Am I not understanding FOSH (free and open source hardware)? I have always dreamed of open source hardware but it has always seemed unshakeably and fundamentally reliant on for instance massive open pit mines mining all over the world in finite dwindling supply wrecking local ecosystems every element necessary for computer components, factories able to produce at scale fueled by an enormous amount of energy from god knows where, massive pollution and waste every step of the way, and every other ill of extraction and production which seems like it can only be handled by large scale industry almost entirely capitalist for the foreseeable future. Am I missing something? Is it a pipe dream? Even if we find a way to get to a point where we can sustainably and ethically develop any new hardware we need, won’t that require persisting in the mean time in the present capitalist paradigm physically? Is this just kind of a microcosm and reification of the problem of democratizing the economy anyway?
I think your vision of open source hardware is a little too “Perfect”.
And as every engineer knows, perfect is the enemy of good.
We will never have perfect in a capitalist paradigm. You cannot simply opt out of capitalism. You have to tear it down.
But until that becomes possible, you can still do your best to engage in harm reduction, in whatever ways make the most sense to you. Maybe that means just trying to consume less electronics. That’s a big part of the impetus behind the right to repair movement, for example.
I hope that makes some kind of sense.
Right to repair is huge. A friend fixed a TV a few years ago by just replacing a bad capacitor. Saved a bunch of money and it was one tv kept out of a land fill.
I dont see why capitalism and opensource hardware cant coexist.
tl/dr, yes it can(i mean it does today). moreover OSHW seems like it might help limit some of the bad parts. but that may cause tension viz. some current powerful people.
I reckon the benefits of open source arise from contestability in the supply chain - basically market competition.
As a buyer I can more easily switch my purchases from one supplier to another (including in-house) and that competetive tension gives me a better deal.
That competition erodes market power - and it drives down ‘super normal profits’ (economic sense of the term) closer down to the normal level (long run cost of borrowing ).
Free capitalism is about driving up profits. Restricting competition helps that by acquiring and perserving market power . Sometimes the political/market power route is easier than innovating a new or better product or production process - i.e a genuine competetive edge).
Basically it might be cheaper to bribe one market regulator (gain market power), vs employ a team of r+d engineers (try to gain competetive edge).
Society benefits when businesses do the latter (more engineering and science, less lawyers and politicians), but the shareholders don’t necessarily care which method gives them profits (let’s not mention ‘animal’ spirits) - so capitalists do a mix of both. OSHW reduces options on the market power side. Executive board remuneration becomes an imortant incentive at this point.
Capialism ans oshw can work together if the forces of free markets effectively mitigate any excess power caused by concentrations of control over capital. banks have to want to lend to small less profitable businesses who cmply with compatible standards (oshw being basically a version of this).
But I think capitslism and free and competetive markets are not the same thing. Incumbent capitalists seem to like to (ab)use free market rhetoric to try to gain political power that they then use to preserve market power and work against competition.
And I don’t think capitalism can be “torn down”, because any moderate density of human activity will beget a temptation for someone to try to get some disporportionate share of some type of power; ‘market’ power or otherwise.
But excesses of market (and other types of ) power can be reduced or regulated - which usually seems like a good idea. Unfortunately that does bring the politicians and lawyers back into the frame.
100% to me it just seems like a different way to ensure that competition happens upon a standard. I would argue its promoting a truer ideal of free market but as u said bribing someone to stop ur competitor is cheaper than making a better or cheaper product.