contradicting himself?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| gus3 Oct 21, 2007 6:09 PM EDT |
I'm a fan of Stallman, only insofar as he conceived and implemented the General Public Licenses. This is an example why:Quoting:For those who recall teachers admonishing students to bring enough cookies to share with the class, Stallman similarly admonished educational institutions...Wouldn't being "strong and independent" mean bringing your own cookies, rather than knowing you can count on a handout from the other students? Yeah, it's another one of those Ayn Randian things. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 21, 2007 6:43 PM EDT |
>Yeah, it's another one of those Ayn Randian things. I agree, yet it can be seen as an extreme in itself. Innovate but you have to share it - cookie handouts: That sucks for the 'few' who innovate but is great for the 'many' who don't. Even in this extreme the overall outcome is positive for all I believe. Innovate but you can never share - bringing my own cookies: Great for the innovators, if they can make money filling and/or creating a need or want that the 'many' will pay for. Sucks for the 'many' because it forces them to pay for everything and what they pay for is designed to maximize its profits instead of maximizing its potential to accomplish its designed task. There's got to be a middle ground that works, and there is. It just needs some time become clear to us. We're still at the top of the FOSS wave, 20 years or so from now the idea of not sharing information in software or otherwise will seem ludicrous. The conversation will have moved on.. |
| purplewizard Oct 22, 2007 6:26 AM EDT |
I think the example of the cookies is firstly missing the context, meaning no school I know of lets you take food to class. So it's saying bring them to school just don't eat them here where you aren't meant to. And sitting eating your cookies alone in the playground where no one can see you and hassle you for some is much more like proprietary trade secrets code. But secondly he was merely using it as an example of how we teach sharing as a positive thing in a social context. And the "count on a handout from the other students" assumes a scarcity, only one kid has the resources to bring cookies. In a class where most can and do but not necessarily on the same days you get a totally different picture of strong and independent, it vanishes from relevance. In short you are making far too much of a little snippet intended to signpost toward the generally accepted notion that cooperation rather than exploiting everyone as robustly as possible to be on top is preferred. |
| jdixon Oct 22, 2007 6:39 AM EDT |
> ...meaning no school I know of lets you take food to class. If so, that's a fairly recent event. Given Stallman's age, that would not have been the case when he was in school. Eating food in class would not have been allowed, but bring food to class would never have been an issue. |
| jacog Oct 22, 2007 6:47 AM EDT |
The US is silly with regulation though. Some towns you can't even stand on the sidewalk and drink a cup of coffee before work without being "advised" to keep moving because you are loitering. |
| jdixon Oct 22, 2007 8:02 AM EDT |
> The US is silly with regulation though. Almost every place is, not just the US. It's usually merely a matter of how long the laws have had time to accumulate. |
| gus3 Oct 23, 2007 12:12 AM EDT |
purplewizard:Quoting:you are making far too much of a little snippet intended to signpost toward the generally accepted notion that cooperation rather than exploiting everyone as robustly as possible to be on top is preferred.But it's that little snippet, and lots of other similar snippets, that get Stallman branded as "communist," and then us by association. Quoting:And the "count on a handout from the other students" assumes a scarcity, only one kid has the resources to bring cookies. In a class where most can and do but not necessarily on the same days you get a totally different picture of strong and independent, it vanishes from relevance.My birthday never fell during the school year, so I never had to bring cookies for the class. Kids being kids, I got hassled every June about not bringing any cookies to "share" with the class. If I had known in the 3rd grade what I know now, I would have told them to stick their guilt trips where the sun don't shine. |
| tracyanne Oct 23, 2007 1:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:But it's that little snippet, and lots of other similar snippets, that get Stallman branded as "communist," and then us by association. Since being called a communist isn't an insult where I live, I'm quite Ok with being branded a communist. |
| dinotrac Oct 23, 2007 4:11 AM EDT |
>Since being called a communist isn't an insult where I live Maybe not an insult, but certainly a credibility killer, given the wonderful gifts communism has imparted around the globe. |
| tracyanne Oct 23, 2007 4:29 AM EDT |
Quoting:Maybe not an insult, but certainly a credibility killer, given the wonderful gifts communism has imparted around the globe. Not really, as most people here seem to understand the difference between Communism as a political philosophy and totalitarian governments. It's mainly in the US where you find people who can't seperate the two. |
| jezuch Oct 23, 2007 5:38 AM EDT |
Quoting:Maybe not an insult, but certainly a credibility killer, given the wonderful gifts communism has imparted around the globe. I live in a post-communist country and communism here is perceived VERY differently than in America. Not less negatively, but differently. It's the benefits of first-hand experience. [note that I was born when it started to crumble, so I don't remember much of it, but still... :)] |
| jdixon Oct 23, 2007 5:57 AM EDT |
> Not really, as most people here seem to understand the difference between Communism as a political philosophy and totalitarian governments. It's mainly in the US where you find people who can't seperate the two. Oh, we understand the theoretical difference. We also understand that every attempted implementation of communism on a national level has resulted in a totalitarian government. At some point it's best to recognize that reality trumps theory. |
| dinotrac Oct 23, 2007 7:29 AM EDT |
> as most people here seem to understand the difference between Communism as a political philosophy and totalitarian governments. In other words, they don't understand anything. Totalitarian governments are the inevitable result of the philosophy. Those in government seek to exploit and expand their power. It's bad enough in the United States, worse in Europe. A communist regime concentrates economic power with political power while, by virtue of controlling capital (though, heavens, we wouldn't want to call it that!!!!!), withholding a significant source of power for the populace. So interesting that we in the States are often derided for our naivite by people who believe in fairy tales. |
| tracyanne Oct 23, 2007 12:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:In other words, they don't understand anything. Totalitarian governments are the inevitable result of the philosophy. It would seem South Africa is the exception to the rule, in that case. Communism is an idealistic philosophy, I'll grant you, but Totalitarianism isn't the inevitable result, any more than Totalitarianism is the inevitable result of Republicanism (the US is a Republic, not a Democracy). I think you'll find that where I come from people actually understand the difference between idealism and pragmatism, also. Something I, as an outsider, rarely see in US politics, at least outside of the ruling circles. There seems to be a great deal of faith placed in symbols, which leaves the members of the ruling circles more free time to practice corruption. It should be noted that the ability to elect ones officials does not in and of itself guarantee freedom, and there are more ways to kill a cat than choking it with butter, and more ways to have a totalitarian government than by armed insurrection. |
| dinotrac Oct 23, 2007 2:13 PM EDT |
>Something I, as an outsider, rarely see in US politics, Outsiders rarely see all there is to see, including the fact that they rarely see all there is to see. |
| jdixon Oct 23, 2007 4:27 PM EDT |
> ...and more ways to have a totalitarian government than by armed insurrection. At least a significant minority of U.S. citizens are well aware of the dangers and possibilities of totalitarian government. It's one of the reasons we guard the second amendment so jealously; as while there are many ways to get to a totalitarian government, there is usually only one way out of it. |
| jdixon Oct 23, 2007 4:35 PM EDT |
> It would seem South Africa is the exception to the rule, in that case. While the jury is still out on that (you don't tend to go from a functioning republic, even a racially limited one, to totalitarianism overnight), you may be correct. It would be nice for there to be an exception. > ...but Totalitarianism isn't the inevitable result. It has been to date, but I'll grant that it doesn't have to be in theory. Given the track record though, I hope you won't mind me not holding my breath. |
| dcparris Oct 23, 2007 5:24 PM EDT |
Well, the whole question of whether RMS - "and then us by association" - is Communist gave me something to ponder. In fact, I think what I published today is probably not that far off from Paul Ferris' piece. So thanks, gus3! |
| tracyanne Oct 23, 2007 6:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:Well, the whole question of whether RMS - "and then us by association" - is Communist gave me something to ponder. The interesting thing here is that RMS describes himself as Libertarian. However when I look at what he states as his political and social beliefs, I find that he is pretty close to me. Now I'm a Socialist. |
| jdixon Oct 23, 2007 6:49 PM EDT |
> ...RMS describes himself as Libertarian... I find that he is pretty close to me. Now I'm a Socialist. Well, on social issues, libertarians tend to go every which way, but want the government to mind their own business. It's on economic issues that libertarians and socialists disagree. Socialism effectively requires that the government redistribute wealth (unless you expect that all social programs are going to be funded on a voluntary basis). Libertarians are opposed to that. |
| azerthoth Oct 23, 2007 7:34 PM EDT |
There is a quote I once read that seems to fit.Quoting:"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan |
| bigg Oct 23, 2007 7:37 PM EDT |
Honestly, I don't see anything socialist/communist about free software. It is one of the best cases of why the free market usually works. Socialism/communism mean the government forces programmers to share their work. The beauty of the free software revolution is that programmers share because they choose to share, believing they gain from doing so. Companies even spend bundles of money paying programmers to write code that they share. Microsoft was an obstacle to the traditional model of software development. The market found an alternative, and a profitable one at that. That is unlikely to have happened if we had relied on the government to "fix" the Microsoft problem. |
| jdixon Oct 23, 2007 7:56 PM EDT |
> ...communism mean the government forces... Communism as a political system seems to, yes. However, communism does not have to be a forced political system. Within fairly small communities, with voluntary membership, I believe there have been examples of it working fairly well. The problems start when it becomes the government, and is no longer a voluntary system. Free software, by allowing for individual freedom, allows the best of both communists and the free marketeers to come to the fore. As such, it is treated as a success story by both groups. |
| gus3 Oct 23, 2007 9:51 PM EDT |
Thank you, bigg and jdixon. I believe you have nailed the primary focus of the discussion: compulsion. In Rand's view, the only difference between Communism and religion is their method: Communism uses brute force, or threat of death, while religion uses guilt trips and psychological attacks. (Not saying I agree with her assessment.) Stallman follows the latter method now, with his "information wants to be free" rhetoric. He has expressed the desire to make the transferral of source code with the executable a legal requirement. I don't buy into that. The software creator calls the first shot: GPL, BSD, MIT, proprietary, whatever. The end user has the option to agree (with cash, maybe a button click, if so stipulated), or take his/her prospects elsewhere. I'm still all for the Free Market, for both developer and user. |
| bigg Oct 24, 2007 6:11 AM EDT |
> Within fairly small communities, with voluntary membership, I believe there have been examples of it working fairly well. I don't disagree with your assessment, however when most state a belief in communism, it spreads to talk about governments. That's when I get nervous. Hugo Chavez goes a bit farther than just preaching that sharing is good. Chavez, as far as I can see, is a hero to most in the modern world who claim a belief in communism. I disagree with anyone who says free software stands for the same things as him (although some might agree with both). |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 6:16 AM EDT |
>I don't disagree with your assessment, however when most state a belief in communism, it spreads to talk about governments. And, if they profess to have read/understood Marx, it has to. That is the only way for the "people" to control the means of production. Communes are cute, but they depend on the voluntary actions of the members. That's not communism so much as communalism. Nice stuff, for sure, but Marx lite. |
| jdixon Oct 24, 2007 6:30 AM EDT |
> ...however when most state a belief in communism, it spreads to talk about governments. Yes, it does. And it makes me far more than nervous. > That is the only way for the "people" to control the means of production. In Marx's world view, yes. He never foresaw the publicly traded corporation where the people are the shareholders. It's ironic that the system he opposed (capitalism) has done a far better job of giving the people effective control of the means of production than his system ever has. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 7:32 AM EDT |
>In Marx's world view An interesting point, yes. Capitalism allows the proletariat to be something more than mere proletarians. Radical. Malthus screams. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 24, 2007 8:58 AM EDT |
Has this thread turned into a political discussion?...because I can fix it... |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 9:27 AM EDT |
>Has this thread turned into a political discussion?
>...because I can fix it... No, Scott -- it started that way. RMS opened the door with his comments, and this entire discussion is germane. As opposed to German. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 24, 2007 10:32 AM EDT |
Your Hilarious dino.. :-) |
| jdixon Oct 24, 2007 11:12 AM EDT |
> As opposed to German. Good thing. I don't speak, read, or write German. Now, some might consider that an good reason for starting a German discussion subsection, but... |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 11:34 AM EDT |
>Now, some might consider that an good reason for starting a German discussion subsection, but... Was haben Sie gegen die deutsche Sprache, hmmmmm? |
| tracyanne Oct 24, 2007 1:18 PM EDT |
Quoting:I don't see anything socialist/communist about free software. It is one of the best cases of why the free market usually works. Free Software is very Socialist, it's about share according to your ability and using according to your need. There is actually nothing inherently antagonistic about Socialism to a Free Market, in fact a Free market (genuinely free, as opposed to what the monopolistic corporations and the US tout as the free market), fits in well with Socialist philosophy - don't confuse the 19th Century top down thinking, that informed 20th Century Socialist and Communist governments, with the Philosophy, which is about obtaining Socially just outcomes for the majority of society's members. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 2:41 PM EDT |
>There is actually nothing inherently antagonistic about Socialism to a Free Market Until, that is, your industry becomes one that the government decides must be nationalized. |
| dcparris Oct 24, 2007 3:06 PM EDT |
> Free Software is very Socialist, it's about share according to your ability and using according to your need. But why is sharing software so particularly Communist or Socialist? Don't Capitalists teach sharing too? Most people here in the US brag about how much food/money/clothes/etc. they share with others. But sharing software is somehow Communist/Socialist? I don't buy that. Not for one second. I still say Free Software is eco-socio-politically neutral. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 4:22 PM EDT |
>But why is sharing software so particularly Communist or Socialist? It's not, but it's informed by the same ideals. Fortunately, without the power of government, those ideals can remain ideals and not become the iron fist of oppression. |
| bigg Oct 24, 2007 4:38 PM EDT |
> it's informed by the same ideals Maybe for some, but definitely not all. Companies like Novell, Red Hat, and Sun treat sharing as a business model. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 5:15 PM EDT |
>Companies like Novell, Red Hat, and Sun treat sharing as a business model. Companies are businesses. A business built on sharing is not at all a bad thing, but still a business. If you don't like to have businesses touch free software, you should take it up with RMS, who believes that free software is for businesses, too. |
| dcparris Oct 24, 2007 5:18 PM EDT |
> If you don't like to have businesses touch free software, you should take it up with RMS, who believes that free software is for businesses, too. Which is exactly why I think the "Communist" label is more than a bit of a stretch - and why Free Software is neutral towards the currently held beliefs and systems. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 5:20 PM EDT |
>why I think the "Communist" label It is, in general, the problem with labels. If you start snipping away some ingredients and/or adding others, the label becomes a lie. |
| jdixon Oct 24, 2007 5:41 PM EDT |
> ...genuinely free, as opposed to what the monopolistic corporations and the US tout as the free market... You're painting with too broad a brush, Tracyanne. Both Bob and I (and possibly even Dino) will admit that what the US has is NOT a free market. There's far too much government interference and control. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 7:38 PM EDT |
jdixon - I believe that the US has one of the world's freest markets. I find "free market" to be a bit of an oxymoron. Just as Stallman believes that GPL'd software is freer than public domain, even though the latter is completely free and the former highly restrictive, I believe a free market needs cops the same way that people walking down city streets at night need cops. |
| tracyanne Oct 24, 2007 7:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:Until, that is, your industry becomes one that the government decides must be nationalized. Industries have in the past been nationalised by Socialist governments to protect them, usually from US corporations that are Quasi nationalised (by virtue of the fact that the US Government subsidises those Industries to make them competitive) in the first place. It, nationalisation of industries, like the subsidising of corporations by the US, is a symptom of 19th century Top down thinking. |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2007 8:21 PM EDT |
>to protect them Yeah, of course. And, before you know it, the government will take our homes to protect us because we are probably lousy landlords who have taken unfair advantage of the intimate knowledge we have of ourselves as tenants. |
| jdixon Oct 24, 2007 8:59 PM EDT |
> I believe that the US has one of the world's freest markets. While likely true, that doesn't make it a true free market. The two statements aren't contradictory. As to whether a cop on the beat is required, we'd have to try it without one to find out. I can understand why folks might be reluctant to do so. > Industries have in the past been nationalised by Socialist governments to protect them... I don't think that's true for the current raft of nationalizations by Hugo Chavez, who appears to be the current poster boy for socialism. |
| tracyanne Oct 25, 2007 12:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:Yeah, of course. And, before you know it, the government will take our homes to protect us because we are probably lousy landlords who have taken unfair advantage of the intimate knowledge we have of ourselves as tenants. Well we did once have excellent government sponsored public housing, though which low income families could rent - at very low rates - good quality housing, but that was under the last labor government. Since then the current Liberal (read right wing conservative) government has sold off the public housing properties and low income families are forced (for their own good of course) to pay market rates, which work out to about on average 50% of the family income, often for quite poor quality housing. |
| azerthoth Oct 25, 2007 4:14 AM EDT |
Tracyanne, unfortunately that does not help your argument all that much if you think things through. If you have government subsidized housing, or in your case government owned housing then the market value of properties is artificially biased. This will allow properties in the affected areas to either increase or decrease in value at a rate that is not dictated by market pressure. Once the government decides to get out of the tremendously expensive role of landlord there must of course be a rebalancing of the market. This market adjustment will fluctuate wildly at first due to the vagaries of locational market demand, however as things progress there WILL be a real and true market adjustment. That adjustment is usually called a recession. It is fairly easy to see that the government through its own actions, in the name of helping a subset of the population, was the actual instigator of the current market rise and instability. This affects not just the subsidized but the entire nation and other nations as well. The initial action point was not in the terminating of the program, but the inception of it in the first place. Had they left well enough alone the market would have adjusted to a more reasonable level much sooner, as I suspect yours has not yet. |
| bigg Oct 25, 2007 4:28 AM EDT |
> Industries have in the past been nationalised by Socialist governments to protect them This seems to have become a political discussion now. Nonetheless, I don't understand how nationalizing an industry "protects" it. Maybe you mean they won't run out of money, so they won't go bankrupt under any circumstances. A better choice would be to impose trade barriers. An even better choice would be to compensate the workers in those industries a bit and help them to move to a new industry, where they will be more productive. |
| dinotrac Oct 25, 2007 4:37 AM EDT |
bigg - In this case, protecting industry means consolidating and increasing the wealth and power of those running the government. The thing a nationalized industry is mostly likely to be protected from is efficiency. |
| bigg Oct 25, 2007 5:51 AM EDT |
> protecting industry means consolidating and increasing the wealth and power of those running the government Must be the differences between Australian and US English, I guess. |
| dinotrac Oct 25, 2007 6:00 AM EDT |
>Must be the differences between Australian and US English, I guess. POV, more likely. |
| tracyanne Oct 25, 2007 3:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:Had they left well enough alone the market would have adjusted to a more reasonable level much sooner, as I suspect yours has not yet. It was introduced because the market was too expensive for the low income families, all that removing it did was reinstate what it fixed. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!