3 ms·

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 c

by 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!
- blotto 13y ago
  "Given that he is still alive and has a thriving career based on exerting hegemonic control over F/OSS discours" My reading of the above is that Stallman is exerting hegemonic control, thus being the (or possibly one of) the controllers of the hegemony. I agree with the original poster that this assertion is laughable at best.
  - ewzimm 13y ago
    If Stallman were able to exert hegemonic control, we would not be using words like FOSS, and software development would focus on solving social problems. Stallman is vocal about his Socialism and spends most of his time addressing political issues. Anyone can see this clearly on stallman.org. But since the free software model was so successful, many people worked hard to remove its political associations, creating the open source movement. I think the real hegemony is the collection of existing power structures, which will always work to assimilate successful models. It's important to think about who benefits in social interactions, but a useful analysis requires understanding particular historical details like the animosity between idealists and pragmatists in the FLOSS community. It might have been more useful to state that despite its idealiatic origins and the continued participation of people who want to address social problems with software, old structures of privilege continue to determine who benefits from social interactions. Anyone who disagrees with these privileges must take care to decide how best to work against them, because the default benefit is always to those who have inherited privileges.

by lambda 13y ago

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!

blotto 13y ago
"Given that he is still alive and has a thriving career based on exerting hegemonic control over F/OSS discours" My reading of the above is that Stallman is exerting hegemonic control, thus being the (or possibly one of) the controllers of the hegemony. I agree with the original poster that this assertion is laughable at best.
- ewzimm 13y ago
  If Stallman were able to exert hegemonic control, we would not be using words like FOSS, and software development would focus on solving social problems. Stallman is vocal about his Socialism and spends most of his time addressing political issues. Anyone can see this clearly on stallman.org. But since the free software model was so successful, many people worked hard to remove its political associations, creating the open source movement. I think the real hegemony is the collection of existing power structures, which will always work to assimilate successful models. It's important to think about who benefits in social interactions, but a useful analysis requires understanding particular historical details like the animosity between idealists and pragmatists in the FLOSS community. It might have been more useful to state that despite its idealiatic origins and the continued participation of people who want to address social problems with software, old structures of privilege continue to determine who benefits from social interactions. Anyone who disagrees with these privileges must take care to decide how best to work against them, because the default benefit is always to those who have inherited privileges.