation done entirely in the open. Add to this the consensus seeking model to making corrupting decisions more difficult.
I posted it here hoping that people would give feedback or help if they are interested.
When I said "Created value vs captured value", I was essentially saying
>cooperative system is more productive since everyone is working primarily on the good of society, not for their own personal gain
I'm not misunderstanding what the problem is with capitalism, or what socialism hopes to achieve. So please to read my feedback with that in mind, and don't just keep trying to explain socialism/communism to me.
I created Open Socialism as a compelling alternative to democratic capitalism.
Democratic capitalism had some good years and achieved a lot, but it has started to be highly inequitable and exploitative. With modern technology and science (including agile and open source practices) we can create much more equitable and productive systems.
I was always afraid to say it out loud, but look of text editor really matters to me. That's why I can't return to Sublime, because Atom got me used so much to that Material + One Dark combo that I can't go anywhere else now. My Vim config got quiet big over the years so now it looks really really nice, and uniform.
I think, because I spend a lot of time staring at text editor/terminal I really want it to look satisfying and pleasant to my eye. It is not main thing that decides, but definitely is up there.
I have similar feelings where I really don't do good things at my programming day job.
I see a lot of the evils of the world as systemic issues caused by capitalism and globalization. I've been chipping away at the seed of an alternative system https://opensocialism.com
Wanna help? :)