Re: [Fsfe-uk] Stalls at Marxism 2003

[Robin Green]

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 09:09:16AM +0100, Chris Croughton wrote:
> I'll accept that it was not intended that way, but I think the Free
> Software Movement has to be careful in associating itself with extremist
> groups of any sort, or at least to keep a balance between them.

Firstly, I would like to express a (probably futile) objection to the word
"extremist". As an anti-capitalist, I reject being described as an
extremist. It's too perjorative - to me, it makes it sound like I'm some kind 
of 
quasi-terrorist or nutjob. ;)

Now, obviously there are violent extremists and nutcases on both the far
left and the far right. But please don't tar random socialists like me
with the same brush as real extremists who kill innocent people in a
(purported/actual) attempt to advance their political aims.

Why not just say what you mean, e.g. "far left or far right"? Or something
like that.

> Since most people assume symmetrical relationships, it is likely to get
> confused: "the Free Software community supports Marxism" 
>(true, but it
> supports everyone else as well)

A quibble: Yes, it "supports" everyone else as well
- but only in the limited sense that even bloodthirsty murderous regimes and
fascists can use Free Software if they so choose!

However, we don't have to provide *technical* support to anyone we morally
object to. There's a distinction between "supporting" as in making software
freely available for all to use, and "supporting" as in technical support.

On the other hand, the "Free Softare community" is so amorphous, including
governments and amoral corporations, that you probably can't ever say for
sure that the "Free Software community" will not support group X. Well, no,
it depends how you define "the community", I suppose.

> and from there it's a very easy step to
> "people who support Free Software are Marxists", particularly because
> the attitudes of several prominent people in the FS movement are indeed
> anti-capitalist
> (those who rant that all 'proprietary' software is evil,
> for instance).

I don't agree with that attitude, but even that attitude is
NOT anti-capitalist.

A rather large number of programmers work on projects where they would
get paid for doing work that needs doing irrespective of if the software was
free software or not, as you know.

Your statement seems to imply that companies like Red Hat
are shining beacons for certain "anti-capitalists", since they don't make
"evil" proprietary software - irrespective of whether they veer
more towards the "pragmatic" or the "moral" arguments for Free Software
in their public statements.

Are you seriously saying that Red Hat, a self-proclaimed 100% Open Source
company, are embodying an "anti-capitalist" mode of software production?
I think their venture capitalist funders would be amused to hear that.

My point being that a strong moral opposition to proprietary
software is not sufficient (or, indeed, necessary) to make a person an
anti-capitalist.

>  It makes it easy for certain companies and regimes which
> benefit from state-capitalism to brand anyone who uses or writes Free
> Software as 'commies'.

Companies like IBM make it harder, though :)

Remember, Microsoft already tried this, and it backfired spectacularly.
Microsoft's extreme anti-GPL FUD (and I really do mean extreme) did not
stop the rise of GPLed software, and it probably made people think
"Why are they so afraid of the GPL and Linux?"

> > AFFS is, of course, entirely non-political in those terms - we'd pretty
> > much talk Free Software anywhere, unless it would be detrimental to our
> > profile overall. I suspect, as you suggest, that the idea of Free
> > Software fits into a number of political ideologies, so we have to be
> > pretty agnostic IMO.
> > I think I can probably say that we don't talk about
> > ourselves being a socialist organisation or some such, no matter what
> > the views of the committee/members/etc.

That's as it should be. There needs to be some umbrella organisations.

Unfortunately, going to an anti-capitalist convention carries a stigma for
the purposes of interfacing to the business world (for obvious reasons),
but going to any of the pro-business
party conventions doesn't have quite the same stigma. That's just the way it is.

Fortunately, I think many companies and governments
have already made the 1+1=2 connection that Free Software as an idea has
*some* vague resemblance to socialism (which is true, I think), but they
simply don't care. It means lower costs, blah blah, so they're happy.
And they're not worried about their move to free software purchasing sparking
off some kind of anti-capitalist revolt ;-)

Anyway, I'd certainly encourage Free Software advocates to go to Marxist
conventions - and the Anarchist Bookfairs! Either as invididuals or 
- even better - as "Left Free Software" groups!

Both venues could do with some revitalising new ideas, I think (just a tad!)
Free Software might have something to teach the idealists about altruism
and co-operation in practice (not all negative or all positive).

> Perhaps I'll have a go at writing an essay on Free Software from a
> libertarian minarchist-capitalist perspective -- don't hold your breath,
> I'm not fast at writing text I'm comfortable with distributing...

Missing "not" before "comfortable"? ;)

There already is some minarchist anti-IP material out their on the web,
BTW. Not the same thing, but related.

-- 
Robin