Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> ``If they can not control the software they produce, they are in serious
> trouble.''
>
> True, but that is no danger to capital as such! Carrol
>
> -------
>
> I have noticed that capital loses interest very quickly went it can
> not find a way to control the production and distribution. Capital
> needs this fundamental monopoly on production and distribution, or
> otherwise there would be no profit.
>
Chuck, I think you are to some extent confusing "Capital in General" with particular capitalist enterprises. Kenneth Burke pointed out decades ago that Capital is always willing to nationalize a loss. And capital in general simply does not care (it isn't, after all, an agent) what happens to particular capitalists.
> What open software threatens at least in principle is to erase that
> fundamental monopoly and control. If anybody can make software for
> themselves or others, and through existing technology at practically
> no cost , and reproduce and distribute that software in _any_ quantity (10s,
> 100s... 1 X 10^n), then there is no means of control over this
> particular form of production and distribution for capital.
So? Microsoft would go broke. Now Microsoft (and other relevant firms) have a lot of political power, so they can fight hard to maintain their position, but it would not endanger Capital (capitalist class as a whole) if Microsoft lost that battle and went broke.
>
> I think that is the threat, and the form of resistance.
Threat to _whom_? Threats are responded to by agents, not by abstractions.
>
> It's a little like terrorizing capital. It may not overthrow them, but
> they can never win either. Open software threatens stalemate---at
> least in this very narrow field. But it is an important stalemate to
> achieve, because this particular technology layer is part of the
> basis for global level communication. And if there is anything people
> do more of than talk to each other, I'd like to hear about it. So
> indirectly the stakes are pretty high.
Capital has never had a monopoly of the English language. Nor (yet) of air. And in most cities water is a public utility. Capital in no way depends on the fortunes of any particular segment of capital. About a century ago a committee of capitalists sent a message to John D. Rockefeller Sr, the Bill Gates of his day, ordering him to sell the land in Northern Michigan which someone had turned over to him as a debt. They were not going to allow the same person to control both oil and iron.
Private control of medical technology and services is far more damaging to our health, safety, survival (and even our communication) than Bill Gates is. I really don't see your argument. If 'they' want to control the content of our communication, that will require the exercise of state power. (It might happen, but not because the operating system is or isn't a monopoly.)
>
> If capital can control that means of communication at this particular
> level or on this layer, then they can make huge profits for
> practically nothing. If they can't then in their minds they will have
> `lost' huge profits. Sure they will find something else. But it won't
> be this, and that possibility will add something to the general public
> good.
Capital always has made profits for practically nothing. That's what surplus value is all about.
>
> Look at it this way. If open source was not a threat, then capital
> would not be bothered with it.
But capital is NOT bothering with it. Particular capitalists are. And other capitalists are are in fact supporting open source. Capital as a whole will make as many (probably more) profits with a completely open source software as capital as a whole is now. They will just be differently distributed amongst sectors of capital.
The whole reason they have gone to such
> lengths to manipulate copyright law, international treaties, criminal
> law, and been in extraordinary interscene conflict between themselves,
> is because open source is a threat to their control,
No. Because it is a threat to the profits of PARTICULAR capitalists, and those capitalists happen to have a lot of political power. But they are not Capital as such.
which in turn is
> a treat to their potential profit. This is a little like a game in
> virtual reality, but then `profit' `loss' `control' and `open source'
> are virtual realities.
No. It's a threat to the profits of a few capitalists, not to the profits of capital.
Carrol