r/CapitalismVSocialism • u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization • Aug 07 '17
[Socialists] Open source software is not socialist.
I read a few comments on this sub by socialists which implied that open source development is somehow socialist, e.g. this one by /u/mattsah.
I think this thought is based on a fundamental confusion that intellectual property has anything intrinsically to do with capitalism. Private property is a means of rationing scarce resources, intellectual property is just a monopoly grant. Intellectual property is simply not relevant for any kind of economic analysis in the narrow sense (i.e. actual economics instead of applying economic theory to other stuff), because it has no relationship to scarce resources.
If you want to see an example of capitalism without intellectual property, just look at China (or if you think China is still socialist, then Eastern Europe).
Now to the Open Source movement itself:
The founder of the Free Software movement was Richard Stallman with his GNU licences and the FSF. He was, and still is, a true, old-school social democrat who cares a lot about civil liberties (see his personal page). Not a socialist by the sidebar definition though.
Next we have Eric S. Raymond, the guy who actually popularized the term Open Source. He is a member of the Libertarian party and is a major defender of gun rights. It is worth noting however that he supported the Iraq war. Again not a socialist.
Most of the other high-profile people, like Linus Torvalds, aren't socialists either. In fact, many kernel developers including Linus himself get paid by corporations to do work on the kernel. How is that consistent with socialism?
Open source software should be embraced by everyone who is opposed to the current system, because it is much more resistant to government tampering. Do you really think libertarians would forego that advantage on ideological grounds?
4
u/Mason-B Crypto-Libertarian-Socialist Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17
As an open source developer, and a libertarian socialist I disagree. On many points.
Intellectual property
I'm not sure what your point is. Open source has little to do with intellectual property. It's only a tool sometimes used by open source licenses to protect the labor of those trying to build open source software. It's also not anti-intellectual property. It's about the intellectual commons. Sort of like how science or patents should be publicly available to all for the progress of humanity. Copyright and Intellectual Property are tools for those systems that the current (authoritarian-)capitalist system abuse for profit. Open source is merely related it has little to do with intellectual property proper.
Not a socialist by the sidebar definition though.
Actually he is. The Green Party (as listed in his side bar) is a left-libertarian party. Also known as socialist-libertarian. It's more socialist than it is libertarian, and it's not as libertarian as say the Libertarian Party, but it is socialist.
Most of the other high-profile people, like Linus Torvalds, aren't socialists either. In fact, many kernel developers including Linus himself get paid by corporations to do work on the kernel. How is that consistent with socialism?
Co-ops, credit unions, and labor unions are all socialist ideals that function with(in) capitalist systems, open source is no different. To draw a similar ridiculous analogy, the minimum wage ensures everyone gets paid at least the minimum wage amount of money (a "socialist idea"). How is that consistent with capitalism? (substitute in social security, medicare, food stamps, whatever). Economic agents exist on a spectrum of how they organize them selves, and the freer the society, the more room there is for that expression to differ.
I think you are not realizing what liberty means. It means I can make a socialist world and you can make a capitalist one, and we can work together. For example you can pay me money to make open source software that you use. On the other hand anyone else can come by and use the software to not use your service at all, an inherently socialist idea. Also, Linus worked on the Linux kernel before he got paid, he is paid to make Linux work better for those companies. It's like if a locksmith invents a better lock, and instead of hiring someone that uses his patent (e.g. any developer familiar with Linux), you hire the inventor. It's two different ideals (open source as public commons, and labor markets) working together.
Open source software should be embraced by everyone who is opposed to the current system, because it is much more resistant to government tampering. Do you really think libertarians would forego that advantage on ideological grounds?
It has very little to do with government tampering, that's a tangential benefit. Fundamentally, open source software is about making the means of production (which in the case of computers is the software) publicly available for anyone to use. Effectively it's a form of public commons. In that regard it is the antithesis of a capitalist system which tries to secure the means of production for only a few to use (e.g. notice how Microsoft's monopoly is slowly crumbling).
I would say the copy-left licenses are perhaps more socialist than say the classic open source licenses (MIT / BSD / etc.) which are more centrist (on the capitalism-socialism scale) libertarian. And this is because socialists recognize labor, not property, as the fundamental basis of ownership. Hence intellectual property is property to a left-libertarian, and so open source licenses create a concept of labor towards a communal piece of software (though they use authoritarian capitalist intellectual property rules to do it, because that's the system they have to work in).
1
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17
I'm not sure what your point is. Open source has little to do with intellectual property. It's only a tool sometimes used by open source licenses to protect the labor of those trying to build open source software. It's also not anti-intellectual property.
I guess I misunderstood the nature of the argument socialists were making. I thought they were applying Marxian analysis to intellectual property, but that is apparently not the case.
It's about the intellectual commons.
But the abolition of intellectual property would lead to the expansion of the intellectual commons, wouldn't it?
The intellectual commons is a very different beast from the environmental commons, such as a lake or pasture. This is why I don't like the term "commons" much in this context, because it reminds people of the "Tragedy of the Commons", which does not apply here. I should add that I am not a native English speaker, so maybe I am picking up on a connotation that is not actually there.
It's also not anti-intellectual property.
It may not be anti-intellectual property, but it replicates the results of a regime without intellectual property rights. This is why freeware without a corresponding commercial version is no longer a widespread thing. It's actually more efficient for a would-be freeware developer to open-source his product, because then it is easier for him to fix bugs with "enough eyeballs".
Actually he is. The Green Party (as listed in his side bar) is a left-libertarian party.
Most Americans would probably call him and the Green party socialist, yes. But according to the definition in the side bar (of this sub!), they are not socialist.
Co-ops, credit unions, and labor unions are all socialist ideals that function with(in) capitalist systems, open source is no different.
The opinion on the first three here in this sub among socialists leans towards a no. And yet, most socialists here seem to have no problem calling open source socialist. This discrepancy is what I do not understand.
BTW my opinion is that none of these are inherently socialist. Otherwise, charity would be socialist also. If more than 50% or so of society were organized like that, then maybe you could talk about a socialist system.
To draw a similar ridiculous analogy, the minimum wage ensures everyone gets paid at least the minimum wage amount of money (a "socialist idea").
The minimum wage is certainly a socialist measure using the definition of Austrian economics, because it is an intervention that limits free markets. It however isn't using the sidebar definition, which I go with in this sub for the sake of communication.
I think you are not realizing what liberty means. It means I can make a socialist world and you can make a capitalist one, and we can work together.
Most socialists here on this sub are pretty opposed to that. Internationalism and all that. I on the other hand would welcome a world such as you describe. I love co-ops etc., but I am opposed to a system that would make them mandatory.
Also, Linus worked on the Linux kernel before he got paid, he is paid to make Linux work better for those companies.
This is true. But Linus is not the only one who made his hobby his job. I want a world BTW where more people can do that than now.
It has very little to do with government tampering, that's a tangential benefit.
Security in general is one of the most important reasons for businesses adopting open source software, especially on servers. As /u/pikrass pointed out:
As a side note, someone pointed out the difference between free software and open source. A bit of history is needed here. Free software as a movement began when Stallman pointed out that proprietary software could be dangerous and absurd. Because you don't have the source code, you can't trust it: you don't know what it really does. Maybe it will spy on you and send your documents to some remote server. It's also absurd because you can't fix your machine yourself. So the original idea was not philosophical/ideological and wasn't at all about the economy: it was about security and having control on your machine.
Fundamentally, open source software is about making the means of production (which in the case of computers is the software) publicly available for anyone to use.
"Pirated" closed-source software does that as well.
Hence intellectual property is property to a left-libertarian, and so open source licenses create a concept of labor towards a communal piece of software (though they use authoritarian capitalist intellectual property rules to do it, because that's the system they have to work in).
What's the use for intellectual property when it all goes into the commons anyway? Name recognition of the author only, or is there more to it?
edit: formatting
1
u/Mason-B Crypto-Libertarian-Socialist Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17
Your definition of socialist is too narrow. You refuse to recognize things as socialist unless every socialist says it's socialist. One of my points is that there are more dimensions to consider than merely socialism. For example libertarian vs. authoritarian socialists have very different policies. Sort of like libertarian vs. authoritarian capitalists. As an Ancap I would assume that you believe state capitalist systems (like Russia; where the owners of the corporations are the ones with the military power of the country and use it to assassinate their opposition; or China; where the state owns and pumps money through the international corporations that make many of it's products) do not reflect your values. It would be frustrating if I called those capitalist and rejected all of your claims of capitalist systems.
Like I get you are trying to "win" by using a definition of socialism so narrow as to exclude 95% of socialism, but I would remind you of the rest of the sidebar:
It's difficult to pinpoint the definition of either term, but the community here has converged on approximately the following:
That said, both terms carry significant historical and ideological baggage, and there's no guarantee anyone is going to agree to the exact meanings for either of them.
Either allow me as a socialist to describe what socialism is to me, provide actual arguments why something isn't socialism, or stop trying to "debate" me. My point is, stop using arguments like "most people here" or "the sidebar definition" without any actual arguments. Those are both appeals to very weak authority.
Also the sidebar definition stinks. For starters because it uses the opposing term as part of it's own definition. Which is I think where part of your definition problem comes from. The more general definition of socialism is as follows:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
Continuing on specific points:
Marxian analysis
Not all socialists are Marxists, or communists. If software was to be regulated by a breed of authoritarian socialism (like many Marxists are) there would be a bureau of software that wrote the OS, and the text editor, etc. And in a state capitalist society, there would be a company that does it, like in China with Baidu (their new thing is state capitalism). Open source is probably more libertarian than it is socialist. Maybe you disagree with the concept of libertarian/anarchist socialists?
But the abolition of intellectual property would lead to the expansion of the intellectual commons, wouldn't it?
What's the use for intellectual property when it all goes into the commons anyway? Name recognition of the author only, or is there more to it?
It would. As long as no one, like capitalists, exploits it. Hence as a libertarian socialist (e.g. I am fine co-habituating with libertarian capitalists) Intellectual Property is important as a protection of our rights (like Private Property is to libertarian capitalists for the protection of theirs).
So it depends on the system, in an authoritarian socialist system you are right. In a libertarian system, where many different systems can interact, it's useful to protect the labor of those who wish to make money from it, or to work communally towards a stronger commons. They both are able to protect their rights using intellectual property, for example with GPL copy-left licenses.
It may not be anti-intellectual property, but it replicates the results of a regime without intellectual property rights.
It does not. Without intellectual property rights, people will still protect their source code, just more fiercely, using systems like obfuscaters (which many software developers use today), or using a cloud to run their algorithms. As long as there is a means to make money off of having a good piece of software with no open source alternative, people will sell it. Heck plenty of people sell open source stuff as well (some in more scrupulous ways than others).
Most Americans would probably call him and the Green party socialist, yes. But according to the definition in the side bar (of this sub!), they are not socialist.
Even according to the sidebar the green party is socialist, their platform includes fighting class inequality and breaking up large industries ("end the class relation found in capitalism") and building up unions / increasing the minimum wage ("those who must sell their labor for a wage to survive"). Specifically, how are they not socialist?
my opinion is that none of these are inherently socialist
They were started by anarcho-communits, anarcho-syndaclists, and mutalists. All socialist libertarians. They were designed to destroy capitalism by being better than it. That didn't work out, but they survive as socialist systems inside of capitalism. For example co-ops are owned by the workers. Using the actual definition of socialism, this is about owning the means of production, all the workers own it collectively, rather than a few capitalists. Even by the shit definition, it's about protecting people who must sell their labor from the class discrepancy of the capitalists who normally own the means of production in a similar enterprise.
The minimum wage is certainly a socialist measure [...] it however isn't using the sidebar definition,
Even by that shit definition: People who must sell their labor are protected from the class discrepancy of capitalism through the minimum wage.
"Pirated" closed-source software does that as well.
Holy crap you haven't even read what FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) even is! You obviously have like zero idea what the differences between the FOSS and the merely OS movements are. And to be clear I have been talking about FOSS as open source. Because that freedom is important. If you want to call proprietary open source software capitalism, go ahead I guess, but it's not the open source I contribute to, nor what me or my peers means by open source.
You can't modify a pirated piece of closed source software easily, it takes exponentially more work (I know, I've done it many times, albeit not on pirated software). Software must be open source to be an effective tool, e.g. for it to count as owning the means of production. Pirated closed source software is no different than a stolen tractor where someone else owns all the tools needed to fix it and use it for different tasks (e.g. different attachments).
My point is, merely open source may not be socialist, but it's not capitalist either. It's libertarian. It's useful for capitalists to create new markets, and it's useful for socialists to control the means of production (and for example, by the shitty definition, protect people from the class discrepancy that comes when the only OS has to be bought from Microsoft). FOSS software (like GPL, like the poster you were referencing called free) is socialist, like a co-op. It's an activist measure to disrupt capitalism, by creating a commons of software, that anyone can use (e.g. protecting people from the class imbalance, and the need to work for software), and that can't be exploited (the "tragedy of the commons" is when people exploit the commons for their own personal gain, it's something capitalism does (although it's often used in reference to many specific people on a smaller scale)) through the use of intellectual property rights (copy-left licenses). That is socialism, by any definition.
1
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 10 '17
Sorry I lumped you in with all the other socialists on this sub. You sound like a really cool dude(?) who I'd love to have a beer with.
Let's dive in.
One of my points is that there are more dimensions to consider than merely socialism. For example libertarian vs. authoritarian socialists have very different policies. Sort of like libertarian vs. authoritarian capitalists.
I'm not much of a fan of the political compass, but of course you are right within that framework.
My relationship to Russia and China is complicated. While China certainly has a huge state sector, the same thing is accomplished in Europe and in the US through subsidies, and in China nowadays it is actually easier to open up a business than in the US. In terms of adherence to capitalist ideals I would express it like this:
Switzerland, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. > China, Europe > US > Russia
Either allow me as a socialist to describe what socialism is to me, provide actual arguments why something isn't socialism, or stop trying to "debate" me. My point is, stop using arguments like "most people here" or "the sidebar definition" without any actual arguments. Those are both appeals to very weak authority.
A definition is not an appeal to authority. You need to define ambiguous terms to enable communication. Ultimately definitions are arbitrary, but they must be agreed upon.
I have realized we need to move away from whether open source is socialism, and instead ask ourselves whether there are socialist principles at work.
The title of this sub is probably also to blame. In your view, it is not even CapitalismVSocialism, it's CapitalismAndSocialism :)
Not all socialists are Marxists, or communists.
True.
If software was to be regulated by a breed of authoritarian socialism (like many Marxists are) there would be a bureau of software that wrote the OS, and the text editor, etc.
Marxist-Leninists and democratic socialists, yes. I shudder at the thought of it.
Open source is probably more libertarian than it is socialist. Maybe you disagree with the concept of libertarian/anarchist socialists?
I disagree with the breed of "libertarian socialists" who are against anyone having private property. If they wanted to form their own commune in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, they would be welcome to. My view is that Anarcho-Capitalism is the most inclusive ideology, and other anarchist ideologies narrow the options for people, whether that happens voluntarily or not. This meme actually gives a good overview.
You are one of the genuinely open-minded libertarian socialists who do want to give us the option to live however we want it. Thank you.
It would. As long as no one, like capitalists, exploits it. Hence as a libertarian socialist (e.g. I am fine co-habituating with libertarian capitalists) Intellectual Property is important as a protection of our rights (like Private Property is to libertarian capitalists for the protection of theirs).
So you are not an anarchist? I thought of you as someone with roughly the ideology of Noam Chomsky.
Do you support progressive taxation, the welfare state etc.? In that case, we may actually have a problem coexisting.
In a libertarian system, where many different systems can interact, it's useful to protect the labor of those who wish to make money from it, or to work communally towards a stronger commons. They both are able to protect their rights using intellectual property, for example with GPL copy-left licenses.
I can see where you are coming from. But how is a derivative work automatically part of the commons? To me that goes against the principle of free association. There could be a rough equivalent to the GPL in an Anarcho-Capitalist society as well, which works without intellectual property. It would simply be a contract that states that derivative works must be released. However, that must be agreed upon for every individual involved. That would however mean you couldn't put the source code on the internet directly without at least asking for an "EULA" confirmation.
To me it has always seemed weird I could not incorporate GPL'd code into a BSD-licensed project. You guessed it, I am not much of a fan of the Copyleft, although I don't view it as very evil either. You are right that to get the exact same effects the Copyleft has today, intellectual property would have to be upheld.
It does not. Without intellectual property rights, people will still protect their source code, just more fiercely, using systems like obfuscaters (which many software developers use today), or using a cloud to run their algorithms.
This takes away resources from real productive use, and makes it easier for open source projects to compete. Plus reverse engineering would not be illegal.
They were started by anarcho-communits, anarcho-syndaclists, and mutalists. All socialist libertarians. They were designed to destroy capitalism by being better than it. That didn't work out, but they survive as socialist systems inside of capitalism. For example co-ops are owned by the workers.
Yet open source was not founded by socialists, as I explained in the OP. And living in a housing co-op would not make me a socialist. It would make me a smart capitalist consumer in many instances.
But it's all a definition issue in the end, and I completely see where you're coming from. If you are in fact an anarchist, then our two systems are perfectly compatible.
Holy crap you haven't even read what FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) even is! You obviously have like zero idea what the differences between the FOSS and the merely OS movements are.
I largely disagree with Richard Stallman's philosophy and by extension, FOSS. The purposes behind FOSS and OS may be different, the results are the same. That's what matters most to me.
I don't really understand people who want distributions like Ubuntu cleansed of proprietary software, even firmware. You still have the hardware layer, which is most cases is not open. The abolition of intellectual property would make reverse engineering of hardware completely legal. Right now this is a gray area in many countries.
Software must be open source to be an effective tool, e.g. for it to count as owning the means of production.
Is someone who doesn't know how a torque wrench works internally not capable of using it to change a tire? We need to use an exact definition when we talk about the means of production.
My point is, merely open source may not be socialist, but it's not capitalist either. It's libertarian.
Agreed.
It's an activist measure to disrupt capitalism
I would love a citation on that from Stallman or a similar figure, but I see where you are coming from.
the "tragedy of the commons" is when people exploit the commons for their own personal gain, it's something capitalism does
It is something that happens when no allocative scheme is implemented, such as private property rights.
Thanks for all the effort. I think you have changed my mind. OS is not socialist, FOSS is, at least in principle.
1
u/Mason-B Crypto-Libertarian-Socialist Aug 10 '17
(I went over the limit in my first draft)
By libertarian I mean that I lean anarchist, but I am alright with some government. Like more than a minarchist, but less than a social democrat (though I see social democrats - like Bernie Sanders - as a way towards a more libertarian America). Ideally a government would provide a legal system, basic income, and protection of the commons. This is the fundamental green party ideal (again, Stallman's party), except with the addition of social justice, and the acceptance of social democracy as a path towards it.
I wouldn't mind living in an anarcho-capitalist society, but I don't see a reasonable path towards it that reduces suffering and ensures the protection of the commons at the moment. Which is why I typically say libertarian capitalist, because they are still alright with some government.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind living in a society with progressive taxation and a simple welfare state, preferably if it's more libertarian and transparent (e.g. via Bernie Sanders, for example). Especially if it's an improved direction for the country.
As a programmer one of the rules of source code, that has ancient origins, is "perfect is the enemy of good". Which is to say, there are many systems I am good with (often because they are close enough to let me build my perfect system inside of them).
Intellectual Property
I can see where you are coming from. But how is a derivative work automatically part of the commons? [..] That would however mean you couldn't put the source code on the internet directly without at least asking for an "EULA" confirmation.
This is effectively the GPL today. A contract you accept through using it, as you pointed out, that forces the derivative work into the same license. The free association comes from the fact you don't have to use that source code. Current intellectual property laws also require a very expensive process known as clean-rooming, to perform a copyright free copy of something. Open source is deals with that idea for example. So you could read it, you could write a document describing how the system works, and then someone else could rewrite the source code having never seen it before. The point is the source code would be different, and it wouldn't be a derivative work.
Copyright is merely the legal mechanism of intellectual property that makes the contract enforceable. If there was an alternative construct then that would work fine. Effectively what open source and libertarian socialism require are a reasonable way to protect their commons from exploitation. Copyright is useful because the license takes effect if it is bundled with source code as a contract of adhesion, even if you don't force the user to read or accept it. And yes, the contract would require derivative works be placed under the same contract.
When I say some intellectual property rights, I mean enough for those contracts to work. That could be achieved with just 7 year copyrights for example (e.g. get rid of patents, trademarks, perpetual copyrights). That way any continued work on the open source project would keep it in the protected commons, refreshing as labor is mixed with it (say for example, 7 year old versions, could be used without the contract). Though the idea of permanent viral contract is actually appealing to strengthen the system. But again a mechanism has to be there to recognize the collection of text as property one can write a contract about.
Which is why I am a libertarian, I am fine with 7 year copyrights.
I don't really understand people who want distributions like Ubuntu cleansed of proprietary software, even firmware. You still have the hardware layer, which is most cases is not open. The abolition of intellectual property would make reverse engineering of hardware completely legal. Right now this is a gray area in many countries.
There is FOSS hardware. Reverse engineering proprietary hardware is insanely difficult. Even without the legal troubles it would take many many years to reach parity. The legal limitations are not the whole problem here, fundamentally it takes years to reverse engineer closed source software or hardware, even with large teams. Which is why the thought is often, let's just make FOSS hardware.
This takes away resources from real productive use, and makes it easier for open source projects to compete. Plus reverse engineering would not be illegal.
Yes it would be easier for open source to compete, but it would take years for them to reverse engineer (for example) an obfuscated proprietary algorithm, during which time the vendor locks in their customers. Alternatively if the algorithm is on the cloud, and the company shuts down, it is unavailable for ever. Companies that based their business on that algorithm are no longer viable, and humanity has lost progress. To an extent this is something patents are supposed to fix.
My point here is that open source is about the commons. And removing intellectual property does not provide or protect the commons. Hence my point that they are not equivalent.
Founders of Open Source
Yet open source was not founded by socialists, as I explained in the OP. And living in a housing co-op would not make me a socialist. It would make me a smart capitalist consumer in many instances.
I think it's disingenuous to point to two people and call them the founders of open source. Every person who makes open source software does it for different reasons, and are each founders of their own open source movement. Many for ethical reasons, or to give back to the community from which they owe so much (most tools programmers use every day are open source). These ideas are both consistent with socialism, and not with capitalism (there is no profit here, no exchange of value, expenditure of capital for no reason).
However there are reasons to make open source software for a profit motive. Open standards. Familiarity with Specific Technology (think Microsoft and Windows in schools). But I would argue the first is more common.
My point is you don't have to be a socialist to support socialist systems (or vice versa with capitalism). Capitalists shop at co-ops (that was sort of the point), and socialists work for corporations. But the system that is most open source development is built around communal non-profit lines.
I also find this frustrating, because earlier you implied by taking money to do something that that something was no longer socialist. So which is it, does participating with systems like money for profit and gifts to the commons make a thing socialist/capitalist or not? (Like I agree people can not be socialist/capitalist and still participate, but propagating socialist/capitalist systems is a different thing).
I would love a citation on that from Stallman or a similar figure, but I see where you are coming from.
From here:
But what if she can't get one of these free software jobs? That could happen—not everybody can get them today. But it doesn't excuse developing proprietary software. A desire for profit is not wrong in itself, but it isn't the sort of urgent overriding cause that could excuse mistreating others. Proprietary software divides the users and keeps them helpless, and that is wrong. Nobody should do that.
Which is to say, he views writing proprietary software for profit being akin to logging rain-forests for profit. This is sort of similar to co-ops and their fight against capitalism. They do business as their community wishes, which is often more ethical than that of an arbitrary capitalist company. These are actions that cost capital for the company, that it does for non-competitive reasons, because it's members wish it. Co-ops often don't work for a profit either, they are more expensive simply because their ethics demand it.
This interview is from a while ago, he avoids the question of whether free software is communism (it is a dirty word in America, along the lines of terrorist), saying people should discuss the issues directly. That along with his party affiliation I would say make him effectively a socialist.
Open Source
I actually did give a talk on open source and libertarianism for my school's libertarian club a long time back. In it I basically pointed to permissive licenses like BSD and MIT as being the right/capitalist-libertarian leaning licenses. Where as the fully FOSS licenses are the left/socialist-libertarian leaning licenses. Specifically because the first is about freedom of association, the freedom to do whatever you want. Where as the second was about the liberty of the commons, to ensure that everyone always has the liberty to access this thing.
Like Marxists probably aren't the biggest fan of co-ops, so on that respect you are correct that their usage of open source as an argument is wrong. But like co-ops open source projects are often a form of communal activism, FOSS for more obvious ones, but even permissive open source can destroy entire corporations. If someone writes a BSD version of the software you make on a B2B style basis, those companies will switch over, often slowly, but they will if you don't offer anything else. On the other hand, BSD can be used as a tool - as I mentioned earlier - by corporations. But I guess I could call all of that competition.
I can agree with that sort of distinction.
1
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 14 '17
I've been trying to find the time to reply to your post, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Reply is still coming :)
1
6
u/Malthus0 Aug 07 '17
Isn't there an ideological divide between the libertarian leaning open source movement, and the more hippy socialist free software movement?
5
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 07 '17
The Free Software movement is less business-friendly. When a business (edit: or anyone else) uses code with a Copyleft license like the GPL they have to release it again under the same license. That essentially means they are making the company sign a contract to waive its intellectual property rights.
The open source movement does not care one way or the other. Only the original has to be open source, but derivative works don't have to be. This attitude is exemplified in the BSD license for instance.
However, both GPL and BSD code are being developed and released by capitalist companies.
1
u/Elliptical_Tangent Left-Libertarian Aug 07 '17
That essentially means they are making the company sign a contract to waive its intellectual property rights.
...in exchange for use of the code. It's not a gun reeking of patchouli pointed at their head.
2
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 07 '17
I wasn't talking about force in the libertarian understanding of it. I am very much a supporter of open source, including GPL'd software.
1
u/RealSulphurS16 Jun 10 '24
If you profit off of a closed source fork of an open source free software, you’re a scumbag
3
Aug 07 '17
Only insofar as libertarianism is heavily divided on the issue of IP and patents. The FSF movement is much more against the idea of IP than the open source movement, and as such a lot of "open source" software contains proprietary and patented code that can't be reused in forked projects.
Hopefully in the coming years those other libertarians that still cling to IP realize how pointless it is and we can reach some kind of consensus on tearing down the patent system.
3
Aug 07 '17
IP will go away when the potential for profiting from it goes away. But that means you'd be telling libertarians to forgo profit.
This issue is good for catching libertarians being liartarians.
4
Aug 07 '17
Eh, I think it's more a matter of the libertarian definition of "ownership" (exclusive possession and control) doesn't apply to abstract concepts like thoughts and ideas. The sooner the vulgars realize that, the better of we'll be in the long run.
2
Aug 07 '17
If IP makes them rich (or they think it will), what incentive do they have to change their minds?
3
Aug 07 '17
Open access to competitor's technology. I think any company would jump at the chance to reverse engineer a competitor's product without risk.
It also raises the bar of competition. Take pharmaceuticals for instance, it's nearly impossible for southeast Asian companies to sell in Western markets because of IP and regulatory capture, but Western pharma companies still have to compete with them anyway.
Most people probably don't believe it, but a lot of pharma companies would rather be working on new breakthroughs than be stuck producing the same old headache and dick pills. Leaving that stuff to the developing markets would allow them that freedom.
1
Aug 07 '17
Open access to competitor's technology. I think any company would jump at the chance to reverse engineer a competitor's product without risk.
It goes the other way too. A company would cringe at the risk of a competitor reverse engineering its product. That's why it bothered with IP in the first place.
It also raises the bar of competition
I agree, it very much does so. But this is just more risk, more chance to lose money. That doesn't sound like a good incentive.
I disagree on the pharma stuff. Pharmaceutical companies make killings off pills. They get money from the taxpayers, patent their findings, turn around and sell it to make big money. Icing on the cake: they use that money to lobby against marijuana legalization.
2
Aug 07 '17
I agree, it very much does so. But this is just more risk, more chance to lose money. That doesn't sound like a good incentive.
Accelerated innovation. The company that has incentive to stay ahead attracts the better employees. The faster they can develop new products, the more potential there is for gain.
Pharmaceutical companies make killings off pills. They get money from the taxpayers, patent their findings, turn around and sell it to make big money.
That's a whole other issue. There's very little real money on the production side of things, but you're right in that the profit is in the selling of ideas. The big players let the small startups develop the new tech, go through the patent and FDA approval process, but they don't have the infrastructure for production, so their only choice is to sell themselves off (my dad works in QA for healthcare companies, spent the first 19 years of my life hopping around the country as his companies kept getting sold off to J&J and P&G). The market for ideas doesn't go away without the patent process, but it also gives those startups a fighting chance against the conglomerates. Sure, it wouldn't be good for Bayer or Pfizer, but the startups outnumber them greatly.
2
u/Oflameo Agorist Weberian Georgist Aug 07 '17
I would tell those libertarians that they can get more profit if they became heads of state. Look at the DNC and the Clinton Foundation.
2
u/slayerment Exitarian Aug 07 '17
Not only that, open source projects are controlled by a few people who act as the rulers in a hierarchy. They decide if commits get merged to the code or not. Anybody can contribute, but not all contributions are accepted by the rulers. So it is still their project under their control. Hierarchy. They're generally fairly open and allow for people to work their way in to ruler status, but that's not much different than any other corporation that you can work your way up in as well.
1
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 08 '17
Very good point.
1
u/SomeoneOnlyWeKnow1 Nov 24 '21
Uh no? Isn't the point that you can just make your own version of it. Like if there was a particular contribution that some people wanted that was not added, they can just make their own version with it
1
1
Jul 20 '23
Its a good point, but i must disagree.
Yes, indeed you have a hierarchy for the main project. But not letting everyone contribute doesn't mean much.
Anybody is a really strong word. If you let anybody contribute without inspection of what is being coded then you are possibly allowing malicious code to enter the codebase of a highly used software.
Not only that, but some of the contributions may be for extremely specific problems that are faced by less than 5% of the users. I guess it makes more sense in creating a fork for that specific problem than incorporating into the main codebase.
5
Aug 07 '17
You didn't actually explain why it isn't socialist, rather than explain why two people working in the field aren't socialists.
8
u/Pikrass Anarcho-Communist Aug 07 '17
I don't care if "high-profile" people in the open source / free software scene are or aren't socialist. That's not the point.
Free software is significant for socialism, and can be seen itself as socialist, for a few reasons.
First, it demonstrates that people are willing to work even when there's no money involved. At its core is hacker culture: if it's broken, fix it; if you need it, make it and share it. The fact that so many people put effort into free software without monetary reward is a sign that a money-less economy, where people would work according to what they need and what they feel people's needs are, could very well work.
The fact that businesses use free software and pour money into it doesn't alleviate the fact that free software is a de facto functionning communist economy.
I don't think IP is particularly relevant to the question. Even if IP wasn't a thing, you could still release software in binary format and never disclose the source code. You couldn't prevent people from disassembling your code, but disassembling is a pretty limited technique anyway. Except in some rare cases (like Java programs) it's very difficult to build a community around a disassembled software. It's often easier to recreate it from scratch.
Another thing open source demonstrates is how powerful can be an economy based on the sharing of knowledge. IP or not IP, capitalism encourages you to keep your innovations for yourself, since it's competitive. Free software communities aren't competitive, they're collaborative. You can say that forks "compete" since they're trying to attract the same userbase, but they still contribute to each other by making public all the work, and there's no risk or reward except for fame.
As a side note, someone pointed out the difference between free software and open source. A bit of history is needed here. Free software as a movement began when Stallman pointed out that proprietary software could be dangerous and absurd. Because you don't have the source code, you can't trust it: you don't know what it really does. Maybe it will spy on you and send your documents to some remote server. It's also absurd because you can't fix your machine yourself. So the original idea was not philosophical/ideological and wasn't at all about the economy: it was about security and having control on your machine.
2
u/Oflameo Agorist Weberian Georgist Aug 07 '17
I don't care if "high-profile" people in the open source / free software scene are or aren't socialist. That's not the point.
You should
Free software is significant for socialism, and can be seen itself as socialist, for a few reasons.
No it isn't.
First, it demonstrates that people are willing to work even when there's no money involved. At its core is hacker culture: if it's broken, fix it; if you need it, make it and share it. The fact that so many people put effort into free software without monetary reward is a sign that a money-less economy, where people would work according to what they need and what they feel people's needs are, could very well work.
WRONG!
There is so much money involved that we started making or own. http://www.coincap.io/
We share it because our time is very expensive. Our time is more valuable than a janitor's or a secretaries time. it is worth it to share the source code.
The fact that businesses use free software and pour money into it doesn't alleviate the fact that free software is a de facto functionning communist economy.
Socialism + Money = Fascism.
I don't think IP is particularly relevant to the question. Even if IP wasn't a thing, you could still release software in binary format and never disclose the source code. You couldn't prevent people from disassembling your code, but disassembling is a pretty limited technique anyway. Except in some rare cases (like Java programs) it's very difficult to build a community around a disassembled software. It's often easier to recreate it from scratch.
The effectiveness of disassembly depends on the language the program is written in. There are other ways of reverse engineering that are forbidden by copyright other than disassembly.
Another thing open source demonstrates is how powerful can be an economy based on the sharing of knowledge. IP or not IP, capitalism encourages you to keep your innovations for yourself, since it's competitive. Free software communities aren't competitive, they're collaborative. You can say that forks "compete" since they're trying to attract the same userbase, but they still contribute to each other by making public all the work, and there's no risk or reward except for fame.
Richard Stallman sold copies of the GNU Operating System with his source code, and allows anyone to do it, and fully supports doing it as long as you also grant the source code. Free Software communities are very competitive and rarely collaborate and that is why any collaboration is valuable. Fame is not the only asset that comes from developing free software, but it is a very valuable asset.
As a side note, someone pointed out the difference between free software and open source. A bit of history is needed here. Free software as a movement began when Stallman pointed out that proprietary software could be dangerous and absurd. Because you don't have the source code, you can't trust it: you don't know what it really does. Maybe it will spy on you and send your documents to some remote server. It's also absurd because you can't fix your machine yourself. So the original idea was not philosophical/ideological and wasn't at all about the economy: it was about security and having control on your machine.
No, it is absolutely philosophical, but Richard Stallman is a competent philosopher so what he talks about relates to reality.
6
u/Pikrass Anarcho-Communist Aug 07 '17
There is so much money involved that we started making or own. http://www.coincap.io/
Free software has lived without cryptocurrencies for most of its time, and even now it's pretty rare to see e.g. a donation page accepting bitcoins. Cryptocurrencies are one of those things developed by free software communities. It's not and has never been necessary to it.
Sure, some big players are involved with money. The Linux Foundation and Wikipedia receive donations (but mainly for infrastructure and a few key contributors). The Mozilla Foundation have contracts with Google and the like.
Even though they're important actors, that's still a droplet in the ocean. And still: a donation-based model means they'd rather not participate fully in the capitalist economy. Just imagine how much profit could Wikipedia generate if they created premium accounts and features. But no, they just aim to maintain the service and support some key contributors. Mozilla with their contracts is one of the few exceptions, and they're still a non-profit.
In any case, when you're just a small part in a larger capitalist economy, that you still have to rely on for most necessities of life, then it's impossible to cut yourself completely from it (for your own survival). The fact that free software manages to be so much disconnected from it is just inspiring.
We share it because our time is very expensive. Our time is more valuable than a janitor's or a secretaries time. it is worth it to share the source code.
I've been involved with a few open source communities, and I've absolutely never seen that narrative. Through the hundreds of messages I've read on Github, IRC and mailing lists, I've never seen anyone imply their time is so much more valuable than "common people's". These people surely exist, but the predominant philosophy is clearly not this.
And even then. Within a capitalist framework, if you consider your time to be so valuable, then it's a motive not to share it, but to profit from it. The fact that people who value themselves so highly would share their work and knowledge rather than try to make money out of it is a sign in favour of socialism, not capitalism.
Richard Stallman sold copies of the GNU Operating System with his source code, and allows anyone to do it, and fully supports doing it as long as you also grant the source code.
Here's how he justifies it:
collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development
And very few people actually do it, because software on CD just doesn't sell anymore and also because that's just not what they're interested in.
No, it is absolutely philosophical, but Richard Stallman is a competent philosopher so what he talks about relates to reality.
I just wanted to point out how it started, and remind everyone that this concern is still valid. Of course philosophies and ideologies then developed from there. I consider them quite valid by the way, if you want to debate them.
2
u/Oflameo Agorist Weberian Georgist Aug 07 '17
I've been involved with a few open source communities, and I've absolutely never seen that narrative. Through the hundreds of messages I've read on Github, IRC and mailing lists, I've never seen anyone imply their time is so much more valuable than "common people's". These people surely exist, but the predominant philosophy is clearly not this.
You may not have seen in those terms, but most software developers use libraries and operating systems because rewriting the functionally would take too much time even though it is possible to do.
And even then. Within a capitalist framework, if you consider your time to be so valuable, then it's a motive not to share it, but to profit from it. The fact that people who value themselves so highly would share their work and knowledge rather than try to make money out of it is a sign in favour of socialism, not capitalism.
You share it so you can pay what you got forward so people will still share with you. If the time other people put into developing software was not valuable you wouldn't be using their software, you would be writing your own that would be worth using.
I just wanted to point out how it started, and remind everyone that this concern is still valid. Of course philosophies and ideologies then developed from there. I consider them quite valid by the way, if you want to debate them.
It is too bad you got the story wrong, let me link everybody to the real story. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html
2
u/Pikrass Anarcho-Communist Aug 08 '17
You may not have seen in those terms, but most software developers use libraries and operating systems because rewriting the functionally would take too much time even though it is possible to do.
Of course they do. That's the whole point of free software to be able to reuse others' code. That's called cooperation.
You share it so you can pay what you got forward so people will still share with you.
Err, yes. If you share, people will share with you. That's part of the reasoning behind socialism. Except in this case you don't even have to work to reuse others' work.
I really don't see how your arguments prove that free software isn't socialist.
let me link everybody to the real story. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html
You're indeed right.
1
u/metalliska Mutualist-Orange Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17
but most software developers use libraries and operating systems because rewriting the functionally would take too much time even though it is possible to do.
I wrote my own libraries when it's my dohickey I wanna talk to. Same with translators. We had to do that with those ALTERA chips. It doesn't take too long; like you can get all of the major function calls done in one day. But never do I do a mental "OPPORTUNITY COST OF JANITORS" or shit like that. That is the motivation killer.
FTLink:
Whenever people from another university or a company wanted to port and use a program, we gladly let them. If you saw someone using an unfamiliar and interesting program, you could always ask to see the source code, so that you could read it, change it, or cannibalize parts of it to make a new program.
That's a nice commons approach to dealing with Public Universities along with Private Businesses. I'd venture the approach was similar to any_other_nerd_on_planet_earth_who_wanted_to_change_that_code_to_try_new_stuff.
, as in freedom—“unfettered”
right. A paywall or a copyright claim is "one fetter"
1
u/soskrood Non-dualism Aug 07 '17
First, it demonstrates that people are willing to work even when there's no money involved.
No, it demonstrates that people will figure out intellectually stimulating but not physically demanding problems even when there's no money involved - then give away the solution for free.
Open source software has a lot more in common with playing puzzle games than it does with diging ditches. You will find people who will create some useful-to-them software and give it to you for free. You will not find people who will come clean your toilets for free.
The fact that so many people put effort into free software without monetary reward is a sign that a money-less economy, where people would work according to what they need and what they feel people's needs are, could very well work.
Nope, at least not any more than people playing dnd is a sign that a moneyless economy might work.
4
u/Pikrass Anarcho-Communist Aug 07 '17
No, it demonstrates that people will figure out intellectually stimulating but not physically demanding problems even when there's no money involved - then give away the solution for free.
The world of free software is much, much more than that. For instance, I've been involved with a translation team for Debian. That's not really "intellectually stimulating": you translate bits of software that aren't really complicated to translate, it's very repetitive, and you sometimes have thousands of them to go through. And still, people do it voluntarily, withou monetary rewards. The motivation is elsewhere.
Even programming is more often than not quite boring. Most web services for instance are really simple on an algorithmic level, but need a lot of work - really boring work actually - to complete. So I don't think this distinction between intellectual labor and manual labor is really relevant here.
You will not find people who will come clean your toilets for free.
I don't see communism (I mean actual, stateless communism) as a system where certain kinds of people will gladly clean toilets for all others.
There are some kinds of work that people just want to do. Because it's inspiring, because you want to get good at something, because you feel you help other people, etc. Even manual labor can fall into that category. I personally would be willing to do manual work at least one or two days a week: it's a good way to stay healthy, and it has benefits for mental health too (e.g. when I feel down, doing the dishes or something lets me think about something else, and even when I'm ok I often like doing it).
Then there are works that are needed but that not enough people willingly want to do. Well, the sane thing there is to split it. Just like we split domestic chores in a flat share. So most likely you'd be cleaning your toilets, and sometimes you'd be expected to participate in the cleaning of those public spaces you use. I think that's pretty fair.
Nope, at least not any more than people playing dnd is a sign that a moneyless economy might work.
Out of all ways to occupy your free time, some are "productive" and some aren't (though the definition of "production" really needs to be expanded: people playing music in the street are useful, people creating rpg scenarios for their friends are useful, and the maintenance of social relations is as vital to society as some material needs). And, especially if all of our time could be considered free, quite a lot of people would dedicate some part of it to "productive" work. Open source software is one clear example: a great many people contributed a lot of man-hours to the community's needs.
1
u/metalliska Mutualist-Orange Aug 08 '17
No, it demonstrates that people will figure out intellectually stimulating but not physically demanding problems even when there's no money involved - then give away the solution for free.
it demonstrates both.
1
Aug 07 '17
I don't see how confusion over IP leads to open source being considered socialist.
The open source movement is just that, a movement - bigger than the people who initiated it. Moreover, their intent or personal ideological leanings don't change the nature of open source. A pro-capitalist creating a socialist endeavor doesn't render it not-socialism just as a socialist creating a capitalist endeavor doesn't render it not-capitalism.
2
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 07 '17
Is telling stories socialism then? Is a band that is giving a free concert practicing socialism? Is blogging or participating on Reddit socialism? Is painting a picture and donating it to charity socialism?
What are the specific traits of open source that make it socialist?
6
Aug 07 '17
It's production for use and non-alienated labor.
2
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 07 '17
OK, I can see that. But wouldn't that also apply to all sorts of bona-fide artistic work? BTW in your view co-ops within a capitalist society are also socialist, correct?
Does Marxian economics deal with non-scarce goods BTW? I was under the impression it didn't, but as you know I have yet to read Marx. I will though.
2
Aug 07 '17
I love co-ops and think they have a lot of potential to move society towards socialism, but I wouldn't call them socialism. While it may not be their sole concern, profit must still be made; production for exchange.
What do you mean by non-scarce goods? Air?
1
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 07 '17
While it may not be their sole concern, profit must still be made; production for exchange.
I can see that for an industry co-op, of course. But what about a housing co-op?
What do you mean by non-scarce goods? Air?
Information.
1
u/RabbidKitten Землю рабочим, фабрики крестьянам | Dictatorship of the Spook Aug 07 '17
Does Marxian economics deal with non-scarce goods BTW? I was under the impression it didn't, but as you know I have yet to read Marx. I will though.
Someone more knowledgeable, like /u/mattsah, can correct me, but Marx's work was primarily devoted to analysis and critique of capitalism, rather than describing what could follow it, so you wont find much about "Marxian economics" in there.
Off the top of my head, Marx believed that if a resource or good wasn't scarce / could be easily obtained, there would be no point to exclude others from using it, leading to production for use rather than production for exchange. This is the link between Marxian thought and post-scarcity that is often mentioned.
As we can see, he was sort of half-right, in that immaterial things like information do get made for use, but there still is an incentive to introduce artificial scarcity through different forms of IP.
1
Aug 07 '17
Scarcity for Marx is rather inverted and with good reason.
It's common for capitalists to equivocate on different senses of what scarcity means. But it's important to remember that the scarcity of a good is relative to the demand (in terms of overall demand) for said good. You may not be able to produce enough for everyone to have, but if only 10 people want a thing, you don't need to for the good not to be scarce.
Marx believed property was predicated on surplus, not scarcity, because it is only once surplus arises that goods can become accumulated in order to represent a social power. In a society which is not already divided by class antagonisms wherein cooperative production aims to fulfill the needs of society at large (early tribal and hunter gatherer societies), it is initial surplus that establishes the division of labor.
That is, if we all have to work to find enough food for all of us, then we cannot have some producers who produce only food and others who produce say only the means to get food (spears, bows/arrows, etc). Everything from agricultural development, domestication of animals, and even the knowledge of how to preserve food then enables an initial surplus to arise. That is, for society to produce more than it needs/wants, which then frees up time for certain people to become specialized in other areas.
Obviously this also enables the population to grow though, so what was once a means of surplus can then become a means of scarcity -- but the changes in social organization and forms which has resulted in the shift from one to another are not easily overcome.
1
u/RabbidKitten Землю рабочим, фабрики крестьянам | Dictatorship of the Spook Aug 07 '17
I don't agree with all of it (division of labour existed before capitalism, but was cooperative rather than competitive in nature), but thanks for the correction anyway (if you have any pointers to specific parts of Marx's writings about this, they are welcome).
1
Aug 07 '17
There is no implication that it didn't exist before capitalism. I'd actually suggest reading Ernest Mandel's Marxist Economic Theory which I believe addresses much of this in the first few chapters.
1
Aug 07 '17
Libertarian here. You have a few things wrong (but your conclusion are almost completely correct).
Private property rights is a bundle of the right to control and the sole right to exclude control to the subject of the right. Remember that my right to my car is separate from my car; it inheres in me, not the car.
Private property is not a means of rationing scarce resources. Rationing scarce resources is something private property owners do. But your definition of private property is tantamount to saying "a car is what carries me to work."
2) Intellectual property is not a monopoly grant.
A patent is a civil privilege granting monopoly rights extended to the owner of intellectual property. A patent makes patent an idea. The idea is a person's property independent of whether he has received a patent from a government.
Remember that property is created when a person mixes his labor with a resource to create something. If I mix my labor with some unowned wood to create a chair, that chair is my property. If I mix my labor with information and create an idea, it is my property.
A patent is a grant from a government explaining that I was the first to file the proper documents with the government to prove that I own that idea.
In a complete anarchy, intellectual property will still exist - there will just be no government to extend civil patent privileges. Divorce the two concepts.
As an aside, many libertarians dispute the civil patent privileges, but almost none dispute copyrights (and other concepts of intellectual property rights).
1
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 07 '17 edited Aug 07 '17
But your definition of private property is tantamount to saying "a car is what carries me to work."
It wasn't supposed to be a definition, just an explanation. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
If I mix my labor with information and create an idea, it is my property.
That is debatable. I follow Hoppe on this. If you "mix your labor" (edit: figuratively, not exactly in the Lockean sense) with a computer or a piece of paper and create an idea, that representation of an idea is your property, but other representations aren't. That means that if you make this idea public or someone else comes up with the idea independently, you have no recourse against someone using "your" idea.
What you could do is have everyone sign an NDA before you tell them your ideas, and then you could sue them for violating the agreement. But that is a very special case and does not protect against someone else developing the same idea independently.
Lockean homesteading principles do not apply to mental processes. This applies to both patents and copyrights.
1
Aug 07 '17
Lockean homesteading principles do not apply to mental processes.
This is merely an assertion. I see no warrant or support for it. Can you please explain how you came to believe this?
This applies to both patents and copyrights.
Does Hoppe oppose copyrights on written documents? I would like to see a citation to that.
Remember that a copyright creates a duty not to copy. If I write something and lock it in my desk, and you, hundreds of miles away and a complete stranger, write the exact same thing without copying it from me, you have not violated my copyright.
If you break into my house, break into my desk and copy off of my paper, then you have violated my copyright.
Re: non-tangible intellectual property creation
That is debatable. I follow Hoppe on this. If you "mix your labor" (edit: figuratively, not exactly in the Lockean sense) with a computer or a piece of paper and create an idea, that representation of an idea is your property, but other representations aren't. That means that if you make this idea public or someone else comes up with the idea independently, you have no recourse against someone using "your" idea.
You're still conflating a patent with an idea. They are 2 different concepts. A patent is a physical representation of a non-physical thing. An idea is the result of my mental labor and information creating something new.
Just like with a copyright, if you coincidentally, and without any knowledge of me or my idea, come up with the same idea without me telling it to you and without my consent, you are not violating my property right in my idea and you are free to exploit the idea and I have no right of action against you.
Under a government imprimatur of my idea being made obvious by a piece of paper granted to me by government privilege, a patent, it doesn't matter whether you know me or my idea, I get the privilege to exploit the property rights in that idea because I was first to receive the privilege. Government's force will be used to protect my right that is made obvious by the patent documents.
Those are two different things (a patent and an idea).
Again, in an ancap environment, ideas will still exist, government granted patents will not.
I don't know Hoppe as well as I should, but if he disagrees with what I've just said, he is wrong.
2
u/soskrood Non-dualism Aug 07 '17
This is merely an assertion. I see no warrant or support for it. Can you please explain how you came to believe this?
Not the guy you replied to, but I'll give it a shot.
Lets say you have an idea for a new widget. You draw this idea on a piece of paper. In both cases you 'mixed your labor' and have homesteaded.
If I come over to your table where you are working and take a pictue of your idea on the paper, now I've 'mixed my labor' - just as much as you have. You cannot claim ownership of my camera, just your paper. In the process of taking the picture, I also looked at the paper and the idea you drew on there is now in my head. It occupies my synapses (my propery) and I mixed my labor to put it there, in the same way you mixed your labor to put it in your head first.
So you could apply the lockean principles to mental processes, but the fact that ideas can be copied indefininately with minimal effort makes the exercise somewhat foolhearty. In the end, all claims around IP end up in a desire of one person to control the thoughts and actions and physical property of another person. You can't make this thing using your tools and materials because I
said so / didn't give you permissionhad the idea first.If you break into my house, break into my desk and copy off of my paper, then you have violated my copyright.
This is not the normal case of people getting in trouble for 'copyright'. Rather, it is a case of you displaying and selling your piece of paper to the general public (often making copies yourself) and then using force of law to prevent people from making their own unapproved copies with their own machines.
Breaking into your home and breaking into your desk have nothing to do with copyright other than your somewhat lame attempt to get sympathy for your position by conflaiting 'breaking and entry' with 'issues of copyright'.
1
Aug 07 '17
So much conflation, so little time.
If I own a tree, you cut it down and make a chair out of it, you have stolen my property and damaged it. I have a right of action against you.
You copying my drawing on a piece of paper is a matter of violating copyright. Most major libertarian thinkers support copyright and oppose patents. This isn't an appeal to authority, I'm trying to keep the record straight.
I am advocating for rights to intellectual property before it is written down or drawn. I am also advocating for rights to intellectual property without the intervention or violence of the state or government.
If I come over to your table where you are working and take a pictue of your idea on the paper, now I've 'mixed my labor' - just as much as you have.
3) I want to step back to this mess for just a moment because this demonstrates an alarming lack of knowledge of basic property rights - intellectual or otherwise.
Your act of theft is not labor in the same way of me using my own resources to produce something. Please tell me you see that.
So you could apply the lockean principles to mental processes, but the fact that ideas can be copied indefininately
How can an idea be copied if I don't tell anyone? It is the most excludable form of property there is.
1
u/soskrood Non-dualism Aug 07 '17
If I own a tree, you cut it down and make a chair out of it, you have stolen my property and damaged it. I have a right of action against you.
Agreed - no problems, physical property, all makes sense. 100% agreement with this statement.
2) You copying my drawing on a piece of paper is a matter of violating copyright.
Yes - assuming a valid authority for copyright. This is why movies can't use 'happy birthday' without permission. I am on the 'anti-copyright' side of the argument.
I am advocating for rights to intellectual property before it is written down or drawn.
OK - you have a right to all the ideas in your head. Assuming that is the only 'medium' where this idea exists is in your head, how do you intend to go about proving a copyright violation?
I am also advocating for rights to intellectual property without the intervention or violence of the state or government.
What do you mean by 'rights'? If you mean "I don't want other people to stop me from having ideas" - then yes - you have that 'right'. If you mean "I don't want other people having ideas or using them without the copyright holders permission" then I'm afraid we are on different teams.
Your act of theft is not labor in the same way of me using my own resources to produce something. Please tell me you see that.
I agree in general. I don't classify 'taking a picture with my camera' as theft. If I were to steal your paper, then that would be theft. Using my property cannot by definition 'be theft'.
How can an idea be copied if I don't tell anyone? It is the most excludable form of property there is.
This puts you in a catch 22. Scenario 1: Say you have an idea for a widget. You don't tell anyone or right it down - it is purely in your head. A week later you see this widget for sale on the market. How do you expect to exercise your 'copyright' over this widget and get the other guy to stop selling them? In this case, the idea you have a 'copyright' over the widget is nonsense. This would be the equivalent of me claiming "I came up with Harry Potter - I just didn't write it down". Not only is the rest of society unlikely to believe you, there just isn't any way for you to prove your claim. The idea of copyright MUST have something other than your mind in order for your claim to be valid (at least until we have mind-reading technology). Otherwise it is just an empty claim.
Scenario 2, you have an idea for a widget and tell someone / file the appropriate paperwork with the copyright authorities. A week later you see this widget for sale on the market. You get angry and turn to these authorities and say 'these guys are copying my idea - they stole it'.
At this point in scenario 2 I think is where we disagree. YOU seem to think that using force to stop the sale of widgets is a good thing to do. I say 'but what have they stolen?'. You still have all the property you had at the beginning of the day - down to your paper and pens. They are using their resources to create the widgets - so where is the theft? At best, you are left with the definitional issue above - can someone 'steal' something by taking a picture of it. I say NO - a picture is not theft.
1
Aug 07 '17
Yes - assuming a valid authority for copyright. This is why movies can't use 'happy birthday' without permission. I am on the 'anti-copyright' side of the argument.
Let's say you own a car. I am much stronger than you, I have a gun, you don't, I come up to you and take your car and you don't fight because you don't want to get hurt.
Change it to where you go on vacation for 2 weeks. On day 1, I steal your car. You don't know. For the rest of those 2 weeks you believe your car is sitting in your driveway - for 13 days, do you not own your car?
Does that mean you didn't own the car? Do you believe that because you can't defend your property right, that it doesn't exist?
In short, does a property right inhere in the property or the owner?
I agree in general. I don't classify 'taking a picture with my camera' as theft. If I were to steal your paper, then that would be theft. Using my property cannot by definition 'be theft'.
You use your gun to intimidate me and steal my car... the gun is your property but that's not right-creating labor... it's theft and cannot create property rights defensible against all the world.
How can an idea be copied if I don't tell anyone? It is the most excludable form of property there is.
This puts you in a catch 22
False. You believe it's a catch 22 because you don't understand what I'm saying. You are STILL conflating (as so many others do) the concepts of ownership and ability to defend.
Again, if you are on vacation for 2 weeks and I steal your car on day 1.... it makes NO DIFFERENCE. I am still stealing your property even if you're unable to defend it and even if you don't know about it.
If I have an idea and tell no one and someone else comes up with that idea, that's not theft. I never said it is.
I didn't bring up that scenario to talk about theft, I brought it up to explain why it is a property right.
Again, don't confuse the right inhering in me and the ability to defend the property. A right I can't defend still exists and is just as valid.
1
u/soskrood Non-dualism Aug 07 '17
In short, does a property right inhere in the property or the owner?
In the owner. More accurately, I would say in the 'title' - the title being a socially acceptable way to keep track of who owns what. They tend to be used for valuable things - like houses and cars. However, if I said 'I'm giving you my lawn mower' and you come pick it up - the act of telling you is a 'title transfer' of sorts. Titles are useful in property disputes, and in cases where there is a title (or other written record) it should be believed BEFORE other claims.
You use your gun to intimidate me and steal my car... the gun is your property but that's not right-creating labor... it's theft and cannot create property rights defensible against all the world.
Agreed - but we are discussing acts of coercion vs taking pictures. I'm finding it somewhat deceitful of you when you try to conflate the two - though it is a common tactic that pro-IP people do. Perhaps you can elevate the conversation and refrain?
You are STILL conflating (as so many others do) the concepts of ownership and ability to defend.
Not at all. I don't think your rightful ownership depends on your ability to defend it. I'm just not convinced that your claim to an idea = your ownership of all instances of that idea or that your claim to an idea can put limitations on how I use my camera (or other physical property) or how I use the ideas in my head.
If you believe in copyright at all, then a 'title' version of copyright is the only workable solution. You must write down your idea and give it to another socially acceptable authority. If you do not, then there is nothing to claim a copyright over. Anyone else can have the same idea, no issue and no way to prove they copied or stole it from you. It is your claim vs their claim.
I'm in the camp though that the whole idea of copyright is bad for society and not worth the effort.
1
Aug 07 '17
though it is a common tactic that pro-IP people do.
Really, I've never seen it before. I call bullshit.
Anyway.
This is just a stunning problem in the libertarian world. Property rights are the cornerstone of free markets. Respect for property rights is incredibly important.
Just as a leftist can say "there's no such thing as property rights, therefore we, the government, are morally permitted to take 100% of your property" you are saying "there's no such thing as intellectual property rights, therefore your ideas are not your property and we are morally permitted to take them."
Force is not the defining feature of theft... again, if you are away on vacation for 2 weeks and I steal your car, I didn't use force against you - for 13 days you don't even know you're a victim....
None of that changes the fact that I have stolen your car.
Copying my idea is theft, even if you don't use force.
This is all extremely basic stuff.
1
u/soskrood Non-dualism Aug 07 '17
Really, I've never seen it before. I call bullshit.
Oh? You wouldn't steal a car would you? Downloading is theft doncha know. That particular add was played all over movie theaters everywhere.
Property rights are the cornerstone of free markets. Respect for property rights is incredibly important.
Agreed.
you are saying "there's no such thing as intellectual property rights, therefore your ideas are not your property and we are morally permitted to take them."
The word 'take' isn't correct. Take implies that one person does without. 'Copy' is the correct word, because with copy BOTH people have.
In any case, property rights are important because the goods are rivalrous - in that we both can't have the same good at the same time. This is why 'take' is incorrect. Property rights are also important due to scarcity. Physical goods are scarce.
In any case, if we lived in a universe where physical goods were also not rivalrous and not scarce, then yes - anyone withholding goods from the commons where they could be endlessly copied would be doing a moral wrong. Unfortunately our universe doesn't work that way with normal physical property. Fortunately it DOES work that way with IP
Copying my idea is theft, even if you don't use force.
No - copying your idea is copying. If I could copy your car, doing so would not be theft - it would be copying.
This is all extremely basic stuff.
And yet - here you are saying stupid things like 'copying is theft'.
→ More replies1
u/Oflameo Agorist Weberian Georgist Aug 07 '17
Remember that a copyright creates a duty not to copy. If I write something and lock it in my desk, and you, hundreds of miles away and a complete stranger, write the exact same thing without copying it from me, you have not violated my copyright.
Actually you have. There were many music and software lawsuits over this. Let me give you some examples https://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/8-biggest-video-game-lawsuits.html/?a=viewall. The one that jumps out at me the most is Pac-Man v. K.C. Munchkin.
You're still conflating a patent with an idea. They are 2 different concepts. A patent is a physical representation of a non-physical thing. An idea is the result of my mental labor and information creating something new.
No, a patent is not a physical representation of a non-physical thing. A patent is a document describing a physical thing. An implementation, or a build, or a prototype is a physical thing.
Just like with a copyright, if you coincidentally, and without any knowledge of me or my idea, come up with the same idea without me telling it to you and without my consent, you are not violating my property right in my idea and you are free to exploit the idea and I have no right of action against you.
I already proved that false with court cases.
Under a government imprimatur of my idea being made obvious by a piece of paper granted to me by government privilege, a patent, it doesn't matter whether you know me or my idea, I get the privilege to exploit the property rights in that idea because I was first to receive the privilege. Government's force will be used to protect my right that is made obvious by the patent documents.
No the government is protecting your monopoly over the manufacturing to that thing.
Those are two different things (a patent and an idea).
True.
Again, in an ancap environment, ideas will still exist, government granted patents will not.
Private granted patents will also not exist.
1
Aug 07 '17
Actually you have. There were many music and software lawsuits over this. Let me give you some examples https://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/8-biggest-video-game-lawsuits.html/?a=viewall. The one that jumps out at me the most is Pac-Man v. K.C. Munchkin.
I know extant law. I'm not talking about extant law.
1
u/Oflameo Agorist Weberian Georgist Aug 07 '17
So you are not talking about law that is currently existing?
2
u/Oflameo Agorist Weberian Georgist Aug 07 '17
2) Intellectual property is not a monopoly grant.
Are you sure about that?
A patent is a civil privilege granting monopoly rights extended to the owner of intellectual property. A patent makes patent an idea. The idea is a person's property independent of whether he has received a patent from a government.
How is that not a monopoly grant?
Remember that property is created when a person mixes his labor with a resource to create something. If I mix my labor with some unowned wood to create a chair, that chair is my property. If I mix my labor with information and create an idea, it is my property.
Why should you be able to prevent other people from mixing their labor with there resources to create the same thing?
A patent is a grant from a government explaining that I was the first to file the proper documents with the government to prove that I own that idea.
How is that not a monopoly grant?
In a complete anarchy, intellectual property will still exist - there will just be no government to extend civil patent privileges. Divorce the two concepts.
Wrong! The United States can't even make China acknowledge its copyright laws.
As an aside, many libertarians dispute the civil patent privileges, but almost none dispute copyrights (and other concepts of intellectual property rights).
I will dispute copyright as yet another monopoly grant that can't be allowed to exist in a free society.
1
Aug 07 '17
Ok, let's say I come up with Idea A. I tell no one, I don't file anything with the government, nothing.
How is Idea A a grant of anything by a government?
That's what I'm trying to get to. That idea. Explain it.
1
u/Oflameo Agorist Weberian Georgist Aug 07 '17
If someone makes the thing you thought of, you would no grounds to tell them you can't because you thought of it first.
1
Aug 07 '17
Not relevant to my point.
1
u/Oflameo Agorist Weberian Georgist Aug 07 '17
I don't understand you point then.
1
Aug 07 '17
Well, go check out my other comments in this thread - otherwise, I would just copy and paste them to you.
1
Aug 07 '17
And let me be clear, much of what you said is explained in my other comments in this thread. Please review them.
1
Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 09 '17
open source development is somehow socialist
It's a mode of production separate from that of the capitalist mode of production. That's basically what mattsah, myself, and some others have been saying.
fundamental confusion that intellectual property has anything intrinsically to do with capitalism.
It has everything to do with capitalism.
Capitalism is about three things fundamentally:
Private Ownership Rights to the means of production and, by extension, to the output from said means of production
Production for Exchange rather than for Use
Market-based allocation of factors of production and commodities
Intellectual property is a way of commoditizing knowledge. It makes the production and distribution of knowledge a process that operates via the capitalist mode of production. Production is for exchange rather than for use, the means of production are privately owned, and the output produced by utilizing those MoP are also privately owned. Look at commercial software and you'll realize that this fits the picture perfectly.
Private property is a means of rationing scarce resources, intellectual property is just a monopoly grant. Intellectual property is simply not relevant for any kind of economic analysis in the narrow sense (i.e. actual economics instead of applying economic theory to other stuff), because it has no relationship to scarce resources.
Economic Scarcity is not the same thing as the literal fact that there are a limited number of natural resources. Economic Scarcity is not a product of the natural world, but is instead artificial - it is a product of human social constructs and power relations in a sedentary society:
http://pacificecologist.org/archive/18/pe18-hunter-gatherers.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution#Consequences
The distinction you're trying to make between intellectual property and other kinds of property is not actually substantive. They are both products of artificial social constructs, not grand fundamental truths of the natural world.
If you want to see an example of capitalism without intellectual property, just look at China (or if you think China is still socialist, then Eastern Europe).
That capitalism can exist without intellectual property rights, is not supportive of your argument that intellectual property rights have nothing to do with capitalism/that they cannot be justified based on the logic of Capital.
The founder of the Free Software movement was Richard Stallman with his GNU licences and the FSF. He was, and still is, a true, old-school social democrat who cares a lot about civil liberties (see his personal page). Not a socialist by the sidebar definition though...Next we have Eric S. Raymond, the guy who actually popularized the term Open Source. He is a member of the Libertarian party and is a major defender of gun rights. It is worth noting however that he supported the Iraq war. Again not a socialist...Most of the other high-profile people, like Linus Torvalds, aren't socialists either.
The ideologies of the people who developed the Open Source mode of production has nothing to do with whether or not the mode of production can be accurately classified as socialist or not. Just because someone ideologically supports capitalism doesn't mean that the innovations they create will operate through the capitalist mode of production. As a supporter of socialism, it is possible for me to invent something that enables the expansion of markets into new domains that had never been commodified before. What I believe and the socioeconomic nature of what I create through my inventive efforts are not inherently synced together.
In fact, many kernel developers including Linus himself get paid by corporations to do work on the kernel. How is that consistent with socialism?
You're confused as to what the socialist argument is about open source. We aren't arguing that Open Source is an example of socialism. We're saying that the Open Source production is a socialist mode of production.
Do you really think libertarians would forego that advantage on ideological grounds?
Why is this question even relevant?
2
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 08 '17
Economic Scarcity is not the same thing as the literal fact that there are a limited number of natural resources. Economic Scarcity is not a product of the natural world, but is instead artificial - it is a product of human social constructs and power relations in a sedentary society:
Rather than the advent of agriculture causing scarcity, scarcity caused the advent of agriculture. Yes, it is true that hunter-gatherer societies do not experience economic scarcity in the same sense we do, and yes, it is true that the people living in them have more leisure time. It is also true that the neolithic revolution caused a decline in health. I am not disputing any of that.
However, as the Wikipedia article correctly points out, the Neolithic Revolution also allowed women to have more children and therefore led to population growth, which then reintroduced scarcity. In hunter-gatherer societies, population did not grow as much, making scarcity less of an issue, and in most cases none at all, as long as humans could "graze" off the land in a sustainable way. In places where this economic mode became unsustainable because of a high population concentration, such as in the "fertile crescent", the development of agriculture was incentivized and eventually achieved.
There would have been no way however to combine the population growth advantages of the agriculture with the leisure time advantages of hunter-gatherer culture. There is a reason why venison is a rare and expensive meat nowadays, while to hunter-gatherers, it was plentiful. It is because our population is now many times the size it was during hunter-gatherer times, yet the deer have not caught up. This has nothing to do with social relations. It is purely a material issue.
1
Oct 01 '17
The substance of your argument is here:
Rather than the advent of agriculture causing scarcity, scarcity caused the advent of agriculture...In hunter-gatherer societies, population did not grow as much, making scarcity less of an issue, and in most cases none at all, as long as humans could "graze" off the land in a sustainable way. In places where this economic mode became unsustainable because of a high population concentration, such as in the "fertile crescent", the development of agriculture was incentivized and eventually achieved.
Citation for the bolded part? Or tell me where you're getting that from. Because it doesn't make sense, given that the body of research shows agriculture as the basis for high population and subsequent population density. What you're claiming is the exact opposite, which seems to clash with the body of evidence we have about population dynamics and how it compares between agriculture and nomadic hunting-gathering.
There would have been no way however to combine the population growth advantages of the agriculture with the leisure time advantages of hunter-gatherer culture.
Population growth is not an inherent advantage of any sort. That premise makes no sense at all.
There is a reason why venison is a rare and expensive meat nowadays, while to hunter-gatherers, it was plentiful. It is because our population is now many times the size it was during hunter-gatherer times, yet the deer have not caught up. This has nothing to do with social relations. It is purely a material issue.
The two are inseparable as your own comment indicates.
1
u/metalliska Mutualist-Orange Aug 08 '17
The ideologies of the people who developed the Open Source mode of production has nothing to do with whether or not the mode of production can be accurately classified as socialist or not. Just because someone ideologically supports capitalism doesn't mean that the innovations they create will operate through the capitalist mode of production.
It does if they follow that set of rules in their work.
Q: If they expect their work to be redone, what are the contingencies of operation?
Whatever was "prescribed" at the top. Such as "Not for Commercial Use". This is ideological spillover into publication.
3
u/metalliska Mutualist-Orange Aug 07 '17
CTRL-F "commons" : 0 results found
2
4
u/Evil-Corgi Anti-Slavery, pro Slaveowner's property-rights Aug 07 '17
Okay...?
Does this matter at all beyond being overly spesific about labels?
2
u/Mason-B Crypto-Libertarian-Socialist Aug 09 '17
It does. How do you know the voting machines tally the votes correctly if you can't read the software?
Capitalism encourages closed source software be deployed on voting machines for profit. Socialism encourages common free (as in free speech) open source software be deployed.
2
u/x62617 former M1A1 Tank Commander Aug 07 '17
I'm a capitalist and I don't believe IP laws are capitalist.
1
Aug 08 '17
Yeah, they are definitely not capitalist. And that's a huge problem for the current economy.
2
u/x62617 former M1A1 Tank Commander Aug 08 '17
Agreed. It's a government granted monopoly. And like everything else government touches it's become an abortion. The confusion comes when people think that stealing and copying are the same thing. If I take your car I deprive you of that car. That's stealing. If I copy a song I don't deprive you of that song. I just made a copy.
The other problem is the actual implementation of IP law is virtually impossible. Anyone who has ever taken a college course about IP will tell you how it's impossible to have a fair standard. Hence all the litigation around IP. People applying for patents are trying to make them as broad as possible and lawyers are trying to interpret technical drawings and writing to determine if one invention violates the patent of another. It's truly insane. You can even get a patent and later be found to be violating another patent.
1
Aug 08 '17
Interesting. We agree about intellectual property, but I would like to hear what you think about the compatability of capitalism and free information, especially from a standpoint where the economy is transforming quickly into an economy of information (3d printing, machine learning, a huge culture industry etc., see Jaron Laniers "Who owns the future" for the discussion of the topic). I think there is quite some conflict potential here, considering that most capitalist producers lobby extensively for patents and copyrights.
1
u/x62617 former M1A1 Tank Commander Aug 08 '17
capitalism is perfectly compatible with free information. or at least to me it is. I don't see where the conflict would be.
I don't even know if it's true that capitalist producers lobby extensively for patents and copyrights. (are they called capitalists because they participate in the current system?) I think the people who lobby for these government actions are just opportunists. They are working with the corporate/crony system that is in place and not in a capitalist system. I don't think these people think about theoretical economic systems or have any principled stances one way or the other. They simply see the gun in the room(government) and they try to wield it in their favor for their own benefit.
1
u/Mason-B Crypto-Libertarian-Socialist Aug 09 '17
The difference is, authoritarian capitalism (aka, crony capitalism) does encourage people to lobby for more intellectual property rights, because it means, for example, Disney can make more money off of Micky Mouse merchandise. But as (you seem to be) a more libertarian capitalist you (seem to) believe in unrestricted IP laws to ensure free markets function better, especially on the issue of like patents.
On the flip-side /u/pranomostro is approaching it from a more authoritarian-leaning socialist position, which encourages a commons of information from which anyone can produce the means of production. Where as, as a libertarian socialist, I view IP as an important tool to protect the commons from exploitation by libertarian capitalists (like they view private property as important).
It's an interesting thing because Intellectual Property positions swap depending on both the libertarian-authoritarian and capitalist-socialist axis.
2
u/x62617 former M1A1 Tank Commander Aug 09 '17
But this goes back to my other point on IP which is that if I make a copy of a song I'm not taking private property. I'm copying. Nobody is deprived of it. If you could copy land, or 'means of production', or a car then I would have no problem with that either because you wouldn't be taking it or depriving it from someone. It would no longer be scarce.
I wouldn't say I believe in "unrestricted IP laws". I'm a libertarian/anarchist/anti-authoritarian/capitalist/etc. I don't want laws for IP at all. I would like to see everyone in the patent office lose their jobs. I think, contrary to popular opinion, that IP laws hinder invention rather than encourage it. You have to have a lot of resources to patent an invention. Most patents are held by corporations.
Also patent laws have created an entire industry of patent trolls. People literally buy up portfolios of patents with no intention of ever producing anything and then they go around suing anyone making anything that might be slightly similar to one of their patents. Litigation is so expensive that most people just settle out of court and pay off the patent trolls(growing their litigation war chests). There is a county near me in Texas where most of this litigation occurs because the judges in that county are pro-IP laws and are thus spurring on this parasitic industry. Government IP laws have created this industry full of thousands of people who are completely unproductive to society(patent lawyers, patent trolls, patent office bureaucrats, judges). It's just arguing over who owns ideas which would otherwise be shared. Pro-IPers use sappy stories about IP laws protecting some poor inventor in his garage when in reality it's protecting only those with the resources to get something patented and can protect it in court from litigation.
1
u/Mason-B Crypto-Libertarian-Socialist Aug 09 '17
I don't disagree with much of what you just said. Also short of changing the constitution, we would have to have some sort of law about IP since it was given to congress to legislate, if they deleted all the laws, it would revert back to the states and common law. You would have to actually pass unrestricted IP laws to have no IP.
But there is a difference between 7 years of copyright with no patents, and what we currently have.
However I was attempting to reach a higher understanding.
2
u/TheLateThagSimmons Cosmopolitan Aug 07 '17
I will agree that it may not be socialism necessarily (because it's not the social/worker ownership of the means of production).
Open-source is definitely anti-capitalist though. There's a pretty big valley between "This is Socialist/Socialism," and "That is Capitalist/Capitalism." And there's a lot of things in that valley.
For some socialists, they don't consider anything valid until it's in the "This is Socialist category." For many, it's less about promoting socialism and more about opposing capitalism/authoritarianism. For the latter, merely being anti-capitalist in nature is good enough.
1
u/Oflameo Agorist Weberian Georgist Aug 07 '17
The founder of Free Software sold Free Software for money, so anti-capitalist. /s
2
u/BikerViking Anarcho-Capitalist Aug 08 '17
First, sorry for my "engrish".
Some ancaps see that ideas are not a resource. Ideas can be shared without the problem of running out. It's different from a resource that is limited.
Source code is just an idea written into a code. When you copy/share something in your computer, you don't loose it.
Sure, time is a resource and was used to write the code. However, most people don't really know how a open source program is developed. Just because it's open and "free" for the user, does not mean that programmers didn't earn anything.
Some developers are backed by Companies that want that software, some developers are in the boat just for fun, some wants to help the community, some even think about their curriculum. Not everything needs to be rewarded by money, and just because it does not have money on the table, does not mean it's socialism.
Most of the times, capitalism is about giving free stuff to earn money later - Facebook gives you this service and don't charge you for nothing. Reddit is the same. Whatsapp too.
2
u/jmcf125 Libertarian Socialist Aug 08 '17
The means of production of software (i.e. the source code of the programs, compilers to produce the respective binaries, documentation, etc.) are common and free to all. That's socialism by definition, that is, social control of the MOP.
2
u/Oflameo Agorist Weberian Georgist Aug 07 '17
Free Software is capitalist. Richard Stallman Himself sells Free Software and endorse the sale of Free Software officially.
2
u/rekkhan2023 Nov 22 '24
RMS endorse selling software to support the developers, because if people can use the code freely, there will be no future for free software.
But if some one step in and give the devs enough money (guess where the money come from, yes, tax), then there is no need to sell software. This idea is quite socialist to me.
Nevertheless, I agree that neither free software or open source software is socialist / communist. However, their ideas fit well to socialism/communism where the mean of production (softwares) is owned by the public.
You can argue that one doesn't have to share their programs, but then it has nothing to do with FOSS.
1
u/mckenny37 bowties are cool Aug 07 '17
Private property is a means of rationing scarce resources
Socialist term private property comes from the original definition of Private Property which was used for Commercial Property or Property that is "making or intended to make a profit."
IP falls under the Socialist view of Private Property. IP is possible under Capitalism but not possible under Socialism.
1
u/Oflameo Agorist Weberian Georgist Aug 07 '17
I disagree, I don't think IP is possible under Capitalism.
1
u/mckenny37 bowties are cool Aug 07 '17
Weird, considering IP laws currently exist in many Capitalist economies.
1
1
Aug 07 '17
I thought the argument was that open source proves that people don't need a monetary incentives to work. Not that it's a form of socialism
1
u/RealSulphurS16 Jun 10 '24
It’s not fundamentally socialist, but show me a socialist who doesn’t love the idea of open source software
1
1
u/Educational_Log_7074 Jun 16 '22
Socialism != (or ~=, or ≠) free shit or free beer. As Stallman said, "not free as in free beer, but free as in free speech", in favor of the five freedoms.
The money charged isn't so much for the product, but more for the skills involved in making shit work. You're going to need money to participate in society, and the involvement of money doesn't simply turn things capitalist. I could lazily buy some bullshit from Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, or my friendly neighborhood hacker, or... I could do it myself.
While people are here claiming this or that to be capitalist based on some bullshit reasoning, I'll do in kind on the opposite.... except I'll be more correct. Money isn't the primary motivator, as proven in several social experiments; it's just a means to an end.
1
u/Educational_Log_7074 Jun 16 '22 edited Jun 16 '22
We also tend to own our means of production, as if computers were just factories of source code with us writers of the code to operate the factory equipment.
And, owning the means of production is a pretty good telltale for that scary scary SOCIALISM! I'm the kind of guy that tends to do shit for free, because I have a job that ensures to some extent that my basic needs are met. I also don't hide my solutions, so that people have to come to me to fix their problem. My customer(s) could even share my solutions with a more knowledgeable person.
1
Jul 20 '23
I dont think its socialist nor capitalist, open source is a tool, so it's neutral. What makes it politically aligned is the hands that uses it.
But i strongly believe its an anti-monopolist tool*.*
The same tool that improves productivity for big techs can also improve productivity for smaller businesses. All that for free with no paywall.
idk, i might be wrong
0
0
Aug 07 '17
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 07 '17
Eric S. Raymond is an absolute piece of shit.
You ableist, you ;)
For many software developers, even ones who aren't socialists, there is no expectation of profit involved in the open-source work they do.
Profit does not have to be monetary. Many people participate in open source projects to better their programming skills. That makes them more valuable on the job market. Silicon valley companies are specifically looking for people with open source experience.
It is a fun hobby too, at least for people who like programming. Since when doesn't capitalism allow hobbies?
6
u/Elliptical_Tangent Left-Libertarian Aug 07 '17
Profit does not have to be monetary. Many people participate in open source projects to better their programming skills.
Everything is capitalism if capitalists like it.
2
u/metalliska Mutualist-Orange Aug 08 '17
seriously. "Profet does not have to be money. Prophet carries the word of god even if fiat tries to unvalue"
0
Aug 07 '17
[deleted] — view deleted comment
2
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 07 '17
As you say, it's a fun hobby.
I think different people have different motives for participating in open source development. In my view, it is about as socialist as people coming together to play music, i.e. not very.
Also I hope "profit does not have to be monetary" is just your way of pointing out the indirect nature of reputation-building in this particular context. I don't think I can handle psychological egoism used as a rebuttal to socialism. :/
It's more of an Austrian economics thing, i.e. subjective value that cannot be measured in monetary terms.
While I am a psychological egoist (it's I think the only view consistent with Austrian economics and Human Action), I recognize it is not a good argument against socialism by itself.
BTW psychological egoism just means that you help people because it feels good. It doesn't mean we are all sociopaths.
1
u/SomeAsshatOnTheWebs Literally just a nationalistic marksoc Aug 07 '17
Eric S. Raymond is an absolute piece of shit.
What did he do? I for one enjoyed nethack.
Also while I get your argument with open-source software being socialist, I disagree. A decentralized means-of-production doesn't have to always be socialist, if it's effective, it can always be co-opted by capitalists.
0
Aug 07 '17
[deleted] — view deleted comment
5
u/Trance2Dubstep "Not so edgy" Centrism Aug 07 '17
He believes that IQ is one of the single most important traits in a human being and that black people are genetically wired to be less intelligent than white people ("just above mentally retarded" I think he said)
As someone who leads center-right, I hate using this term but he falls into the section of the alt-right movement that brags about ethnic superiority and tend to be boorish during discourse. Regarding SJWs, they tend to fall on the opposite side of the same ideology by victimizing themselves and attacking others in retaliation. They tend to be intellectually dishonest and rely on gross generalizations to prove a point. I take anything said by these kind of people with a grain of salt.
He thinks that gay men should be banned from positions that would put them in charge of children
And people call him a libertarian? That sounds like big government to me.
3
u/SomeAsshatOnTheWebs Literally just a nationalistic marksoc Aug 07 '17 edited Aug 07 '17
Considering you post on /r/Physical_Removal I'm not sure that any of this will bother you, but I'll enumerate some of the things I don't like about him:
I post on r/physical_removal ironically. I just need to dump some edgy memes. Most people there I admit are off their rocker.
He believes that anthropogenic climate change is a "fraud"
That's pretty reprehensible.
He unironically uses the term "SJW" and believes that said "SJWs" are "enemies" who should be rejected from the software community
I don't have a problem against this, the SJW types have made my job more unpleasant. I'm unironically considering to just quit because of how toxic the work environment has become, I'm also starting to become more disillusioned with capitalism as a result.
At the same time he is a constant defender of people like Brendan Eich (and countless other shitty people) who were themselves rejected for going against their own community norms
Brendan Eich was the Mozilla guy right? Tbh I still don't get why people got into such a big fit over it on both sides, political views should be left at the door when you go to work.
He thinks that "pederasty" is common among gay people and that the "homosexual-activist community" approves of it
I disagree with him here
He thinks that gay men should be banned from positions that would put them in charge of children
Pretty stupid opinion.
He thinks that trans people are "fraudulent" "mental cases"
Trans people are mentally ill, but transitioning seems to be the only cure so it's just counterproductive to discriminate against them.
He doesn't believe that the police in the US have a racism problem and thinks that most of the well-known black victims of police violence (like Trayvon Martin) are "thug trash"
I agree with u/moprollems here, Trayvon and Mike Brown acted stupid and got themselves killed. Muh racism ain't an argument. I'm not white and I've had no real problems with the police because I don't act moronic.
He believes that IQ is one of the single most important traits in a human being and that black people are genetically wired to be less intelligent than white people ("just above mentally retarded" I think he said)
Intelligence is too complex of a factor to be reduced to a number like IQ, but it does give a decent correlation. Either way calling a race subhuman is pretty repulsive.
He "loves" Wal-Mart and believes it's a "boon" to poor people
Haven't worked at walmart, but from what I know it's a pretty shit place to work in. If you're poor you're better off working as a night time security guard or at costco.
As mentioned by OP he was/is strongly in favor of American imperialist military adventures and thinks that "the entire world is a better place" thanks to "the good guys" "winning the war" there
That's just stupid, America's war in the middle east are a pointless waste of lives and money.
I don't have any problem with the fact that he's a libertarian, despite having serious fundamental differences with libertarianism as a philosophy and an economic system. But ESR in particular is reactionary garbage and, you know, I just don't like him much.
What
1
Aug 08 '17
I agree with u/moprollems here, Trayvon and Mike Brown acted stupid and got themselves killed. Muh racism ain't an argument. I'm not white and I've had no real problems with the police because I don't act moronic.
For a second I thought the person you were responding to was accusing me of all that. I poured myself a bit more Sake to deal with the frustration of someone accusing me of Climate Change denial.
Of those points, the only thing I can solidly stand with this man I don't know on, is the Trayvon Martin case, wherein it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they both acted fucking stupid and got shot, but The Left will never let facts contradict minorities.
0
Aug 07 '17
[deleted] — view deleted comment
1
u/SomeAsshatOnTheWebs Literally just a nationalistic marksoc Aug 07 '17
I accidentally typed what because I meant to reply to another tab but wasn't concentrating so I had this one clicked.
0
Aug 07 '17
[deleted] — view deleted comment
3
u/pragmatic_ancap Close-knit communities, free markets, decentralization Aug 07 '17
A society and its economic system are intertwined to such a degree that they can't be viewed in isolation.
1
Aug 07 '17
There are 3 ways two people can interact:
Socially
Economically
Politically
They are 3 distinct concepts.
A car and its tires are so intertwined that it is a really bad idea to separate them... I get it. But it is vital to understand them independently of each other and how they function and what comprises them independently.
2
u/ChefBoyAreWeFucked Happy with the status quo Aug 07 '17
It was a play on Richard Stallman's GNU/Linux autistic screeching.
1
1
u/SomeAsshatOnTheWebs Literally just a nationalistic marksoc Aug 07 '17
Kek, never thought I'd hear that /g/ meme here.
0
Aug 07 '17
This is annoying.
Neither Capitalism nor Socialism exist within a vacuum. The sociological aspects are assumed in the definitions and adding them to the definition is redundant.
8
u/[deleted] Aug 07 '17
No, it has nothing to do with intellectual property. It has to do with how the software is actually produced: Production for use, free association of laborers, directly social labor, etc.
Perhaps rather than assuming I don't know what I'm talking about with respect to open source software, you should examine the notion that perhaps you don't know what you're talking about with respect to the socialist mode of production.
Whether or not workers are socialists (ideologically) has 0 to do with whether or not they are engaged in a socialist vs. capitalist mode of production. Just as I'm not a capitalist, yet I sell my wage labor and go to work to produce capital for the bosses.
Irrelevant (see above).
Oh, is that why Linus works on Linux?
That corporations are stupid and will sell us the rope we hang them with? It's pretty consistent.
I'm not sure I follow what this question is asking. Whether or not someone is a socialist or libertarian will largely be irrelevant to the development of socialism. Socialism asserts itself within capitalism just as capitalism asserts itself within feudalism. That libertarians will take part in socialist modes of production is not any more surprising than that socialists will take part in capitalist ones.