Re: [Sheflug] RMS Talk

[Timothy Baldwin <nospam [at] comp.leeds.ac.uk>]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Timothy" == Timothy Baldwin <csyteb [at] comp.leeds.ac.uk> writes:
> 
>     Timothy> On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> 
>     Timothy> There is an awful lot of space to the left of RMS, and I
> 
> This is true, in general.
> 
>     Timothy> am rather puzzled by the inactivity of left-wing
>     Timothy> political parties over free software.
> 
> Most free software advocates I know are either apolitical or basically
> entrepreneurial.  Most left-wingers I know are generally Luddite,
> anti-IT in particular, because of the Big Brother aspects ("computers?
> you mean the things the NSA/MI-5/Echelon uses to keep files on us
> with?")

Most left-wingers I know not anti-IT, but this view may be biased due to the
fact  that I am a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) [1].

> That is NOT intended to be an explanation.  It's a correlation, and
> limited to my acquaintences.

Another possible reason is ignorance of the FSM within left wing parties, 5
of the 6 SWP members I have discussed the FSM with, were not aware if it's
existence, or of GNU/Linux.

>     Timothy> RMS is not at all revolutionary,
> 
> He is with respect to free software.  His contention about Netscape
> and freedom (see below) is not something to dismiss with "I don't see
> it that way" because it is the _core_ of his philosophy about free
> software.

I was largely thinking of his tactics, AFAIK he has not even hinted at the use
of strike action against the makers of propiretry software, for example.

>     Timothy> his politics are similar to Tony Benn, or Ralph Nader.
> 
> In general, yes.  But we're discussing software, where he is far more
> radical than I understand Tony Benn to be, and certainly far more
> radical than Nader.

Again I was considering means, not the end. (The goal that Tony Benn and Ralph
Nader want is similar to what the various revolutionary parties want, but they
differ greatly in the means they advocate.)

>     Timothy> I fact some time ago RMS explicitly stated that he did 
>     Timothy> not want to get rid of capitalism, and made a remark to
>     Timothy> that effect in the lecture, this is despite what he wrote
>     Timothy> in the last two paragraphs of the GNU Manifesto which are
>     Timothy> a description of socialism. Were the FSF at any of the
>     Timothy> major anti-capitalist protests?
> 
> That's right.  He only actively advocates _destruction_ of property in
> software, and _severe limitation_ in technological IP, especially in
> software.  He's quite able to see that the collapse of the Soviet
> political system was related to its economic system.

The collapse of the so called USSR was indeed related to it's economic system,
but said system is not socialism, but was in fact state capitalism.

> He's also quite aware that trying to use free software's political
> capital to oppose globalization, etc, would cause a revulsion among
> software professionals, who stand to benefit enormously from it (and
> in general are more sophisticated about it).  So he will personally
> speak out against NAFTA etc, and in favor of some of the economically
> stupider activities of the EU (eg, the CAP)---but he doesn't push the
> FSM in that direction.

I suspect the fact that the FSM is largely made up of software professionals is
due to it's failure to mount a serious political campaign, which would win
support from people who are not computer experts. Which rather makes a folly of
their boycott of Amazon (due to it small size) [2].
  
>     Timothy> He does not seem very good at it, why, for instance, did
>     Timothy> he not have any stickers promoting the principals of free
>     Timothy> software at the lecture? (they were all advertising
>     Timothy> GNU/Linux)
> 
> I don't think anybody in software, with the exception of a few
> non-programmer entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, believes that property
> rights in intellectual capital are God-given.  As is _explicitly_
> stated in the U.S. Constitution, and other such fundamental laws,
> intellectual property is a _creation_ of the government "for the
> purpose of furthering the development of the useful arts."  It's hard
> to come up with good stickers to argue against such pragmatism, which
> already is at best a compromise among principles.
> 
> The GNU system using the Linux kernel is a wild success, though, and
> campaigning for "credit where credit is due" is pretty easy.

But that is not going to get the message to the person in the street, or the
leaders of the Serbian revolution.

> 
>     Timothy> If another organization were to copy the FSF policy of
>     Timothy> requiring copyrights to be assigned to it, it would
>     Timothy> create serious problems.
> 
> I'm not sure about that.  RMS has been extremely unwilling to make
> treaties for mutual protection with for-profit corporations.  (I am
> told that Sun made such an offer vis-a-vis XEmacs, but was refused.  I
> don't completely trust the people who told me that, though, because
> they hate RMS.)  I imagine he would be offended if someone found it
> necessary to found YA-FSF.  But as long as the charter was as firm as
> the FSF's, I think he probably _would_ be willing to "cross-license"
> GPL software.
> 
>     Timothy> But the free software movement has failed to eradicate
>     Timothy> propriority software, and is subject various attacks
>     Timothy> which at has failed to mount a serious defense to.
> 
> Sorry, I switched points of view on you.  No, the FSM (as led by RMS)
> has not accomplished its primary goal of eradicating proprietary
> software.  But I don't think continuing that effort would be useful.
> I think it useless to try; it is probably impossible to outlaw
> proprietary software, and the economic motivation for it will always
> be with us, making it politically impossible to do so.

As long as capitalism exists. That is why to abolish proprietary software we
have to overthrow capitalism (and replace it with socialism). Now that
computers exist free software is a part of socialism.

> Where the FSM has been useful is in ensuring that a complete free
> software system is available.  That task is done, and I don't think
> emphasis on purity will help to maintain or develop it further, or
> extend it to new areas.  What needs to be done now is to fight against
> software patents and other further strengthening of IP that are not
> needed, and to educate customers on the economic benefits of open
> source to them so that they will demand it.  But these activities are
> equally high on the agenda of the OSM.
> 
>     Timothy> there has been a large swing to the left amongst general
>     Timothy> population, the so-called "Seattle effect".
> 
> The "Seattle effect" IMHO doesn't represent a general swing to the
> left.  It represents (1) the way dramatic decreases in communication
> and transportation costs make it easier to organize 100,000 or so
> dedicated single-issue demonstrators,

A sudden world-wide decrease in communication and transportation costs 11 months
ago? (That includes the 3rd world)

> and (2) the great debating
> advantage that the single-issue advocates derive from not needing to
> care about anything other than their single issue.  (Eg, there were
> pro-wildlife advocates and anti-protectionism advocates both
> demonstrating against the WTO in Seattle.  Of course, they wanted
> exactly opposite changes in the WTO's policy on trade barriers to fish
> caught with technology that has been banned in most Western nations.
> But they didn't say that; they just said "Down with the WTO!")

They may have came as single issue advocates, but they left as
anti-capitalists.

None of what you have said explains the raise in sales of Socialist Worker
(the SWP's newspaper),  the rasie in membership of the SWP, the support Ralph
Nader, the Green Party and the LSA (London Socialist Alliance) have, the
ideas discussed at the various anti-capitalist conferences and comments made by
strikers to SWP members on the picket line.

The commercial and state funded media (that includes the BBC) have a right wing
bias, and frequently mis-lead their audencices. Have they mis-lead you?

>     >> it's RMS they can't work with, and that only at the
>     >> philosophical/ political level.
> 
>     Timothy> Not surprising, he is a supporter of Ralph Nader after
>     Timothy> all.
> 
> That's not the political level I meant; it's intraorganizational.  Ie,
> RMS's need to fully control anything he manages, and inability to
> compromise.

Does that apply to all organisations?

>     Timothy> Major corporations are panicking at moment (due to the
>     Timothy> growing anti-capitalist movement) are trying their best
>     Timothy> to look like to good guys.
> 
> Could be.  But IBM in particular is getting involved in open source
> for many purely profit-oriented reasons.

I was referring to why they would want to associate themselves with the FSM
instead of the OSM.

[snip]

> Other reasons include making employees who are FS
> advocates much happier, and PR.

I was refering to (political) PR. What of type of PR are you thinking of?

> But it's the bottom line that made ] the bosses sit up and take notice.  "TCO
> is much lower when somebody else owns it!" they discovered.
> 
> As for "growing anti-capitalist movement", that may be true in Europe.

And the USA, Serbia, Bolivia, Russia, and all over the world.

> But for every new European socialist, two new capitalists arise in
> Shanghai---and we haven't mentioned Taipei, Beijing, Seoul, or Saigon.
> Heck, even in Tokyo suddenly we are creating _real_ entrepreneurs.

> And in the U.S., it's pretty clear that capitalism, in some form, has
> extremely firm support throughout the population.  People just want
> their particular employers to treat them better.

Apperntly most of the Seattle locals supported the protesters. I suspect your
source is either out of date or has a large right wing bias. (As with almost
all commercial media).

>     Timothy> Indeed, the GNU project, Linux and the IETF are favorite
>     Timothy> examples of mine when come to arguments about creativity
>     Timothy> and scientific progress under socialism.
> 
> Yup.  Linux and the IETF are organizations of individual
> entrepreneurs, and display extreme creativity. 

I was under the impression that said individuals were mostly employed by
someone to do something else. Are you sure that you understand what
entrepreneur means?

> The GNU Project, being
> run by a single dogmatic individual, produces immense amounts of crap
> code (including a "hello" program that supports at least 4 options).

I think the GNU project could gain a lot from democracy, and was looking more
at it's fringes rather than the FSF itself. As for GNU Hello, it is supposed to
be a though example. (I think the name is not very apporpiate :-) )

> A convincing demonstration of socialism on lunch break.  :-)

Democracy is an essential part of socialism, and I mainly use these as examples
that financial incentives are not neccesary (for creativity). (Smiley noted)
The Debian does project indeed have problems, but these are explained (by
itself) as due to developers having little time to work on it, and other
resource shortages.

>     >> That was genius on RMS's part, although he has yet to learn the
>     >> lesson that he taught the rest of us---he still doesn't believe
>     >> in an open development model.  He thinks distributed
>     >> "cathedral" development is good enough.
> 
>     Timothy> He has also failed to learn that the beahviour we see in
> 
> Ask him.  He supports capitalism because it's the least bad of economic
> systems, even including Microsoft.  He doesn't _like_ it at all.

No, it's the best which has existed countinusly for more than a few years, or
in more than one country. I can probabally find a few referrences on this.

>     Timothy> Microsoft is an inevitable feature of capitalism, or even
>     Timothy> accept Naomi Klein's opinion that said beahviour is
>     Timothy> inherit is multi-nationals.
> 
> Naomi Klein is an uneducated fool who does not understand the issues
> she writes about.  She mouths plausible conclusions, many of which
> were first presented by Marx and Lenin, but without understanding
> their theories and certainly without understanding the theories of
> those she opposes.  Reading Naomi Klein was one of the most profitless
> evenings I've spent in the last 5 years.
> 
> Sure, I oppose her, but I can't pay her the respect of understanding
> her theory because she has nothing coherent on offer.  Merely a list
> of symptoms that I dislike, too.

I don't think her solutions go far enough (as previously stated), or that she
has much that is coherent to say.

>     Timothy> (According to some surveys the majority of the population
>     Timothy> dislike capitalism.)
> 
> That's not surprising given that they rarely understand what it is.
> There are plenty of good reasons for disliking capitalism.

You are contradicting yourself, as you previous denied the existence of a
growing anti-capitalist movement (see above).

> Unfortunately, none of them have obvious solutions once carefully
> analyzed.

Then analyze them more carefully after reading what the bona fide socialists
have to say.

> -- 
> University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
> Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091

I didn't expect anyone from japan to be on this list, and are also not aware of
a significant anti-capitalist movement in Japan. [3]


[1] UK, the SWP is part the International Socialist Tendacy along with various
other parties worldwide, see http://www.swp.org.uk/INTER/INTER.HTM fo a full
list. (Looks like somebody forgot to add the names to the table.)
[2] Not to be read as agreeing with the boycott.
[3] But I am not saying there isn't one either.

-- 
Timothy Baldwin
Member of Leeds SWP
Opinions expressed within are likely to be those of the SWP.
Vote Socialist Alliance!  Victory to the Serbian revolution!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.