The whole open source movement could be defined as socialist.

The open source movement has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with free market capitalism.

How much did you pay to download WordPress to run this site? You didn’t. Do you know how many man hours when into the production releases of the product?

You seem to equate free with socialism. The two are obviously not equal. Using Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Network TV, AM and FM radio, is all free. Is that socialism? It’s clearly not. It’s just private enterprises giving out things for free to gain something else in return.

Those who contribute and create open source projects also do so because they’re getting something in return. They’re contributing out of their own self interest, or otherwise they would not be doing it of their own free will.

Some of the things one may gain by contributing to open source are as follows:

1. The fun and satisfaction of creating something that others find useful.
2. Recognition and becoming known in the development community.
3. Better job prospects.
4. Using the open source project to create a business. (WordPress and MySQL have done that.)
5. Having other people help improve a component that you’re using as part of your commercial product but that is not related to your competitive advantage.

In addition, open source clearly does not follow the “from each according to his means to each according to his needs” mantra of socialism. One can be the richest man in the world and still use open source products for free just as much or more as someone who is poorer.

Socialism has its advantages in those instances when individuals and a group both mutually benefit. Which are the only instances worth moving forward.

Free market capitalism has this advantage, see above.

In capitalism instances can move forward based on monetary strength that don’t benefit the group they are providing the product/service to. Example, bankrupting a country without breaking a single law due to lack of regulations.

In socialism instances can more forward based on lack of knowledge, power hunger and greed of its leaders that don’t benefit neither the group nor the individual. Example, encouraging sub-prime mortgage lending in the name of “affordable housing” for the poor, bankrupting a country.

I think democratic capitalism is the best way to start an economy or country but in that system greed and corruption are inevitable. The US has mastered capitalism and it will lead to class separation until there is only super rich and super poor. Bigger companies absorb smaller companies who pose a threat. That absorption will continue in a capitalist society until there are super rich and super poor. Creating a VERY small chance to rise up against them to compete. You can already see that problem now.

How do companies “absorb” other companies? They have to buy them.

Trying to start an ecommerce platform to rival Amazon would be near impossible. Trying to start a social network to rival Facebook, also near impossible. To me once that point has been reached (maybe you think it hasn’t yet) then Capitalism no longer becomes the “Everyone can succeed” platform that we love it for.

Yes, that’s what the Marxists have been saying for over 150 years, but Amazon did not exist 17 years ago, and Facebook did not exist 7 years ago. So they recently had this opportunity that you claim does not exist anymore.

Apple was small 20 years ago and Microsoft was huge. Now Apple is larger than Microsoft. 20 years ago, IBM was the king of computer manufacturers, but now it doesn’t even make personal computers.

8 years ago, a friend trying to start an Internet company was complaining to me that everything has already been established on the Internet, and therefore it’s near impossible to start a successful company. But then not even 2 years later the social media revolution happened that brought MySpace, and Facebook, and Twitter, and many, many other companies that grew huge and made piles upon piles of money.

Things change all the time. Why would you want to start another Amazon, or another Facebook? Start something new.

You could argue Einstein was the most intelligent man thus far in humanity and he believed in socialism. So please don’t say Einstein was trying to prove he was smarter than a door knob like your previous comment.

Everybody can be wrong. Einstein was even wrong about some things is physics, his field of expertise. In addition, Einstein died over 50 years ago, and therefore, was not privy to all the decades of world experience with failed socialism.

“Everything you see here, from the documentation to the code itself, was created by and for the community. WordPress is an Open Source project, which means there are hundreds of people all over the world working on it.”

Socialism has its advantages in those instances when individuals and a group both mutually benefit. Which are the only instances worth moving forward. In capitalism instances can move forward based on monetary strength that don’t benefit the group they are providing the product/service to. Example, bankrupting a country without breaking a single law due to lack of regulations.

I think democratic capitalism is the best way to start an economy or country but in that system greed and corruption are inevitable. The US has mastered capitalism and it will lead to class separation until there is only super rich and super poor. Bigger companies absorb smaller companies who pose a threat. That absorption will continue in a capitalist society until there are super rich and super poor. Creating a VERY small chance to rise up against them to compete. You can already see that problem now. Trying to start an ecommerce platform to rival Amazon would be near impossible. Trying to start a social network to rival Facebook, also near impossible. To me once that point has been reached (maybe you think it hasn’t yet) then Capitalism no longer becomes the “Everyone can succeed” platform that we love it for.

I do like capitalism because I don’t think all people are equal in skill and intelligence. Capitalism, to me, resembles evolution. Only the strong survive. Within a finite economical system though I don’t see myself (or you) surviving against billionaires and their offspring who inherit billions without a change. To me the most logical change would be inheriting socialist traits to help level the playing field so everyone can succeed and has the tools to try it.

You could argue Einstein was the most intelligent man thus far in humanity and he believed in socialism. So please don’t say Einstein was trying to prove he was smarter than a door knob like your previous comment.

Dissenting opinions = socialism? You’re starting to sound like a fascist. If you have to delete comments instead of making a rebuttal, you really don’t have much faith in your convictions.

In case you haven’t noticed, this is an anti-socialist site, so dissension here most likely = socialism. If not, you’re free to state your case why.

If you have to delete comments instead of making a rebuttal, you really don’t have much faith in your convictions.

Not at all. I do not have infinite time, resources and energy to offer a rebuttal for every stupidity that’s posted as a comment. Some arguments are so stupefyingly boring and repetitive, and been addressed so many times before that I don’t feel like giving them a voice.

In Telemetry’s case, the comments were as long as a novel and they were becoming irrelevant to the matter at hand since I already admitted the specifics of the argument were flawed. However the overall conclusion is not. This is a different post representing a different argument with a more precise conclusion (stated in the post’s title.)

If you feel this argument is flawed, then state your case.

Oh look, you deleted all the comments discussing the flaws in your argument. Easier than looking bad I guess, good luck with your echo chamber

Oh look, another socialist who thinks s/he’s smarter than a door knob.