[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 1044



File: 1470599989993.png (95.23 KB, 186x300, linux communism.jpg)

No.1044

You dont have to be a communist to support free software.
But wouldnt you need to support free software as a communist?

  No.1045

Free Software has been co-opted by capitalists. RIP.

(anyone have at one screenshot of RMS talking about Emma Goldman?)

  No.1048

>>1045
No comrade, free software belongs to the people. You are thinking of "open source" software. Open source these days means labor exploitation, in that, someone toiled to make the software and it is now being used for profit by corps. Free software on the otherhand is distinct in that it comes with a copyleft license, preventing it from being used to take others' surplus value

  No.1050

>>1045
RMS sold Emacs on tapes in order to fund its development. The FSF paid programmers to develop many of its programs.

Free Software has always been capitalist in the sense that you can sell it for whatever you want. If you barred the selling of Free Software, it would no longer be Free Software.

  No.1051

File: 1470603523765.png (37.98 KB, 157x200, emma_goldman.png)

I'm pretty sure from a Marxist point of view the Free Software movement is "bourgeois moralism."

  No.1052

>>1050
Capitalist doesn't mean trade.
A capitalist is someone that utilizes private property to generate capital via surplus value extraction.

  No.1053

>>1051
There is no moralfaggotry about it.
Copyleft licenses exist to propagate public property. The more copylefted software exists the more likely it is that said software will inspire more copylefted software.
The copyleft movement is primarily to prevent software for being utilized as private property.

  No.1057

>>1052
>Capitalist doesn't mean trade.
>A capitalist is someone that utilizes private property to generate capital via surplus value extraction.
That seems like an unnecessarily complex way to state it, but alright.

I take some Free Software, make many valuable changes, and refuse to release my changes until I'm paid for them. This seems capitalist to me and seems to align with your definition, as the changes would be my private property until they were sold.

>>1053
>There is no moralfaggotry about it.
Please don't use language like that.

>The copyleft movement is primarily to prevent software for being utilized as private property.

The Free Software Movement is meant to give computer users freedom. Private property doesn't conflict with that.

  No.1058

>>1053
If you read Stallman's writing, it is nothing but "moralfaggotry." Of course that doesn't mean that they can't support it for different reasons, but I don't think they "need to."

>>1057
According to Marxists, private property is indeed in conflict with freedom.

  No.1059

>>1057
Private property does conflict with freedom.
Private property exists only to extract surplus value.

  No.1061

>>1058
>>1059
If you're going to claim private property conflicts with freedom, I'd like to read an actual explanation of why.

  No.1062

>>1061
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

tl;dr: private property strips the workers of the ability to benefit in full from their labor

  No.1063

>>1062
I don't really want to read an entire book for what should be a simple explanation.
>tl;dr: private property strips the workers of the ability to benefit in full from their labor
How? Explain how I, the worker, am stripped of the ability to benefit from my labor in this scenario: >>1057

  No.1064

>>1061
>>1062
>>1063
We could even go back even to early anarchism. The notion that private property is antithetical to freedom stems further from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's slogan, "Property is theft!". Yet it could be said that all socialist rhetoric has extrapolated on it ever since. Private property is an institution that is involuntarily enforced onto the populace; https://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2010/03/07/is-property-theft/

  No.1065

>>1063
Anyone wanting to attack or defend private property needs to have at least read Das Kaptial.

  No.1066

>>1065
That's the same technique religious groups use to avoid criticism.

This should be able to be explained without reading long books.

  No.1067

File: 1470608140127-0.png (73.76 KB, 200x200, californian_engl.pdf)

File: 1470608140127-1.png (388.03 KB, 200x200, cybercommunism_art.pdf)

>>1066
I'm not trying to avoid criticism. You're asking for an extrapolation of the very tl;dr that given to you; if you found it insufficient, then just read the book. In >>1064, I believe I put more succinctly. Private property conventions are the basis of exploitation, in large part because they do not account for the effects of collective force and allow the wealth created by association to be appropriated by a privileged class. If you want to see these concepts used to criticize more contemporary (and subsequently technologically inclined) institutions, then look into Richard Barbrook's essays. Most notably "The Californian Ideology" and his "Cybercommunist Manifesto".

  No.1068

>>1067
I'm just going to say we disagree.

Regardless, Free Software has always produced by capitalists and there doesn't seem to be much of a decrease in that trend.

I feel like we've had some good discussion, but I suppose we should focus on the OP again. It was nice discussing this with you, Lainon. I'll download those books and try to read them at some point.

  No.1071

>>1063
There's no private property in your scenario, software is intellectual property, if you accept that as an actual thing.

  No.1072

>>1071
semantics.

  No.1073

>>1068
>free software will always be produced by capitalists
so then you have no idea what free software means? Allow me to reiterate: "open source" is not free software, free software utilizes copyleft licenses to prevent privatization. Capitalists first of all, do not produce software at all, workers do. The software that workers produce under the reign of a capitalist is not free either, why would it be? There is no monetary incentive.

  No.1074

File: 1470611314742.png (54.84 KB, 74x200, 2016-07-24-125029_139x378_scrot.png)

>>1072
How is it semantics? Private property and intellectual property are two very distinct concepts.

Can you explain please where did you extract surplus value in your scenario? Who did you extract it from? Do you even know what surplus value means?

  No.1075

>>1073
> There is no monetary incentive.
A lot of the time people contribute to an open-source project so they can either put it on their resume or work on their own skill set, which can easily translate to better income.

That seems like a potential monetary incentive.

  No.1076

>>1075
I'm talking about free software, not open source. Reading comprehension, please!

  No.1078

>>1076
You don't have to insult me.

While you're not wrong that there is a different between open source and free software, there is FOSS. Companies have been known to put money into development of various free and/or open source software.

Putting money into something isn't "producing it', but it does makes producing it more appetizing for some people, I mean it would for me.

  No.1079

>>1078
Surely you do realize though that working as a freelancer for bounties of money is different from working for a wage under an employer at which point surplus value extraction happens, right?

  No.1080

>>1079
I'm apparently really bad at communicating because you're not following what I'm trying to say. So, I'm sorry for that. I'll just drop it, because I can't think of how to explain this to you.

  No.1081

>>1071
I would still own the computer memory that contains the only copies of my changes. There would be no way to force me to release these changes.

>>1073
>so then you have no idea what free software means? Allow me to reiterate: "open source" is not free software, free software utilizes copyleft licenses to prevent privatization. Capitalists first of all, do not produce software at all, workers do. The software that workers produce under the reign of a capitalist is not free either, why would it be? There is no monetary incentive.
I'm a capitalist and a programmer. I produce Free Software.

Here's the definition of Free Software, from the FSF:
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Here's some webpages you should read:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

The FSF generally defines Open Source Software as Free Software without the moral implications. The FSF understands that a programmer can be paid to write Free Software; it's done just that.

If a company or a capitalist produces Free Software, it's still Free Software.

From all of this, we can show that this simply isn't a true statement:
>The software that workers produce under the reign of a capitalist is not free either, why would it be? There is no monetary incentive.

  No.1082

>>1081
>I am a capitalist
Oh really? You own some kind of industry and hire workers and then pay them less than the gains they produce for you? If you do not do this you are not a capitalist.

  No.1086

>>1082
A capitalist is someone supporting or endorsing capitalism.

Here's some definitions of capitalism from a dictionary:
(politics, uncountable) a socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
(economics, uncountable) a socio-economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of privately owned capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.

If I produce something, such as a program, and sell it, I'm supporting capitalism, which makes me a capitalist.

  No.1091

>>1086
>If I produce something, such as a program, and sell it, I'm supporting capitalism
Wrong. You're confusing markets with capitalism. Even the definition you posted mentions private ownership of capital as the pivoting point of capitalism, which isn't required for markets, nor for you to create a program and sell it.

  No.1094

>>1091
>private ownership of capital
like a computer, keyboard, monitor, which are then used to create a product?

  No.1105

>>1091
>>1094
capital is generally used in the context of physical things. Personal computers and home servers are gray areas because they are general-purpose machines, but I think most communists wouldn't consider a PC or a home server to be capital.

  No.1110

>>1094
that sounds like the means of production to me, aka not capital

  No.1111

Free software is Mutualist. It respects peoples right to own the software but rejects that you can run on someone else's computer and still be your's not theirs. Free software holds that any software that runs on your computer ought be your property regardless of who made it. This is a rejection of private property in favor of personal property where you can only claim what you use as your property and nothing else. Just as in a mutualist society you cannot lease property such as an apartment, in a free software ideal you cannot lease software like an operating system.

  No.1112

>>1081
> I would still own the computer memory that contains the only copies of my changes.
That's possession, not private property.

  No.1113

>>1086
A capitalist is someone who buys commodities to sell commodities.

A worker is someone who sells commodities to buy commodities.

You are not a capitalist, you are a worker.

  No.1121

In a truly communist system it would not be up to debate whether software should be Free as in Freedom or not. There would be no economical reason for it not to be.

  No.1149

This thread reminded me how much bullshit copyright laws are.

  No.1166

>>1149
I can understand wanting to copyright media. Most of the problems with media copyrights is how they are held by large corporations with outdated distribution models. But software copyright is just nonsense and software patents are worse. What we consider software copyrights should be software patents and software patents should just not exist.

Source code should be considered equivalent a circuit board instead of a novel.

  No.1167

>>1048
That's not exactly the case.
In my opinion, problem lies in "free software", not "open source". There are many companies and huge corporations, that use and modify free software internally, but never share the changes back. They are not obliged to do that, since they provide a service, not sell nor share free software (in binary form, that would require them to share source as well).

Advantage of free software is that anyone can take such software and compete with companies already using it. But labor exploitation persists, as this software is often developed for free by enthusiasts.

  No.1168

>>1167
>They are not obliged to do that

they are actually, with GPLv3

  No.1169

>>1168
Cite me exact paragraph, please.

  No.1170

>>1168
Before you take the effort, I have done that myself, and you are wrong.

2nd paragraph from 2. Basic Permissions. of GPLv3:
>You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

To put it in other words:
You can hire a programmer to modify GPLv3 licensed work on your behalf. They are not allowed to distribute these modifications to anyone, except you.
Then, you can hire a sysadmin to deploy and maintain such GPLv3 licensed work on your behalf. They are again not allowed to distribute this modified version to anyone.

No part of the license obliges you to share source with anyone, as long as you don't share binary form. Hiring people to work on your behalf is not considered sharing.

There's high probability, that it's what Google, Amazon and many others do, for some of their GPLv3 derived software, running behind their services.

  No.1174

Free Software ties in perfectly within a communist society. But it also works in our current dystopian capitalist society too, it's just flexible. I believe Stallman does buy into that "this isn't real capitalism! It's just crony capitalism!" Yeah because capitalism totally doesn't rely on wage slavery and having an underclass to function or anything. Capitalism's always been immoral and shitty, it's just that the concept of communsims only been a thing for around the past 100 years or so. Unlike capitalsim, ANARCHIST communsim actually works, just like Free and Non-free software. Oh you have to wait for us to patch it or else no one else will or can. Yeah what an efficent development model, no outside help or ideas allowed.

  No.1175

>>1063
I'm not very well read into economics/marx etc., but that scenario is one of the rare instances where the worker is an independent entity and not subject to some contract between her and an owner of means of production (means of production refers to real existing things like computers, offices and so on as well as abstract entities like organisations, companies, patents...). I think that, just from looking at the world, we can agree that it's not reasonable to think of every person as an independent entrepreneur in a has-his-own-business sense. Most people are part of an economic institution, and that institution has an owner. Since it has an owner, that person decides how that economic institution behaves, i.e. what to produce, how/where to produce it, what to do with the profits etc.. People can then rent themselves to that institution, on conditions that are largely set by the owner or by people he put in charge (managers/bosses). In a software example, consider a programmer hired at a software development company. He probably does not get to decide what license the fruits of his labor (code) which he produced in the economic institution get published under. And of course he doesn't decide what to actually work on. And of course he has no power in deciding what's being done with the profits of his work. The power ultimately lies with the owner of that company, that's what ownership means (economic institutions in capitalism are almost inherently dictatorships). And the owner generally is not accountable to the employees, except through some laws external to the company like minimum wage and so on.

Well, there's no law of nature that says things have to be like that. People could be free to decide things in their worklife on their own, and where there's practical reasons (if 7 people work on one program, it makes sense that they all choose the same license for their individual code) or where others are impacted by decisions (like what the wages across the whole company look like), you could decide things democratically, in a general assembly, where every participant in the company is equally entitled to a vote. Moving towards such structures ultimately means lessening the degree to which the institution is in private ownership. So as far as economic institutions go, I think individual people being able to own them is stupid. 150 years ago America decided that it should not be possible to own individual persons and got rid of slavery. And most western civilization thinks slavery is a bad thing. Perhaps in a few more hundred years people will look back at our system, where the organisations/institutions in which people spend most of their adult lifes in can be owned and controlled by individuals and react with "what the hell were they thinking".

  No.1208

>>1051
I see it as a little bit lifestylist for my tastes.
The large-scale economic change required to make software free wont come from individuals inconveniencing themselves.
I do like GPL though, it's the best solution we have while still inside a capitalist framework.

  No.1210

come to think of it everything would just be in the public domain in a communist society wouldn't it?

  No.1218

>>1210
I imagine most things would come with some sort of author-attribution clause. But yeah, in a really communist/socialist society the idea of IP wouldn't make any sense.

  No.1661

>>1064
these kinds of notions are very, very interesting to think about. it's no wonder all kinds of smart people get caught up in the ends and outs of these kinds of thoughts.

but the notion of property came about, naturally, by way of existing together. nothing more, nothing less.

marxism/communism (yeah, they're ""different"") have been tried and tried again and again and it always produces the same results: a dictatorship with horrible conditions for its citizens.

just as secret police are inevitably created and scare tactics are used to surpress insurrection, it's inevitble that marxism applied to something as loose as intellectual property rights (free software) will end up with literal thought policing

  No.1664

>>1168
No, it's the AGPL which requires that.

  No.1694

>>1661
>marxism/communism (yeah, they're ""different"") have been tried and tried again and again and it always produces the same results: a dictatorship with horrible conditions for its citizens.
>cuba
>best healthcare in the galaxy for free
>best education in galaxy completely free
>no one goes hungy cause food is free
>horrible conditions

  No.1698

>>1694
Then go live in Cuba if it's so great.

  No.1701

>>1698
Said no one, ever.

  No.1703

>>1170
>There's high probability, that it's what Google, Amazon and many others do, for some of their GPLv3 derived software, running behind their services.

um, yes, this is obviously true. I'm not sure how much gplv3+ specifically is in the google source tree, but I'm sure it's not-zero.

I'm sure they both are strictly anti-AGPL, though. I'll share an interesting anecdote about the GPLv3, AGPL, and Google if asked.

>>1664
Closer. The reality is that different copyleft licenses have different clauses requiring distribution of source. the gplv3+ enforces the four freedoms totally in modern settings, meaning that if you get gplv3+ software, you are able, legally, to execute it, and to change the version you execute in the same context as the developer. For the AGPL, it's if you connect to the service over a network.

  No.1708

File: 1471877619993.png (60.39 KB, 154x200, Cqag7FqWEAEDMn2.jpg)

>>1698
This kind of response is hardly an argument to anything that he's said.

  No.1780

>>1708
Collecting a bunch of ideas and arranging them in a funny bingo picture does not refute those ideas.

  No.1790

>>1698
If I knew Spanish or Kurdish I might live in Cuba or Chiapas or Rojava for a few years, but never for life, because I'd be abandoning all the people back home. Plus, they're all little fish doomed to be eaten up by big fish eventually, so it's a much better strategy to further the cause at home.

  No.1815

>>1708
>gun control
???
Wouldn't communists be pro-gun since it empowers the people? (Unless they are authoritarian leninists or stalinists)

  No.1828

>>1815
They would be mostly used by anticommunists to wage a civill war, so, no.

  No.1830

>>1828
why should people be forced into communism against their will?

  No.1831

File: 1472349793673.png (52 KB, 200x63, 49-percent.jpg)

>>1828
Marx was explicitly pro workers having guns. It's when the commies are in power that they become suddenly they are anti-gun. Such is one of the many fatal flaws in communism.

>>1830
You're getting into Leninist/Stalinist territory. Communists who wait for everyone to be on board with communism get fucked by capitalist powers. Communists who say fuck that and fight back lose popular consensus which undermines their ideology.

  No.1913

File: 1473029385313.png (67.24 KB, 200x143, mao.zuckerberg.jpg)

>>1831
>Communists who say fuck that and fight back lose popular consensus which undermines their ideology.

Historically that has not always been the case. Under certain conditions, such as invasions by foreign powers, they have used the imminent threat of foreign influence to catalyze support and win political power.

Maintaining a winning position long-term is much more difficult under a collectivist mindset. Regardless of the ideology, highly centralized decision making structures fracture and collapse under the weight of their own consumption in the long-term due to their inability to accurately assess and quickly adapt to the changing conditions faced by their overworked producers.

  No.1915

>>1913
Good thing socialism isn't exclusively heirachal or that would be a problem.

  No.1917

>>1913
>Historically that has not always been the case. Under certain conditions, such as invasions by foreign powers, they have used the imminent threat of foreign influence to catalyze support and win political power.

this is by no means exclusive to communist governments

  No.1918

>>1830
Anticommunists are *usually* a small segment of the population during a communist revolution, due to the nature of revolutions. Naturally there are counterexamples, but usually those are coups more than revolutions.

  No.1940

>>1708
>Buddhist monks are commies
How is that even a criticism? It's not true, but it shares elements with Communism. For example, there isn't any money in a Buddhism monastery. I like the look of Buddhist monastic life.

  No.1968

I agree. If there isn't any profit motive, why would code still have to be proprietary? And isn't most free software kind of publicly owned in a way?