- cross-posted to:
- hackernews
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews
You must log in or register to comment.
I think these guys are overstating things a bit. The whole reason technical standards exist is to facilitate interoperability, and in most cases this interoperability leads to increased trade. It’s no accident that the first standards were developed during the industrial revolution, where we first started using machines to make parts, and they needed to fit together (like screws and nuts). Then, when the railroads came along, we needed new standards for things like track gague, because without it one countries’ trains couldn’t use the next countries’ track, making cross-border commerce more expensive. It’s also when we started to standardize time (because before the railroads, “noon” was whenever the sun was directly overhead, so varied by region).
These standards weren’t developed altruistically, they were developed to generate more trade. There is a cost to developing them, and companies spend that money in the hopes of making more later. In theory, anyone can access the standards that the ITU or IEEE create, but to participate you need to show up at their meetings, and there is a cost to that. Large companies can afford to send key smart people to those meetings, out of the profit from the products they sell. What is more capitalistic than that?
The standards process is anti-monopolist, though. The reason why they are as “open” as they are is to prevent a single entity from patenting key parts of the standard and gate-keeping access. There have been patented things in standards, but the SDO mandates that the parent-holder disclose it up front, and will not let it in the standard unless certain terms are met (which vary by SDO). It is not anti-capitalist, though, but rather it is a cabal of companies agreeing they won’t let any one of them gatekeep the rest.
The development of standards doesn’t have to be seen as capitalist, though. There are benefits for non-capitalist economies to define standards as a way to achieve interoperability across different devices. For instance, I don’t see why a communist country wouldn’t standardize a power plug.
Yeah I believe that standardisation is beneficial in general whether it’s capitalism or not. In fact I believe it’s even more beneficial for a non-capitalist society, since yes you could not use the standard but nobody would be able to afford to come up with everything themselves. Unlike companies like apple that can afford having their own proprietary ecosystem including the lightning port. In that case standards could be maintained by non-profit organisations consisting of other organisations with a donation based model. Which is what happens in the real world except for the part where companies step in and put lots of money for their own benefit and to be able to pull these organisations in the direction they desire.
The concept of standardisation isn’t necessary capitalist but the form it exists in today is shaped by the capitalist world we live in.
I don’t know about the word capitalism here. The company trying to push it’s own controlled product might not like standards, at least when they feel like they can trap enough customers. But people, which includes people working for governments, can benefit of the agility of having less barriers.
This is telling me very little about the value of standards in a non-capitalist model, but man, is it telling me a lot of how pressure-washed the brains of US academics are. ‘It is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism,” the saying goes’? What the hell? Is that a “saying”?
I mean, part of the problem is I have no idea what Americans are talking about when they say “capitalism”. Some mean everything up to and including outright fascist or communist centralized management as long as some form of private property exists. For others any glimpse of social democracy past radical anarchocapitalism is “not capitalism”.
But even beyond that, how hard could it be to picture a non-capitalist form of trade or information sharing when it actively exists right now and always has? Capitalism has sometimes been the hegemonic form of structure for commerce or society, but it has never been the only one in place.
Oh, and as a note, I do like that this example comes from what seems to be a clearly left-leaning source. I often struggle to explain to well-meaning progressive Americans that their systems of value and meaning are built from the exact same pieces as their conservatives and in many casses approximate those more than the systems of progressives in other parts of the world. Which is true both ways, not just of Americans, but often not highlighted.
This is a frequently repeated quote attributed to the late philosopher Frederic Jameson. On its own it doesn’t make a statement about capitalism or what it is at all. (If you wanna know more about Jamesons theories on capitalism you can read about it in his books)
Jameson’s quote points out that people often find it easier to picture possible world ending doomsday scenarios, than it is for them to think about alternatives to living in a capitalist world to try to avoid these scenarios.
You can even test this yourself. Ask people around you about the end of the world and many will point out reasons like climate change, demographic changes, environmental destruction, pollution, world wars, nuclear holocaust, asteroid impacts (shoutout Roland Emmerich) and even biblical scenarios for an eventual end of the world as we know it.
But ask them if they think there are other ways to live, so that those things won’t happen and usually they will just give you a version of “this is just how things are, not much you can do about it” or “the world could be different, but there is no use in trying because this is just a utopia and I have no idea how to change stuff anyways”.
Regarding your last paragraph, imo this kinda misses the point. I agree, there are structures that exist parallel to what most people consider capitalism, but ask people in most self described capitalist societies and they will not really recognise the difference and will just see it as an anomaly at best.
Btw, this is all coming from a European perspective, albeit heavily informed by US media.
People around me will definitely conceive of a noncapitalist alternative because a significant number of them have lived in one.
That doesn’t mean they will approve of returning to the systems they experienced previously. In many cases those systems were demonstraby worse and less sustainable. Plus “from an European perspective”, the current system most of them live in is heavily social democratic, so again how we define those terms will be relevant.
If you want to argue that this is not the “default” human experience, then with all due respect that just sounds like ethnocentrism to me. On the authors’ (and Jameson’s) part, at least. Probably a bit of internalized cultural imperialism on our part. It’s not the first time I notice a lot of the European left is trying, and often failing, to import some US left concepts that don’t really apply.
Any subject can be qualified, and you’re right that more things probably should.
There’s capitalism; then, for me, there’s laissez-faire capitalism and regulated capitalism as the two main branches. Somewhere within laissez-faire economics lies libertarianism and anarchy, which are political structures, but the implementation of which would presumed literally no central control - people trading precious metals, goods and services directly. On the other branch you have regulated markets that eventually include limited socialism - usually restricted to public infrastructure and military, and where you start to blend in aspects of communism. And while I’m certain there are technical terms for all of the, I care a little less about economics than I do sports, which is to say not at all.
I have my own opinions about what I think is wrong with Capitalism in the US, and what changes I think could fix them, but this is decidedly not my area of expertise and I’m very much a believer of differentiating between opinions and knowledge.
What you’re seeing, I think, is a limitation in American education combined with DILIGAF - disinterest in becoming enough of a subject expert to use precise terminology. However, I think it’s misplaced to get upset about it; I’m certain medical doctors, aerospace engineers, computer engineers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, classical musicians, voting theory scientists - they all probably mentally tear their hair out a little when talking to laypeople because we’re all so “imprecise” in our terminology. I think it’s just a consequence of living in a world so complex and varied, it’s not possible for one person to be an expert and use precise terminology when talking about every subject - and this includes economics.
I don’t think these two academics are suffering from disinterest or a lack of subject expertise.
I think they are in a space where they don’t think it applies to their output in this particular venue. Maybe in a space where they are subconsciously tied to a “here/now/default” take on the world that is just the US and everything else is this othered “elsewhere” that gets perceived as somehow smaller, less relevant or exceptional.
Part of it is a cultural disconnect. They may think the implications of “capitalism” when used to an American audience are clear. My observation is that this is not just a cultural disconnect in the use of the world, but instead that the word when used inside the US is fluid, poorly defined, deliberately imprecise and more or less tautological.
Capitalism is whatever the US does now, as perceived by whoever is using the word. I think that’s a very purposeful result of US politics and, had they gotten to it on time, Americans may have benefitted from putting an end to it before the entire system lost all meaning.
I don’t think these two academics are suffering from disinterest or a lack of subject expertise.
Perhaps not, but successful academics will also understand and tailor their messaging to their audience, dumbing it down if necessary.
I think that’s a very purposeful result of US politics
Complete agreement. So is the international hegemony of the dollar, and why, a decade ago, the US government had an apoplectic fit when OPEC made noises about starting to accept payments in, or fixing prices to, something other than the dollar. I don’t think the general public understood just how important it is that so many of the global currencies are tied to the value of the dollar, and, like English, it’s the financial lingua franca.
I disagree that it’s been overall bad for the US, although I think it’s been extremely unhealthy for the world at large.
