\"Social dynamics triumphing over economics\"

This is an interesting post I found via Sentient Developments.

Similar to how Doc says the demand side is supplying itself, with open source and open content social goods are produced through peer production. Let’s explore one aspect that is less about code and more about social dynamics triumphing over economics, language. For a small country like Rwanda, a localized version of Office would never be supplied, so they do it themselves. Some vendors are open sourcing their localization in recognition of unevenly distributed demand...
...A polish online encyclopedia at the scale of the wikipedia version would not have been developed with market and contractual signals alone. Social signals are driving this production and producing a social good.

These quotes convey the gist of the arguments but you'll have to read the whole thing to get the context, and supporting information. I'm not entirely sure what I think about this as my brain, to put it metaphorically, is "full" right now, but it seems to me like the author may be creating a dichotomy between society and the market where none exists -or perhaps I'm just missing the point.

So I'm curious what those of you think who still have brain power left over on a Sunday evening (or perhaps some other day depending on when you read this) to contemplate the fine line where economy and society meet.

Share this

I'm going to arbitrarily say

I'm going to arbitrarily say there are 4 kinds of transactions.
1- forced, e.g. governmental or burglars.
2. monetized - buying and selling
3. voluntary - transactions without formal monetization
4. the 4th is a sort of catch all which includes choices an individial makes (eat lunch now or later?) as well as actions by animals and vegetables. these can be looked at in terms of costs and benefits, but are not monetized.
we, capitalists or catallarchists or whoever we are, might tend to use
"economic" to mean 2 and 3, or 2,3 and 4.
I think they, the author of the cited post and his/her intended audience, is using economic in a narrower sense of 2 only.
Since socialism can refer to both 1 and 3, it's important to clear up misunderstandings. Free enterprise is about both monetized and gift economy exchanges. The open source revolution can be a triumph for both capitalism and socialism. We would argue that open source public goods is an example of market success, not market failure. This can further the marxist goal of the withering away of the state, so it's in our interest to encourage the left to focus on doing things via open source instead of via government.
I added category 4 because there seems to be a pretty good understanding around here that economy and ecology are the same thing, that adam smith and charles darwin were both talking about heyekian order.
We may get further in working with the liberals if we can express market solutions are ecologically sound, green and progressive.

Open source has provided a

Open source has provided a system whereby a mixture of voluntary and private sector investment (of time and money) has provided a better product. The whole movement's ethos is based on what is essentially a greedy principle backed up by a selfless principle. The greedy principle is: "If I own something, I want to do whatever the hell I like with it". And the selfless principle adds "The best way to achieve that is to voluntarily share stuff with other people". Collectivist-statism works on the "If somebody else owns something, I should be able to do whatever the hell I like with it" and then backs that up with "The best way to achieve that is to steal it from them".

You can probably see why, as a dedicated capitalist, I love open source software.