Post by sinopiasaur in Anti-Capitalist Attribution Cooperative License comments

Anti-Capitalist Attribution Cooperative License » Comments

Viewing post in Anti-Capitalist Attribution Cooperative License comments

Smaller businesses are not all included due to Section 1-J, which specifies what kind of smaller businesses are considered anti-capitalist. Military and law enforcement in many countries as they are right now support capital interests, *not* the interests of the people. It isn't a military-industrial complex for nothing.

Also not sure why this license would prevent creators from listing products for sale on larger platforms that take a cut? If you can explain that part that'd be great.

(edit: fixed typo, for listing -> from listing)

lionade3 years ago(-2)

Sure thing! Thanks for replying, and explaining that, I could be misunderstanding something for sure.

I believe that section 1-J just sets aside additional entities that should be considered capitalist or “anti-capitalist”, but doesn’t alter the description of a “capitalist corporation.” So, a for-profit company that is not limited by shares or is smaller than 50 people would not be considered “anti-capitalist” according to the license definitions.

My comment about militaries and law enforcement wasn’t about what they do, but that they aren’t a strictly capitalist invention; they’ve been around in all civilizations and forms of government across time, including anti-capitalist governments present and past. Because of that, I thought it was strange that generic “militaries” and “law enforcement” were set aside as specifically pro-capitalist in the definitions.

Ok, on to the explanation about not being able to list products for sale: section 2-1 says that the licensed material must be used “for Anti-Capitalist purposes only.” And “anti-capitalist” is defined as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation for a Capitalist Corporation.” So, any big marketplace app, like steam for example, makes money (in part) by taking a cut of the sale in exchange for the time and effort it takes to maintain and improve the platform and make the listed products reach a wide audience. Selling something on a platform like that (and like Itch) would be working toward monetary compensation of a capitalist corporation. In order to avoid that and abide by the terms of this license, you would have to list your product for free in order to prevent a monetary exchange for the corporation.

The only loop hole I can see is that maybe you could argue that your product isn’t “primarily” intended to benefit a capitalist corporation, and so any monetary compensation that occurs is incidental.

Anyways, if you read all that, thanks for taking the time to interact about it! I will be googling “military-industrial complex” soon to learn more about that :D

sinopiasaur3 years ago(+3)

You are misunderstanding a really important part of 1-J:

4. An organization that seeks shared profit for all its members, and allows non-members to set the cost of their labor."

This is actually an anti-capitalist company, which do exist. In a capitalist company, profit is not shared equally and certainly not shared according to how much work is done by individuals. CEO's do very little yet make anywhere from 300% to 1000%+ of what the people below them do. This is one of the major causes of inequality in the world, and why capitalism is corruptive to societal structures in the long run.

Think of it this way: any factory worker is the one who is actually running the machines and fabricating the product. Their labor creates the product. Management of their labor does not. And yet factory workers get very little of the value of their labor, while the CEO and other corporate leaders get almost all of it.

Without workers, there is no value, but capitalism doesn't recognize this.

Sharing profits equitably is a sign of a non-capitalist company, and is very rare in America, but they do exist. Some of these types of companies are called co-ops, and I do believe there are indie devs that have such co-ops as opposed to working under a AAA company.

Other signs include a more anarchist rather than hierarchical structure, i.e. everyone gets a vote in how the company fares (more anarchist) rather than just a few people or even a single person (more hierarchical).

As for military/police, what a license exists for is the state of the world as it is now. It doesn't make sense to write a license for present-day software in accordance to the state of the world 200 years ago, or even 50. These days the military and police are co-opted by capital interests, so no anti-capitalist license can actually include them. Project Palintir and ICE aren't things you can support without having blood on your hands in a literal way.

As for your explanation about not being able to list products for sale on, say, Steam: that doesn't hold water because they aren't the ones who are using this license. So let's say we have Bee Company, and they publish a game using this license to Steam. Bee Company is the one addressed in this particular license, and Bee Company itself is the one that needs to not pursue capitalist profiteering in this case. Just because Steam takes a cut doesn't invalidate the license.

Another license could be written to explicitly outlaw this sort of thing, but that license would actually be much worse than your misunderstanding of this one: nothing on the internet can be run without a cut being paid to a massive capitalist interest. Such a license would be pretty dead in the water, and that is at least one reason that kind of restriction isn't present in this one.

Licenses are long and painful to read, but kind of necessary when you set out to create your own business. (That and IP, copyright, trademark, etc.) It is the only reason I poke through them still, even though I'm no longer capable of running a business. I know they can be confusing as hell, which is why I support initiatives to create readable versions of licenses. For instance, I really admire the Commons licenses because they have very understandable versions that don't require parsing through and considering the interactions of different sections and possible situations.

Anyways, that's why I interacted here. You did sound a bit hostile towards the end of your original comment, but I recognize that feeling ^_^ so I thought it was worth discussing things.

Be careful as you read more about things like the military-industrial complex. It will make you incredibly, incredibly sad. If you wish to pursue this, I recommend thinking about why the Americans ended the war in Vietnam, and why they never ended the war in the Middle East. Wars are profitable for certain areas of industry, and how do you propagate a forever war without incurring the wrath of your citizenry? Why, you arrange things so that many cannot receive healthcare or an education without participating in the military, declare that to be a voluntary action (despite it being a kind of socio-economic blackmail), and make it so that it seems to most people that anyone who "volunteers" to fight is doing so of their own choice rather than the choice of capital working closely with government. And any such volunteer who dies? Their death is transmuted into "sacrifice", and humans have a strong tendency to forgive any acts committed by such "sacrifices."

And that's just the bare surface I've scratched there. It goes really far, really deep, really damn depressing.

Have a good day! Er, that sounded ironic, but I really do mean it.

lionade3 years ago(+1)(-1)

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response, and the interaction here, it has been good stuff.

I think you are totally right about section 1-J-4, in fact I think Valve might operate that way? So yes, absolutely, large companies can be structured in other ways that are much more flat and share ownership/responsibility/risk/profit more uniformly and would perfectly fit the descriptors in this license. My (small) point was that it seems like small, for-profit, more traditionally structured, "capitalist" companies might also be able to fit the descriptors, and I think that's still in the spirit of the license which also wants to allow individuals benefit from the product.

I completely misunderstood the "directionality" of the license, and so that was really helpful for me to understand that! Thanks for taking the time to explain that. I did not mean to sound hostile, but I think that makes it double cool that you chose to interact anyways about it.

And thanks so much for the warning about researching. It seems like an important thing to understand, and I think it's important to really understand even the most horrible things, in order to best know how to combat them. But, and especially these days when it is easy to fall into depression, I was truly touched that a stranger would seek to keep me from something even as small as sadness. So thanks for that too :)

I too, sincerely, hope you have a good day!

Pierre Savoie2 years ago(-34)

CEOs do very little? Who conceived of the company, business or product? Who got it off the ground? Who worked longer hours than rank-and-file workers protected with caps like 37.5 hours per week, who could go much longer, on evenings and weekends? Who assumed most of the risk when the company was small or not widespread and not making money?
Capitalism is PROPERLY explained here.

Pteropede91 days ago

Yikes. That video severely undermines your points because it relies on several logical fallacies (particularly a strawman) to make its arguments.

Regarding your comment itself: you confuse CEOs with entrepreneurs or founders, which are not automatically the same. The CEO is hired by the board of directors, who are in-turn elected by the shareholders; that's it. To assume the CEO is necessarily the founder is like mistaking the pope for Jesus.
Who conceived of the company/business?
Frustrated/inconvenienced people frequently devise their own solutions; entrepreneurs are a small subset that choose to charge for their solution.
Who conceives of the product?
Designers/inventors/engineers do and are frequently not CEOs.
Who got it off the ground?
"Off the ground" is equivocal; this point seems void for vagueness.
Who worked longer hours...weekends?
This question seems loaded with presuppositions, but let's put that aside for now. First of all, don't pretend CEOs universally put in long hours. Second, there's a huge difference between an employee told they'll be fired if they don't work 80+ hours and a founder who chooses to donate more of their life to promote their business. If the founders believe in the cause that much, then their volunteering is its own reward, not a justification for endless extracting excess value from the labor of others once the firm is finally successful.
Who assumed most of the risk... not making money?
The financial risk is assumed by whoever's putting in the money, which, again, is not necesarily the CEO. Venture capitalists or angel investors are making the biggest gamble because it's their money that's being spent yet they're not directly driving the company.

In summary, please shore up your understanding of fallacies so you can make better arguments. Also, I strongly suggest you compare and contrast the terms CEO, founder, inventor, and angel investor to better understand how they are distinct from one another.

itch.io

Viewing post in Anti-Capitalist Attribution Cooperative License comments