Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A short critique of Stallmanism

jancorazza.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 203 posts

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#191

Post by jcora »

jasonkostempski wrote: post #59
krick wrote: post #44

I think this is pretty great analysis, really. Sobering, so to say. I know all of this, but tend to ignore quite often. This is because (unlike Stallman) I don't think I'm fighting a war, I'm just living the way I think is "right". But is it really not my war? In the and, I do believe it would be a better world if some goals of Stallman have been achieved. However, this analysis has the same flaws it points out in th…

"Fighting for FOSS is basically fighting for communism." Communism is an economic system of physical goods and services, digital and intellectual things aren't either so I don't think it's useful to equate the two. Digital media is easily obtained by anyone so is made with a lock to which the key is sold. The keys are usually some form of digital media, so a central authority is needed to validate the keys. The valid…

> Communism is an economic system of physical goods and services, digital and intellectual things aren't either so I don't think it's useful to equate the two.

This is a very confused definition of communism. The proper definition is a classless, stateless, and moneyless society (although I prefer marketless). What that almost certainly implies, is a form of goal-oriented economic coordination in the form of central planning of production.

The problem you're trying to describe is called commodification. It is harder to commodify digital goods than physical ones. But this is merely a pragmatic issue for the capitalists, as they have commodified and will commodify pretty much any facet of life.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#192

Post by quitspamming »

jcora wrote: post #181
quitspamming wrote: post #77

I'm surprised the HN crowd isn't calling this out for what it is, anti capitalist BS. I've seen people talk about tactics, DRM, ethics, but the author's point was Stallman is right expect for one thing: profit. Stallman tries to explain over and over again how free software can be profitable, and the author of this post's whole point is, "nah, it can't be. Want free software? You need socialism." Stupid article pushi…

Yes I am a socialist and as such I employ materialistic and systemic analysis. Just calling it "anti capitalist BS" is a pretty shitty attempt at critique. > but the author's point was Stallman is right expect for one thing: profit. Did you even read the article?

Yeah, I read it, it was a bunch of Marxist buzzwords with one important line...

"How can our politics be effective, if we don't connect them to the actual source of the problem: profit?"

You also draw a really simplistic and ignorant call to action here...

"Free software activists should accept that software freedom is not an isolated issue, with its own, completely independent value set, but is just one aspect of a wider struggle for justice, and that we can never achieve full software justice under capitalism."

I am a free software activist. I write, use, modify, and evangelize free software for my paycheck. I also think socialism is a garbage philosophy. So your goal that we shouldn't take software justice as an isolated issue is betrayed by the fact that you better hope I take it as an isolated issue, because if I don't I'm going to tie it to capitalism and fight you tooth and nail. This is why Stallman is careful to not tie it to much else. He is trying to maximize the number of people involved.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#193

Post by jcora »

quitspamming wrote: post #192
jcora wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I am a socialist and as such I employ materialistic and systemic analysis. Just calling it "anti capitalist BS" is a pretty shitty attempt at critique. > but the author's point was Stallman is right expect for one thing: profit. Did you even read the article?

Yeah, I read it, it was a bunch of Marxist buzzwords with one important line... "How can our politics be effective, if we don't connect them to the actual source of the problem: profit?" You also draw a really simplistic and ignorant call to action here... "Free software activists should accept that software freedom is not an isolated issue, with its own, completely independent value set, but is just one aspect of a…

> Yeah, I read it, it was a bunch of Marxist buzzwords

I tried to keep it buzzword free, if it was understandable, what's the problem?

> You also draw a really simplistic and ignorant call to action here...

Well this is a critique of an ideology. The majority of the text deals with what's wrong with it, and only general pointers are given as an alternative. However I believe they are enough to get free software people to question parts of their approach and start researching important topics for themselves. I never set out to write an article titled "How to free the whole society in 10 easy steps".

> I am a free software activist. I write, use, modify, and evangelize free software for my paycheck.

That's great, this article was aimed at you. What concrete problems do you have with the article? I hardly said "Stallman is not a socialist and is therefore wrong about everything", I created arguments from the ground-up, and I believe they deserve to be engaged in such a manner.

> I also think socialism is a garbage philosophy.

All of us have our personal backgrounds and beliefs which are hard to get over. You say socialism is a garbage philosophy, well, what do you think about exploitation of workers, of the huge amounts of labor we waste as a society, of unequal distribution of wealth both inside and between countries? What do you think about imperialistic wars? Do you believe your interests align with the interests of those who own the means of production and exchange, those who control finances? I hardly believe you like any of this.

You don't have to identify as a socialist to begin thinking about problems which the current system has. I certainly didn't, in the start. But as I started reading more and more, I slowly realized how Marxism was the most thorough analysis of capitalism and its problems, and how it formalized the most effective ideology of the working class.

I suggest, if you haven't already, that you give The Communist Manifesto a read--it can't possibly hurt you. If you have, try Engels' Principles of Communism: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com....

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#194

Post by quitspamming »

jcora wrote: post #193
quitspamming wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I read it, it was a bunch of Marxist buzzwords with one important line... "How can our politics be effective, if we don't connect them to the actual source of the problem: profit?" You also draw a really simplistic and ignorant call to action here... "Free software activists should accept that software freedom is not an isolated issue, with its own, completely independent value set, but is just one aspect of a…

> Yeah, I read it, it was a bunch of Marxist buzzwords I tried to keep it buzzword free, if it was understandable, what's the problem? > You also draw a really simplistic and ignorant call to action here... Well this is a critique of an ideology. The majority of the text deals with what's wrong with it, and only general pointers are given as an alternative. However I believe they are enough to get free software peopl…

We fundamentally disagree. You, as a Marxist, see it as us versus them. That economics, money, and means of production (in this case software) is a zero sum game and that if others have, then someone has not. If the rich have money, they took it from the poor. If there is closed/proprietary software, that has subtracted from free/open software. And that is not true. Money isn't zero sum, Windows can have their proprietary software and GNU can have their free-as-in-freedom software. You don't have to, better yet, you don't get to force (and socialism IS force) other people.

I want people to want FOSS. I want people to be free, that's why I want them to use FOSS. Part of freedom is the choice to make unethical choices. Using government levers to force is the opposite of freedom.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#195

Post by smsm42 »

webmaven wrote: post #190
smsm42 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a lot of companies using GPL/AGPL for exactly the same purpose - to prevent other commercial companies from reusing their code. It is especially common in areas where added-value customizations are valuable - i.e., if you have GPL (or, usually, dual-licensed commercial/GPL) core for, say, document handling system, you can market it as open-source, take contributions, and build add-on business on it, but if…

> if you have GPL (or, usually, dual-licensed commercial/GPL) core for, say, document handling system, you can market it as open-source, take contributions, and build add-on business on it, but if a competitor comes out and wants to use your core, they now have to publish source for all their add-ons, so you can have them for free. This is a bit tricky to pull off unless you get a copyright assignment or a license pe…

You can use the code without regard to GPL, since you own the copyright. Of course, contributions usually require copyright assignment in this model, via CLA of some kind.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#196

Post by webmaven »

smsm42 wrote: post #195
webmaven wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you have GPL (or, usually, dual-licensed commercial/GPL) core for, say, document handling system, you can market it as open-source, take contributions, and build add-on business on it, but if a competitor comes out and wants to use your core, they now have to publish source for all their add-ons, so you can have them for free. This is a bit tricky to pull off unless you get a copyright assignment or a license pe…

You can use the code without regard to GPL, since you own the copyright. Of course, contributions usually require copyright assignment in this model, via CLA of some kind.

Um, what part of unless you get a copyright assignment or a license permitting relicensing from all contributors wasn't clear?

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#197

Post by jcora »

quitspamming wrote: post #194
jcora wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, I read it, it was a bunch of Marxist buzzwords I tried to keep it buzzword free, if it was understandable, what's the problem? > You also draw a really simplistic and ignorant call to action here... Well this is a critique of an ideology. The majority of the text deals with what's wrong with it, and only general pointers are given as an alternative. However I believe they are enough to get free software peopl…

We fundamentally disagree. You, as a Marxist, see it as us versus them. That economics, money, and means of production (in this case software) is a zero sum game and that if others have, then someone has not. If the rich have money, they took it from the poor. If there is closed/proprietary software, that has subtracted from free/open software. And that is not true. Money isn't zero sum, Windows can have their propri…

I employ a materialist analysis of society in which means of production are owned by the few, and in which the majority of the people have to sell most of their time simply to have food. This is an undeniable fact of reality, and you merely choose to ignore it. Your ideology obscures simple facts of economic life in capitalistic society, I mean your entire comment completely lacks substance: what do you even mean by "If the rich have money, they took it from the poor"? Which part of my beliefs are you attacking? It's completely vague.

> and socialism IS force

This, again, completely lacks substance. Even by bourgeois ideologue standards.

> Part of freedom is the choice to make unethical choices

Pure ideology. The point is to look beyond individual choices, and analyze how the entire system functions. It is impossible to make ethical choices under capitalism.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#198

Post by JdeBP »

jprzybyl wrote: post #102
matthewmacleod wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there? I would believe that there are many who don't care, or many who are dismissive at a rather shallow level. But I'm not aware of having seen a good, intellectual critique of "free" software.

I personally like free software. (My personal stance lines up the most with the Debian Social Contract.) However, OpenBSD (my second choice of system) does not , and they've been vocal in the past. https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#43 It's pretty simple - freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. That includes in a proprietary environment. That includes whatever you want it to includ…

That's a misrepresentation of what the OpenBSD people were getting at. They had a dispute with Richard Stallman over his deciding to not endorse OpenBSD. That does not mean that they don't like free software. Tellingly, the ports tree has an abundance of free softwares. The idea that they don't like free softwares is disproven by the very thing that they and Stallman had the dispute over.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#199

Post by quitspamming »

jcora wrote: post #197
quitspamming wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We fundamentally disagree. You, as a Marxist, see it as us versus them. That economics, money, and means of production (in this case software) is a zero sum game and that if others have, then someone has not. If the rich have money, they took it from the poor. If there is closed/proprietary software, that has subtracted from free/open software. And that is not true. Money isn't zero sum, Windows can have their propri…

I employ a materialist analysis of society in which means of production are owned by the few, and in which the majority of the people have to sell most of their time simply to have food. This is an undeniable fact of reality, and you merely choose to ignore it. Your ideology obscures simple facts of economic life in capitalistic society, I mean your entire comment completely lacks substance: what do you even mean by…

"I employ a materialist analysis of society" translation: I regurgitate Marx's works.

"and in which the majority of the people have to sell most of their time simply to have food." as opposed to farmers who work 16 hours a day to grow food. Different occupations sell for different value and require different time.

"This is an undeniable fact of reality, and you merely choose to ignore it" a smug way of saying 'I'm right and you're wrong'.

"I mean your entire comment completely lacks substance: what do you even mean by "If the rich have money, they took it from the poor"? Which part of my beliefs are you attacking? It's completely vague." I'm attacking the fundamental assertions of Marx's conflict theory. Redistributing wealth is predicated on the ideology that someone having lots of money is the cause of someone else not having money. So you redistribute it from one person to the other, ignore any rights of the person to their private property.

"> and socialism IS force This, again, completely lacks substance. Even by bourgeois ideologue standards." - Not only isn't it lacking substance, it's empirically true. Given your next poorly thought out statement...

"The point is to look beyond individual choices" - look beyond individual choices? There is only the individual choice if you have freedom. If I don't have the individual right to choose that means I'm being forced. Hence, socialism IS force.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#200

Post by [deleted] »

wanderingjew wrote: post #18

Oh, this is hilarious. The art for this blog post was taken from here: http://hackaday.com/2016/01/13/stallmans-one-mistake/ This art was taken without crediting the artist, and without permission from either the artist or the publisher.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN