The Anti-Capitalist Case for Standards
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
In a capitalist world, the often-overlooked systems of technical standards offer a rare example of economic collaboration that prioritizes the public good over profit.

In a capitalist world, the often-overlooked systems of technical standards offer a rare example of economic collaboration that prioritizes the public good over profit.

  • themurphy@lemmy.ml
    English
    471·
    4 days ago

    Anti-capitalism does not mean anti-technology or anti-trade; it means building a society based on an economic basis other than capitalism. Non-capitalist societies in the modern world also possess technology, conduct trade, and experience material progress — mechanisms that are built into the standards development system.

    It’s just that how decisions get made about that progress and who owns and benefits from the fruits of that progress is different than in a capitalist society.

    This is basically what the EU has doing with USB-C.

  • Libra00@lemmy.worldEnglish
    26·
    4 days ago

    What we do not see, from even the most enthusiastic promoters of standardization, is the argument that standardization is for the benefit of capital.

    Ok, I’ll make it. Companies participate in standards organizations because it is strictly in their best interest to do so for several reasons.

    1. You get to help determine the standard so you can try to keep the ultimate result nearer to your existing version so it’s cheaper to modify your products to meet the standard.
    2. There is some amount of brand prestige in being part of the creation of a standard, and that translates into some sales at least.
    3. You have a heads-up about what the standard is going to look like before it’s published and can start tooling production around it before companies that aren’t part of the process, thus getting an early-adopter advantage in the market and keeping you from having to rush and spend a lot of money to catch up.
    4. Most importantly, interoperability will directly generate more sales (or at the very least keep you from losing some) for you and everyone else involved.

    If these companies didn’t benefit financially from participation a lot fewer of them might participate; big companies like IBM for whom pushing technology forward is a part of their identity would probably still participate, but the little Taiwanese company that only makes CD players probably wouldn’t give a shit and would only adopt the standard after the fact to avoid losing sales with none of the expense of contributing to the standard.

    • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      4 days ago

      And those companies can even participate in several competing standard groups. It has nothing to do with advancing the field, only with protecting their interests.

    • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.netEnglish
      5·
      4 days ago
      1. Implementing a standard means that engineers can specify the use of your product in a generic way instead of directly recommending your product for the use case which could be unethical