6 ms·

Before the horde descends, I thought I might respond to the suggestion that RMS is anti-capitalist. This comes up frequently and is a bit of a red herring. I

Before the horde descends, I thought I might respond to the suggestion that RMS is anti-capitalist. This comes up frequently and is a bit of a red herring. I won't try to speak for him (he can obviously do that well enough himself), however I think it is worth considering the free software movement in today's reality. Back when they only thing that described free software was the GNU manifesto, we still had the idea that writing software that enabled businesses was a good idea. It may be a consequence of free software that it will become difficult to charge money directly for software (as a product), but that shouldn't stop companies from making money. Especially now when we see how open source software is almost taken for granted, we can see that companies flourish, not die. It is true that you practically can not charge money for a compiler any more, but are we worse off? No. We have different and arguably better business models for that kind of software -- and we haven't given up capitalism at all. My tools are dramatically better than they were 30 years ago (when I first started in this business). The cost has also dropped to nearly zero. We have become efficient. It is true that the FSF considers software freedom a moral imperative. While it may be true that some kinds of software will be difficult to produce in this manner, we can see that there are several very large companies that thrive producing virtually every kind of software. Personally, I don't think there are many businesses that will be better off with our old software-as-a-product business models -- games being a probable exception. What we have now is better, more efficient, enabling for the general population -- and much better for businesses. I have a hard time seeing it from an "anti-capitalist" position. And, just from my personal perspective, I don't think RMS ever did either.

DasIch 11y ago
Have you ever read anything by RMS on what he calls Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS)? I can't think of many large businesses who aren't "guilty" of that.
- Frondo 11y ago
  This looks like the SaaSS article: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... The payoff comes at the very end, "Do your own computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom's sake." Nah, I'll pay someone to do compute (and maintain the API, infrastructure, etc.) for me. I'm a huge free software advocate, but in the SaaS situation, I'm not paying for a program, I'm paying for results. As such, it's immaterial how I get those results--they could have a roomful of people arranging bits by hand. (What if that's how they were doing it? Would that represent a loss of freedom, if I were paying people to shuffle bits by hand?) This particular essay seems like the RMS take on that old saw, "if all you have is a hammer..."
  - tremon 11y ago
    The loss of freedom, in your case, is control over the development direction of your tools. If the tools match your business, fine. Let's hope they still do in a few years. If the match is only partial, your choice is between lobbying for tool change from your vendor, or conforming your business to match the tool.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> I have a hard time seeing it from an "anti-capitalist" position. The FSF position is anti-capitalist in at least one technical sense -- in the domain of software, it morally opposes capitalist model of property rights (and, in practice, uses a hack around the mechanism by which that model is implemented to subvert it.)
- x1798DE 11y ago
  I always saw intellectual property rights as a hack to try and encourage the production of non-rivalrous goods. The scarcity is in some sense enforced and artificial, and there's a strong argument to be made that they aren't they aren't "natural" property rights in the same sense as you get with rivalrous goods. I think pro-capitalist (mostly libertarian) thought on this matter is divided.
  - js8 11y ago
    > The scarcity is in some sense enforced and artificial The problem is, you can mount the very same argument even in the case of normal property rights. At the beginnings of capitalism, the scarcity was in fact enforced by means of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure. IMHO, most libertarians are used to idea normal property and take it for "natural", but not so in the "intellectual" world of ideas. It is partly because they benefit from intellectual world not yet completely owned by rich people. But I think people outside computing (unless they are distinctly leftist) are unfortunately lot more content with the idea of "intellectual property". In my view, there is always a balance between "property rights" and other needs of society - availability of resources to the needy and the general public, innovation and growth.
    - belorn 11y ago
      You have the draw the line somewhere and using physical boundaries is quite useful. It create a natural distinction. The problem with IP is that there isn't any limit to it. A driver license is not more or less a property than a patent, but it acts wastingly different. Can I sell a driver license? can I rent it? Can I cut it into two different part and give a friend half of it? What makes the exclusivity of state granted driver license a non-property, in contrast to the state granted exclusivity of an patent?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
js8 11y ago
I am not talking primarily about Stallman's free software work; have you ever read his political notes? It seems that he is very critical to capitalism (as a description of the existing economic system, contrary to free market, which describes - somewhat different - ideal). In fact he also seems to be critical about free market, in particular in environmental and social issues.
- quadrangle 11y ago
  RMS is a classic Green Party guy, explicitly. That is not the same as being anti-capitalist. And only idiots think that free markets don't have externalities, so RMS noting that there are environmental or social issues free markets fail to address is itself completely unremarkable. Anyone who denies those facts should be completely disregarded. Even the most staunch free market advocates who have any understanding of reality accept that externalities exist.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    Usually the staunch free market advocates don't want to do anything about those externalities, though. They accept that they exist, but that doesn't stop them from fighting whenever regulation or taxes come up as a way to fix those externalities.
    - quadrangle 11y ago
      Sure. There are idiots who deny/ignore externalities, and then there are intelligent dogmatic fundamentalists who prioritize their fundamentalist model regardless of ramifications.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  Being critical of, and believing that those systems can better work for most people, rather than those at the top, isn't enough to make someone anti-capitalist.

DasIch 11y ago

Have you ever read anything by RMS on what he calls Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS)? I can't think of many large businesses who aren't "guilty" of that.

Frondo 11y ago
This looks like the SaaSS article: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... The payoff comes at the very end, "Do your own computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom's sake." Nah, I'll pay someone to do compute (and maintain the API, infrastructure, etc.) for me. I'm a huge free software advocate, but in the SaaS situation, I'm not paying for a program, I'm paying for results. As such, it's immaterial how I get those results--they could have a roomful of people arranging bits by hand. (What if that's how they were doing it? Would that represent a loss of freedom, if I were paying people to shuffle bits by hand?) This particular essay seems like the RMS take on that old saw, "if all you have is a hammer..."
- tremon 11y ago
  The loss of freedom, in your case, is control over the development direction of your tools. If the tools match your business, fine. Let's hope they still do in a few years. If the match is only partial, your choice is between lobbying for tool change from your vendor, or conforming your business to match the tool.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> I have a hard time seeing it from an "anti-capitalist" position. The FSF position is anti-capitalist in at least one technical sense -- in the domain of software, it morally opposes capitalist model of property rights (and, in practice, uses a hack around the mechanism by which that model is implemented to subvert it.)

x1798DE 11y ago
I always saw intellectual property rights as a hack to try and encourage the production of non-rivalrous goods. The scarcity is in some sense enforced and artificial, and there's a strong argument to be made that they aren't they aren't "natural" property rights in the same sense as you get with rivalrous goods. I think pro-capitalist (mostly libertarian) thought on this matter is divided.
- js8 11y ago
  > The scarcity is in some sense enforced and artificial The problem is, you can mount the very same argument even in the case of normal property rights. At the beginnings of capitalism, the scarcity was in fact enforced by means of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure. IMHO, most libertarians are used to idea normal property and take it for "natural", but not so in the "intellectual" world of ideas. It is partly because they benefit from intellectual world not yet completely owned by rich people. But I think people outside computing (unless they are distinctly leftist) are unfortunately lot more content with the idea of "intellectual property". In my view, there is always a balance between "property rights" and other needs of society - availability of resources to the needy and the general public, innovation and growth.
  - belorn 11y ago
    You have the draw the line somewhere and using physical boundaries is quite useful. It create a natural distinction. The problem with IP is that there isn't any limit to it. A driver license is not more or less a property than a patent, but it acts wastingly different. Can I sell a driver license? can I rent it? Can I cut it into two different part and give a friend half of it? What makes the exclusivity of state granted driver license a non-property, in contrast to the state granted exclusivity of an patent?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

js8 11y ago

I am not talking primarily about Stallman's free software work; have you ever read his political notes? It seems that he is very critical to capitalism (as a description of the existing economic system, contrary to free market, which describes - somewhat different - ideal). In fact he also seems to be critical about free market, in particular in environmental and social issues.

quadrangle 11y ago
RMS is a classic Green Party guy, explicitly. That is not the same as being anti-capitalist. And only idiots think that free markets don't have externalities, so RMS noting that there are environmental or social issues free markets fail to address is itself completely unremarkable. Anyone who denies those facts should be completely disregarded. Even the most staunch free market advocates who have any understanding of reality accept that externalities exist.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  Usually the staunch free market advocates don't want to do anything about those externalities, though. They accept that they exist, but that doesn't stop them from fighting whenever regulation or taxes come up as a way to fix those externalities.
  - quadrangle 11y ago
    Sure. There are idiots who deny/ignore externalities, and then there are intelligent dogmatic fundamentalists who prioritize their fundamentalist model regardless of ramifications.
st3v3r 11y ago
Being critical of, and believing that those systems can better work for most people, rather than those at the top, isn't enough to make someone anti-capitalist.