
A short critique of Stallmanism - type0
http://jancorazza.com/2016/09/24/a-short-critique-of-stallmanism/
======
johnfjacobi
> Note, in advance, that I am not saying these should not be free, they
> absolutely should, this is a problem on the level of the philosophical
> framework and of strategy -- not a factual mistake on the value level

It seems like this critique rests on one central premise: Stallman is too
ideologically pure. He's a zealot. And this is true, no doubt.

But I do wonder, hasn't every successful movement been spearheaded by a
zealot, by someone who refuses to compromise? The work of outreach generally
falls on these people's followers.

Jesus, Ayn Rand, Lenin, etc...

~~~
jcora
> Stallman is too ideologically pure

No, Stallman is not ideologically pure _enough_! He's very principled, however
he simply has some mistaken principles.

I define ideological purity not by the level of zealotry, which Stallman
certainly doesn't lack, but by the level of consistency with a wider social
analysis and general correctness (now the relativists will get me but this is
possible to define by linking principles and conclusions, I just don't want to
get into that).

And in this respect, Ayn Rand is pure, Lenin fucking invented it, and so on.

