5 ms·

So, the social and economic context of FOSS, especially in light of things like DHH's article about how he doesn't believe in paid contribution to FOSS (despite

by lambda 13y ago

So, the social and economic context of FOSS, especially in light of things like DHH's article about how he doesn't believe in paid contribution to FOSS (despite, well, being paid to contribute to RoR) and Chris Anderson's post about requiring a GitHub account is certainly a worthy topic of discussion. However, throwing around random Marxist buzzwords like "hegemonic control" and "commodity fetishism", and accusing Jeff Atwood of being an "unapologetic white supremacist" for a post that could be best described as Anglocentric, is a really pretty awful way of convincing anyone but those who already agree with you. It appears that the author, rather than trying to improve anything, is merely trying to improve her own social capital in Marxist academic circles.

steveklabnik 13y ago
> throwing around random Marxist buzzwords First of all, these words are not random. They're being used exactly how they're supposed to be used. Source: I read lots of Marx. I can explain any individual one to you if you'd like. Secondly, one man's domain terms is another's 'buzzwords.' Domain terminology has value because it allows you to get to the point, once there's some amount of shared understanding. You need that understanding first, though, which I think is causing the friction here. > is a really pretty awful way of convincing anyone but those who already agree with you. I don't disagree, but I don't think the blog post is trying to convince anyone. As it says at the top, it's attempting to add a certain frame to the previous article: in this case, a Marxist one. I say "I don't disagree" because, well, I actually disagree with Marx, but that doesn't hurt my understanding of the article, because I understand the terminology. It actually helps me grok the author's point and where they're coming from, because I can draw on previous bodies of work to help me understand. > It appears that the author, rather than trying to improve anything, is merely > trying to improve her own social capital in Marxist academic circles. What I find amusing about this statement is that in some ways, she would agree with you: the thrust of the article is a simple assertion that 'unpaid' labor is paid, just not in {the money commodity,money}. It's paid through social capital. And ignoring the relationship between who has access to and can produce each different kind of capital misses an important part of the analysis.
- lambda 13y ago
  So, I'm not terribly familiar with the idea of commodity fetishism, but for the sake of argument, I'll buy that it's domain terminology that has value. If you could explain how it helps describe the situation in the FOSS community, that would be helpful. I am familiar with the notion of hegemony, and the assertion that Richard Stallman has hegemonic control over anything is laughable. Yes, he does have a certain amount of power based on his personal social capital, but it could not be described as any sort of hegemonic control over anything. Hegemonic control implies that you have implied force or economic powers that allow you to have indirect control over many people; his only "control" is people's respect for him and the strength of his opinions (as well as some direct power at the Free Software Foundation and GNU project, but that's fairly marginal in the wider world of FOSS; there's far more software and people working outside of the FSF and GNU structure than within it). Describing him as having hegemonic power is like describing any influential academic as having hegemonic power; I suppose I can see the analogy, but there's a huge difference between a nation-state using its force and economic power indirectly to shape the actions of other nations and someone being intellectually influential. Using the notion of "hegemonic power" for a person who is merely intellectually influential merely waters down the idea. And I further take issue with the concluding paragraph that the lack of diversity in FOSS should not be seen as a bug, bur rather as a feature. Yes, I see where she's going with the notion that there are people who use their existing power as members of various privileged classes to be able to exert more leverage and derive economic benefits from their contribution to FOSS. But that just means that it's a feature for certain people; like DRM, something that is a feature for a few is a bug for many more. Likewise, just because some people take advantage of their privileges in the FOSS community, doesn't mean that allowing such privileges to be leveraged actually is a feature.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    Primary source on commodity fetishism: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#... Wikipedia is pretty okay too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism Basically, commodity fetishism is the notion that economics is about relationships between commodities, not about relationships between people. It's called 'fetishism' as an allusion to religions in which dolls come to life. Marx asserts that economics is about relationships between people, but since we focus so much on things, the things come to life, like a fetish, and become just as much a part of our notions of economics as people are. It relates to OSS because of 'the fetishizing of the F/OSS community itself': the dozens of articles about how OSS is the best way to make software, the only good way to make software, that those who do OSS are better than those who don't. We animate this social relation and put it on the same footing as actual people. They're expressed through objects. Does that start to make some sense? Stallman is an example in the article, not the controller of the hegemony. The hegemony is of the fetish of Open Source. Stallman is just one person (I am very much another) who stands to benefit from the hegemony. I understood 'bug, not a feature' in a different way than you. What I got out of it was that it's a structural, not accidental aspect of the system. She was attempting to bridge the culture gap by referencing hacker pop culture. This kind of commentary is very common in Marxism. I'm going to go eat lunch now, I'll check back in on this discussion later. Thanks!

by lambda 13y ago

steveklabnik 13y ago

> throwing around random Marxist buzzwords First of all, these words are not random. They're being used exactly how they're supposed to be used. Source: I read lots of Marx. I can explain any individual one to you if you'd like. Secondly, one man's domain terms is another's 'buzzwords.' Domain terminology has value because it allows you to get to the point, once there's some amount of shared understanding. You need that understanding first, though, which I think is causing the friction here. > is a really pretty awful way of convincing anyone but those who already agree with you. I don't disagree, but I don't think the blog post is trying to convince anyone. As it says at the top, it's attempting to add a certain frame to the previous article: in this case, a Marxist one. I say "I don't disagree" because, well, I actually disagree with Marx, but that doesn't hurt my understanding of the article, because I understand the terminology. It actually helps me grok the author's point and where they're coming from, because I can draw on previous bodies of work to help me understand. > It appears that the author, rather than trying to improve anything, is merely > trying to improve her own social capital in Marxist academic circles. What I find amusing about this statement is that in some ways, she would agree with you: the thrust of the article is a simple assertion that 'unpaid' labor is paid, just not in {the money commodity,money}. It's paid through social capital. And ignoring the relationship between who has access to and can produce each different kind of capital misses an important part of the analysis.

lambda 13y ago
So, I'm not terribly familiar with the idea of commodity fetishism, but for the sake of argument, I'll buy that it's domain terminology that has value. If you could explain how it helps describe the situation in the FOSS community, that would be helpful. I am familiar with the notion of hegemony, and the assertion that Richard Stallman has hegemonic control over anything is laughable. Yes, he does have a certain amount of power based on his personal social capital, but it could not be described as any sort of hegemonic control over anything. Hegemonic control implies that you have implied force or economic powers that allow you to have indirect control over many people; his only "control" is people's respect for him and the strength of his opinions (as well as some direct power at the Free Software Foundation and GNU project, but that's fairly marginal in the wider world of FOSS; there's far more software and people working outside of the FSF and GNU structure than within it). Describing him as having hegemonic power is like describing any influential academic as having hegemonic power; I suppose I can see the analogy, but there's a huge difference between a nation-state using its force and economic power indirectly to shape the actions of other nations and someone being intellectually influential. Using the notion of "hegemonic power" for a person who is merely intellectually influential merely waters down the idea. And I further take issue with the concluding paragraph that the lack of diversity in FOSS should not be seen as a bug, bur rather as a feature. Yes, I see where she's going with the notion that there are people who use their existing power as members of various privileged classes to be able to exert more leverage and derive economic benefits from their contribution to FOSS. But that just means that it's a feature for certain people; like DRM, something that is a feature for a few is a bug for many more. Likewise, just because some people take advantage of their privileges in the FOSS community, doesn't mean that allowing such privileges to be leveraged actually is a feature.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Primary source on commodity fetishism: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#... Wikipedia is pretty okay too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism Basically, commodity fetishism is the notion that economics is about relationships between commodities, not about relationships between people. It's called 'fetishism' as an allusion to religions in which dolls come to life. Marx asserts that economics is about relationships between people, but since we focus so much on things, the things come to life, like a fetish, and become just as much a part of our notions of economics as people are. It relates to OSS because of 'the fetishizing of the F/OSS community itself': the dozens of articles about how OSS is the best way to make software, the only good way to make software, that those who do OSS are better than those who don't. We animate this social relation and put it on the same footing as actual people. They're expressed through objects. Does that start to make some sense? Stallman is an example in the article, not the controller of the hegemony. The hegemony is of the fetish of Open Source. Stallman is just one person (I am very much another) who stands to benefit from the hegemony. I understood 'bug, not a feature' in a different way than you. What I got out of it was that it's a structural, not accidental aspect of the system. She was attempting to bridge the culture gap by referencing hacker pop culture. This kind of commentary is very common in Marxism. I'm going to go eat lunch now, I'll check back in on this discussion later. Thanks!