Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozilla To Begin Pushing Ads To The New Tabs Page

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
    Words. Capitalism, the system where the means of production are owned and controlled by a little minority. The capitalists or oligarchs. In capitast states they control the corporations, the banking systems, and also the states. Well, in large degree that is.

    Free culture movement, foss, labour unions, cooperatives, family enterprizes, democratic institutions and socialism. - They represents alternatives, or counter forces, to the capitalist ways of coersion.

    Ok, the Phoronix blog operates in a capitalists environment, but itself is not AFAIK under capitalist exploitation. The owner/worker needs money as we all do. He use ads for the capitalist corporations to get income. I do not blame him, but I will never open my brain for capitalist corporations propagana for him. So I use Adblock. Sane people use adblock. The crying about that might make people go away.

    I hope Phoronix find other ways. What abou Flattr or other donation button vissible?
    Corporatism not Capitalism. They are two completely different and opposed ideas. Capitalism due to lacking the concept of IP and regulatory agencies does not allow anyone to dictate what others may or may not do (other than violate the life, liberty, or property of other individuals), and as a result everyone has the freedom to produce even if not everyone at any particular point in time has the resources to produce. A perfect case study of capitalism in force vs corporatism is actually the video game industry if we examine the difference between the publisher controlled games vs independently published games. The former is a slow lumbering monster which only produces a few games per year, and they are limited in category and rarely innovative because intellectual property has ensured that that side has settled into an oligopoly, meanwhile in the independent game field innovation abounds not just in the games themselves but how to fund them and other similar questions, and genres are re-saturating because digital distribution and private investments (through crowd funding) allows the actual creators to circumvent all regulation, which allows these tiny pockets of capitalism to exist, even if no economic system has actually been properly based on it in a long time.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
      Corporatism not Capitalism. They are two completely different and opposed ideas. Capitalism due to lacking the concept of IP and regulatory agencies does not allow anyone to dictate what others may or may not do (other than violate the life, liberty, or property of other individuals), and as a result everyone has the freedom to produce even if not everyone at any particular point in time has the resources to produce.
      That is a false dichotomy I believe. Capitalism and corporatism are integrated and symbiotic.
      Capitalism deals with separation between owners and subordinated wage labourers and the maximizing of profit for the owners.
      The corporations are tools to do so. They operate under capitalist conditions and for the capitalist intention.

      Property are basis of capitalism and IP is a natural effect of capitalism. The owner class would like to own everything. They want to own your food and your genes, the land and the oceans and the air too.
      Yes the corporations do work for these 'developments'. But please ask yourself 'for whom?' do they work for.

      Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
      A perfect case study of capitalism in force vs corporatism is actually the video game industry if we examine the difference between the publisher controlled games vs independently published games.
      The former is a slow lumbering monster which only produces a few games per year, and they are limited in category and rarely innovative because intellectual property has ensured that that side has settled into an oligopoly, meanwhile in the independent game field innovation abounds not just in the games themselves but how to fund them and other similar questions, and genres are re-saturating because digital distribution and private investments (through crowd funding) allows the actual creators to circumvent all regulation, which allows these tiny pockets of capitalism to exist, even if no economic system has actually been properly based on it in a long time.
      But independent artists and studios are (often) opposite to the capitalist structure. They own their own labour, individually or in cooperatives. Crowd funding is opposite to capitalist investment.
      Where capitalist investment is for profit and labour exploitation, crowd funding is for use value.

      Oligopolies or monopolies have been known to be effects of capitalism since the first serious critics in the 19th century.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
        Capitalism deals with separation between owners and subordinated wage labourers and the maximizing of profit for the owners.
        Maybe that's what it means to you, but it's definitely not in the definition. It's entirely consistent with capitalism for the workers in a company to be the owners, and for them to be working towards maximizing their own profits.

        This is even a commonplace practice. A large number of people are self-employed.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
          That is a false dichotomy I believe. Capitalism and corporatism are integrated and symbiotic.
          Capitalism deals with separation between owners and subordinated wage labourers and the maximizing of profit for the owners.
          Incorrect you believe so purely because you lack understanding of what Capitalism actually is, as opposed to what Marxist (or other fallacy based anti-capitalist) doctrines have led you to believe. Capitalism is all about granting individuals freedom to do as they wish (within the limits of not infringing upon other people's basic freedom) and deal with the consequences of their actions without any sort of governmental parachute or regulation. This sounds dangerous at first and that it might lead to abuses of the freedom that has been granted, however it is important to note that bad business practices have consequences which will result in a company failing when it doesn't have the government in it's pocket being capable of bludgeoning the consumers into taking what it wants.

          Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
          The corporations are tools to do so. They operate under capitalist conditions and for the capitalist intention.
          Absolutely not, the concept of a public company is anathema to Capitalism. Capitalism demands a total lack of government involvement in the economy. A company being public is the very definition of government involvement.

          Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
          Property are basis of capitalism and IP is a natural effect of capitalism. The owner class would like to own everything. They want to own your food and your genes, the land and the oceans and the air too.
          For starters there's no such thing as an owner's class, everyone owns things, even the poorest person owns something (if nothing else their body). Second off Intellectual Property, and Physical Property are two completely different concepts. Physical property can be held, controlled, and defended by a single person or group. Intellectual Property not having a corporeal existence can not be held, controlled, or defended by a single person or group, as a result government involvement is required in order to establish and maintain it, and thus it is anathema to Capitalism.

          Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
          Yes the corporations do work for these 'developments'. But please ask yourself 'for whom?' do they work for.
          The hive mind of the shareholders which itself is focused not on the wellbeing of the company or the customers but on the bottom line, which naturally leads to abuse.

          Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
          But independent artists and studios are (often) opposite to the capitalist structure. They own their own labour, individually or in cooperatives.
          Quite the opposite, them owning their labour and working for themselves is quite capitalistic. Them doing as they wish without being regulated by others is the very fundamental of capitalism.

          Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
          Crowd funding is opposite to capitalist investment. Where capitalist investment is for profit and labour exploitation, crowd funding is for use value.
          Crowd funding is quite capitalistic, and in fact is far more capitalistic than so quote "venture capitalism", as individuals are giving of their own free will and are not burdening the people that they are funding with demands for control and regulating what they can do, as opposed to promise of a product.

          Originally posted by risotto77 View Post
          Oligopolies or monopolies have been known to be effects of capitalism since the first serious critics in the 19th century.
          Corporatism not capitalism, and it's a result of government involvement such as intellectual property, and regulatory agencies such as the FDA, as well as corrupt politicians creating an unfair tax code to squeeze out small and medium businesses, as well as concepts such as public companies which provides no real benefit to the company itself (all that going public provides is a permanent but volatile loan of money that you should never touch) while leaving them open to hostile takeovers.
          Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 02-18-2014, 02:45 PM.

          Comment


          • Artisan work is not capitalism

            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            Maybe that's what it means to you, but it's definitely not in the definition. It's entirely consistent with capitalism for the workers in a company to be the owners, and for them to be working towards maximizing their own profits.

            This is even a commonplace practice. A large number of people are self-employed.
            A self-employed person is an artisan, not a capitalist. A capitalist is someone who profits of the labor of others who work for him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Luke View Post
              A self-employed person is an artisan, not a capitalist. A capitalist is someone who profits of the labor of others who work for him.
              We're talking about capitalism, the economic system. In which plenty of people are self-employed and work for themselves, no matter what you call them. Such work is encouraged under capitalism, not discouraged.

              Comment


              • As a longtime Firefox user myself, I don't mind at all Mozilla pushing these basic ads into the browser as they better try to capitalize off the web browser. Ads are a way of life on the Internet; as a publisher myself dependent upon ads for making a living, and believer in capitalism, great job Mozilla.
                LOL you made my day, Michael. Especially this "great job" was very inspiring

                Ad-blocker enabled again after 7 years.
                Last edited by Apopas; 05-11-2014, 04:14 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X