38 ms·

You can view communism in terms of "selfishness" like this too. Everyone selfishly wants bread and the only way they can get it is by contributing their labour.

by lqdc13 11y ago

You can view communism in terms of "selfishness" like this too. Everyone selfishly wants bread and the only way they can get it is by contributing their labour. I think "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" fits much better. Everyone is contributing what they can for free to the common knowledge base and can use everyone else's stuff also for free. You can view it as "prestige" currency too, but that doesn't break the paradigm.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
You can't extrapolate conclusions like this out of a political slogan. Free software doesn't have any inherent slant, it's a way of using copyright law to ensure a given set of terms favorable to contribution and research propagate. You can certainly observe that it operates in a dynamic similar to a gift economy, and that it has an ethical position as well, but not a political ideology with all its baggage. The FOSS market is determined purely by individual interests of programmers and the people sponsoring them. It doesn't really hit any equilibrium of utility, only what authors want to work on.
- lqdc13 11y ago
  I wasn't talking about free software as in GPL. Just the free as in beer kind that sometimes happens to also be open source and/or GPL. If you ignore past attempts of implementing communism and limit the discussion to just what its goals are, we can see open source software as a microcosm of communism. The only thing that doesn't fit very well is "ownership of means of production" but this is already assumed to be free, because people have to have a computer to begin with to participate in it. There is no food or water involved so those don't apply. Everything else is almost exactly communism. Absense of social classes: check Absense of state: check Absense of money: check Obviously it is not what Marx was describing, because it wasn't meant to be a mini-society that depends on capitalism for its existence, but I didn't mean to take it that far.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Absence of social class is debatable as most projects are structured hierarchically, and then being a FOSS celebrity does give you advantages. Not that those contradict anarchist principles, necessarily. Absence of state is true for all software development until it isn't. Computer networking enables you to do things unfavorable to nation states up to a point, but at the end of the day there are various ways it can intervene to enforce copyright, patent or other form of law. Absence of money isn't true. It's simply utilized differently than simple per-unit consumer transactions, though those aren't out of the question either.
    - mseebach 11y ago
      > Absence of money isn't true. The fact that this thread sit under an article titled "Should I work for Free" is a pretty big hint...
    - lqdc13 11y ago
      Communism does not stipulate that there is no organizational hierarchical structure. Absence of state is true because within the microcosm, you can contribute from anywhere in the world and receive the software for free as well. Basically you don't even know where the people you are dealing with even live most of the time. This is no state by definition. Let's say you contribute to "NSA open source repository". Still there is no state because you can contribute from anywhere in the world and get the code as well. Absense of money is true by definition. We are talking about free as in beer software here.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        I always thought communism's classlessness necessitated at least some form of flat hierarchy or syndicalism where worker's collectives hold decisions democratically and directly. On the other hand, hierarchical organizations are still fine by some schools of anarchism. Right, but then absence of state is true for anything involving wide area networking. Like I said, you're simply listing an absence of per-unit sales where "free as in beer" is concerned. The money is still there in the form of sponsorships, fundraisers, consulting, premium versions, dual licensing, corporate contributors and so on. And then FOSS has nothing like syndicalism, unions, worker collectives or anything like that.
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  How about political slogans like: Linux is only free if your time is worthless. Free software: more expensive than money. We make free software affordable. (That last one was Cygnus Solution's slogan by John Gilmore [1] [2], which answered the previous ones.) [1] https://books.google.nl/books?id=bjMsCKvV9I4C&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=%22We+make+free+software+affordable.%22&source=bl&ots=DZf0PYfMqu&sig=uJo8CRI5bZtTqwzSyd0M4zwXGIc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NF2RVfbiDcP7UuKcgNAI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22We%20make%20free%20software%20affordable.%22&f=false https://books.google.nl/books?id=bjMsCKvV9I4C&pg=PA78&lpg=PA... [2] https://rapidminer.com/we-make-free-software-affordable/ https://rapidminer.com/we-make-free-software-affordable/
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Political slogans usually aren't worth entertaining in any serious debate, that's the point. Nonetheless, I'll bite: Linux is only free if your time is worthless. That time has value is an idea that has been exploited to create so-called time-based currency and time banking. Free software: more expensive than money. The amount of man hours put in some projects means the costs of a from-scratch rewrite is probably higher than to simply bite the bullet and go by licensing terms. This may or may not be true depending on the project, though some may indeed have a utility and COCOMO score that makes it so. We make free software affordable. Pure marketing slogan, not worth discussing. Probably Cygnus' way of saying they had great support and contract development services (which they did, they're responsible for a large part of making GCC what it is today).
    - DonHopkins 11y ago
      My point is that Cygnus Solutions deftly channeled the doubts and problems raised by the first two slogans (which they didn't originate, but were going around at the time), into a successful service under the last slogan (which they did originate, in response).
fche 11y ago
One problem is the question of who gets to decide "ability" and "need" - since in that totalitarian world this is not voluntary & self-asserted.
- lqdc13 11y ago
  Communism has nothing to do with totalitarianism though. EDIT to clarify: Here is a good link: http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-totalitarianism/ http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-be... Basically they are so different that totalitarianism is considered far right while communism far left on the political spectrum.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - fche 11y ago
    "has nothing to do with totalitarianism" So it just hasn't been done right yet ...? "totalitarianism is considered far right" This passive-voice definition is unauthoritative and wrong. Check a dictionary instead.
    - lqdc13 11y ago
      I think you are conflating the two because of the case of Soviet Union. A) Soviet Union was not communism. Communism never happened. Communism/communist society is an ideal. B) Soviet Union was a totalitarian state, yes. C) One of the main concepts in communism is that there is/should be no state. Totalitarianism assumes that there is a state. This is in every definition of communism and totalitarianism. Here I'm going to quote it from the first line of each from Wikipedia: "Totalitarianism is concept of a political system in which the state holds total control over the society" "Communism ... absence of social classes, money, and the state."
      - fche 11y ago
        "Communism ... absence of [...] state." So yeah, "hasn't been done right yet". Could you hypothesize who in a true-scotsman communist non-state would regulate people's output ("ability") & input ("need")? Who would enforce the laws? If "everyone and anyone" is an enforcer, then claiming there is "no state" is sophistry.
crusso 11y ago
I would amend that to say, "From each according to his ability, to each if someone with the ability cares to provide it for free." If production of free software was directed by need, there would be a lot more free toolkits for the healthcare industry and a lot fewer free games and software dedicated to distributing free porn.
- lqdc13 11y ago
  I agree, but two points regarding need: a) people make stuff that they need themselves and share it so in a way it is need-based. b) yes it doesn't work in situations where there is need but no ability. I am guessing such situations are rare, because projects in many cases are willing to make modifications to help a large portion of their users. Also because there are usually enough people able to do these things to fit most needs. Finally, if you are a part of this microcosm, you can probably code yourself.
  - crusso 11y ago
    a) "need" in the Communist/Marxist sense is definitely not the same as "want". I know that need and want exist on a continuum, but most software development is pretty firmly in the "want" neighborhood. When Marx used the word "need", he was talking about safety, food, shelter, clothing, etc. Porn and video games aren't the modern day equivalent of those things. That's part of the reason why the Marx philosophy doesn't necessarily match up with FOSS. b) Even ignoring "need" vs "want", tell that to my mom's quilting club. The venn diagram of quilters and coders has an extremely small intersection. The same can be said for tons of activities that old ladies and women in general enjoy.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
>Everyone is contributing what they can for free to the common knowledge base and can use everyone else's stuff also for free. Not necessarily. In reality the flow of IP-value is largely one way. Many corporations have done incredibly well out of FOSS without offering much in return. Just because Famous Router Company puts up source code of firmware it has glued together from various FOSS projects doesn't mean FRC has made a significant contribution. (Some corps do, of course. But even there they don't share other core IP as they would in a genuinely flat FOSS economy.) In fact FOSS is about commodification, not innovation or invention. If innovation happens, it's usually in developer-land. FOSS culture doesn't seem all that interested in solving new classes of problem in user-land. So "according to his (her) needs" is very limited and partial.
- lqdc13 11y ago
  Just because we have this conversation and there is some indignation over companies not contributing back to the projects they use shows that we expect them to contribute according to their ability. I agree that it isn't perfect like every other implementation of communism because some people don't contribute back. But we can just pretend that their ability is zero. Then it still works.
- dublinben 11y ago
  >without offering much in return This is why strong copyleft licenses are so important. As you've said, most companies will do the absolute minimum required of them.

by lqdc13 11y ago

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

You can't extrapolate conclusions like this out of a political slogan. Free software doesn't have any inherent slant, it's a way of using copyright law to ensure a given set of terms favorable to contribution and research propagate. You can certainly observe that it operates in a dynamic similar to a gift economy, and that it has an ethical position as well, but not a political ideology with all its baggage. The FOSS market is determined purely by individual interests of programmers and the people sponsoring them. It doesn't really hit any equilibrium of utility, only what authors want to work on.

lqdc13 11y ago
I wasn't talking about free software as in GPL. Just the free as in beer kind that sometimes happens to also be open source and/or GPL. If you ignore past attempts of implementing communism and limit the discussion to just what its goals are, we can see open source software as a microcosm of communism. The only thing that doesn't fit very well is "ownership of means of production" but this is already assumed to be free, because people have to have a computer to begin with to participate in it. There is no food or water involved so those don't apply. Everything else is almost exactly communism. Absense of social classes: check Absense of state: check Absense of money: check Obviously it is not what Marx was describing, because it wasn't meant to be a mini-society that depends on capitalism for its existence, but I didn't mean to take it that far.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Absence of social class is debatable as most projects are structured hierarchically, and then being a FOSS celebrity does give you advantages. Not that those contradict anarchist principles, necessarily. Absence of state is true for all software development until it isn't. Computer networking enables you to do things unfavorable to nation states up to a point, but at the end of the day there are various ways it can intervene to enforce copyright, patent or other form of law. Absence of money isn't true. It's simply utilized differently than simple per-unit consumer transactions, though those aren't out of the question either.
  - mseebach 11y ago
    > Absence of money isn't true. The fact that this thread sit under an article titled "Should I work for Free" is a pretty big hint...
  - lqdc13 11y ago
    Communism does not stipulate that there is no organizational hierarchical structure. Absence of state is true because within the microcosm, you can contribute from anywhere in the world and receive the software for free as well. Basically you don't even know where the people you are dealing with even live most of the time. This is no state by definition. Let's say you contribute to "NSA open source repository". Still there is no state because you can contribute from anywhere in the world and get the code as well. Absense of money is true by definition. We are talking about free as in beer software here.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      I always thought communism's classlessness necessitated at least some form of flat hierarchy or syndicalism where worker's collectives hold decisions democratically and directly. On the other hand, hierarchical organizations are still fine by some schools of anarchism. Right, but then absence of state is true for anything involving wide area networking. Like I said, you're simply listing an absence of per-unit sales where "free as in beer" is concerned. The money is still there in the form of sponsorships, fundraisers, consulting, premium versions, dual licensing, corporate contributors and so on. And then FOSS has nothing like syndicalism, unions, worker collectives or anything like that.
DonHopkins 11y ago
How about political slogans like: Linux is only free if your time is worthless. Free software: more expensive than money. We make free software affordable. (That last one was Cygnus Solution's slogan by John Gilmore [1] [2], which answered the previous ones.) [1] https://books.google.nl/books?id=bjMsCKvV9I4C&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=%22We+make+free+software+affordable.%22&source=bl&ots=DZf0PYfMqu&sig=uJo8CRI5bZtTqwzSyd0M4zwXGIc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NF2RVfbiDcP7UuKcgNAI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22We%20make%20free%20software%20affordable.%22&f=false https://books.google.nl/books?id=bjMsCKvV9I4C&pg=PA78&lpg=PA... [2] https://rapidminer.com/we-make-free-software-affordable/ https://rapidminer.com/we-make-free-software-affordable/
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Political slogans usually aren't worth entertaining in any serious debate, that's the point. Nonetheless, I'll bite: Linux is only free if your time is worthless. That time has value is an idea that has been exploited to create so-called time-based currency and time banking. Free software: more expensive than money. The amount of man hours put in some projects means the costs of a from-scratch rewrite is probably higher than to simply bite the bullet and go by licensing terms. This may or may not be true depending on the project, though some may indeed have a utility and COCOMO score that makes it so. We make free software affordable. Pure marketing slogan, not worth discussing. Probably Cygnus' way of saying they had great support and contract development services (which they did, they're responsible for a large part of making GCC what it is today).
  - DonHopkins 11y ago
    My point is that Cygnus Solutions deftly channeled the doubts and problems raised by the first two slogans (which they didn't originate, but were going around at the time), into a successful service under the last slogan (which they did originate, in response).

fche 11y ago

One problem is the question of who gets to decide "ability" and "need" - since in that totalitarian world this is not voluntary & self-asserted.

lqdc13 11y ago
Communism has nothing to do with totalitarianism though. EDIT to clarify: Here is a good link: http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-totalitarianism/ http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-be... Basically they are so different that totalitarianism is considered far right while communism far left on the political spectrum.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- fche 11y ago
  "has nothing to do with totalitarianism" So it just hasn't been done right yet ...? "totalitarianism is considered far right" This passive-voice definition is unauthoritative and wrong. Check a dictionary instead.
  - lqdc13 11y ago
    I think you are conflating the two because of the case of Soviet Union. A) Soviet Union was not communism. Communism never happened. Communism/communist society is an ideal. B) Soviet Union was a totalitarian state, yes. C) One of the main concepts in communism is that there is/should be no state. Totalitarianism assumes that there is a state. This is in every definition of communism and totalitarianism. Here I'm going to quote it from the first line of each from Wikipedia: "Totalitarianism is concept of a political system in which the state holds total control over the society" "Communism ... absence of social classes, money, and the state."
    - fche 11y ago
      "Communism ... absence of [...] state." So yeah, "hasn't been done right yet". Could you hypothesize who in a true-scotsman communist non-state would regulate people's output ("ability") & input ("need")? Who would enforce the laws? If "everyone and anyone" is an enforcer, then claiming there is "no state" is sophistry.

crusso 11y ago

I would amend that to say, "From each according to his ability, to each if someone with the ability cares to provide it for free." If production of free software was directed by need, there would be a lot more free toolkits for the healthcare industry and a lot fewer free games and software dedicated to distributing free porn.

lqdc13 11y ago
I agree, but two points regarding need: a) people make stuff that they need themselves and share it so in a way it is need-based. b) yes it doesn't work in situations where there is need but no ability. I am guessing such situations are rare, because projects in many cases are willing to make modifications to help a large portion of their users. Also because there are usually enough people able to do these things to fit most needs. Finally, if you are a part of this microcosm, you can probably code yourself.
- crusso 11y ago
  a) "need" in the Communist/Marxist sense is definitely not the same as "want". I know that need and want exist on a continuum, but most software development is pretty firmly in the "want" neighborhood. When Marx used the word "need", he was talking about safety, food, shelter, clothing, etc. Porn and video games aren't the modern day equivalent of those things. That's part of the reason why the Marx philosophy doesn't necessarily match up with FOSS. b) Even ignoring "need" vs "want", tell that to my mom's quilting club. The venn diagram of quilters and coders has an extremely small intersection. The same can be said for tons of activities that old ladies and women in general enjoy.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

>Everyone is contributing what they can for free to the common knowledge base and can use everyone else's stuff also for free. Not necessarily. In reality the flow of IP-value is largely one way. Many corporations have done incredibly well out of FOSS without offering much in return. Just because Famous Router Company puts up source code of firmware it has glued together from various FOSS projects doesn't mean FRC has made a significant contribution. (Some corps do, of course. But even there they don't share other core IP as they would in a genuinely flat FOSS economy.) In fact FOSS is about commodification, not innovation or invention. If innovation happens, it's usually in developer-land. FOSS culture doesn't seem all that interested in solving new classes of problem in user-land. So "according to his (her) needs" is very limited and partial.

lqdc13 11y ago
Just because we have this conversation and there is some indignation over companies not contributing back to the projects they use shows that we expect them to contribute according to their ability. I agree that it isn't perfect like every other implementation of communism because some people don't contribute back. But we can just pretend that their ability is zero. Then it still works.
dublinben 11y ago
>without offering much in return This is why strong copyleft licenses are so important. As you've said, most companies will do the absolute minimum required of them.