
The New Socialism - yaa_minu
https://www.wired.com/2009/05/nep-newsocialism/
======
craigsmansion
The article itself is a bit of a train-wreck, but hopefully it can provide
some insight for "open source" people to how they are perceived, if the
article is anything to go by.

\- You work for free, and _should_ work for free.

\- You sharing your programming is equated with sharing whatever non-sense on
Flickr and Twitter.

\- Collective action and sharing is always positive, even if it erodes privacy
and strictly gains commercial 3rd parties, because it's "culture".

In short, your ideals and ideas are being co-opted by large businesses and
pundits, and in return you get to be part of "a movement" that might not
benefit you.

Please be aware of that when large corporations "warm up" towards open source,
or when pundits proclaim that, in effect, you should be more "pragmatic" and
go with the flow or miss out on the revolution.

In contrast, Free Software, even if considered crusty and old-fashioned, is
about one thing: respecting the freedoms of users.

That single thing can facilitate making great, fun communities; it can create
a solid basis to boost commerce and enhance capitalism; it can serve to prop
up your libertarian Utopia. It can help with all these things and many more,
but it _is_ none of these things.

~~~
beatgammit
One thing I liked about liberally licensed libraries was that I could use and
contribute to them both at my day job and my side hustle. If I wanted a
particular library at my regular job and my side hustle, the lowest effort way
to do that was to release something as MIT/BSD/Apache (and maybe MPL) on my
own time, then use and improve it at my regular job, which meant I could avoid
doing the same work twice (and maybe get coworkers to contribute).

That just isn't feasible most of the time for Free Software. If you want to
profit from Free Software, you have to design both the software and your
business model around the license. With liberally licensed software, you just
use it.

And yes, it certainly benefits other companies, but is that really the bad
thing? I'll work on something if it benefits me, and if it benefits someone
else too, that's fantastic. I don't care if it nets me hundreds while netting
someone else millions, I'm still getting hundreds.

I used to build stuff to be "part of the community", but that's less important
to be now than building stuff because it benefits me. There are a million
projects I could involve myself in, so now I'm just a bit more selective on
what I contribute to.

~~~
craigsmansion
Liberally licensed software is also Free Software, just like copyleft
licenses. One can argue which type is "more free", and many have, and many
more will, but ultimately they're all Free Software licenses.

------
p4bl0
This article misses so many points. It's wrong about what socialism is. It's
wrong about how online communities work. It's wrong about who free software /
free culture supporters are (or maybe it adopts a very US-centric view while
claiming a worldwide truth). It's kind of sad, I was really expecting it to be
interesting.

------
beatgammit
The only way socialism works to describe open source and free software is if
you try to force political or economic terms onto something like software
development.

Graffiti isn't socialist just because it's done gratis and relatively
collectively. In fact, it could be considered as capitalist because it's
essentially advertising (in many cases). Donation-based museums aren't
socialist because they offer free entry, they're still run by a small,
exclusive group and have essentially decided on a different business model.

Likewise, open source and free software isn't necessarily "socialist", and it
may not even necessarily be collectivist. Essentially, open source software
gives up state protections and adds limitations of its own. In that sense, I'd
argue that open source and free software are more laissez-faire than
collectivist, since their license terms are often what you'd get if there were
no government providing copyright protections (especially for liberal licenses
like MIT).

Any software project could be collectivist if it chooses, but that has more to
do with the organization governing maintainence of the codebase than the
license it uses. For example, RedHat is very centralized and commercial and
Debian is very democratic, yet they both use the same GPL license. Likewise,
the Go project is very centralised and the Rust project is a bit more
Democratic, yet they both use liberal licenses.

So no, socialism is not a good word to describe open source or free software
licenses or even the community as a whole, though it could be a decent term
for specific projects.

------
jkingsbery
> "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled
> contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a
> nice knock-down argument for you!' " "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice
> knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty
> said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to
> mean—neither more nor less."

"Socialism" is notoriously challenging to define, but you can't have it mean
whatever you want it to mean.

~~~
toasterlovin
Socialism has a straightforward definition. People just confuse it with social
democracy.

------
febeling
(2009)

------
throw0101a
To everyone who is saying "that is not socialism"

* Please talk to the US Republican Part and tell them to stop lying.

When someone (especially a Democrat) brings up universal healthcare, the GOP
says " _that 's socialism!_". When free tuition is brought up: " _that 's
socialism!_". Universal daycare: " _that 's socialism!_". Carbon pricing: "
_socialism!_ ". Higher taxes on upper income to pay for social programs: "
_socialism!_ ".

The GOP has thrown the word "socialism" around as a boogeyman to the point
that it is now meaningless in the US:

* [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/defining-s...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/defining-socialism-down)

This isn't the 1950s anymore.

The problem is _not_ with the author's (Kevin Kelly [1]) use of the word, nor
necessarily with the policies that are being proposed by some (left-leaning)
politicians, but with the fact that the GOP (as a party) does not participate
in US politics in good faith.

* [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Kelly_(editor)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Kelly_\(editor\))

Edit: Case in point, McConnell called granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto
Rico “full bore socialism” in a Fox News interview just this week:

* [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-dem-d-c-sta...](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-dem-d-c-statehood-full-bore-socialism)

~~~
0815test
The weirdest part is not that Republicans think universal healthcare is
socialism; it's that they think that it is, while also thinking that
_Medicare_ is not! Remember "keep the government out of my Medicare"?

~~~
throw0101a
> [...] _that Republicans think universal healthcare is socialism._

Do the Rs _really_ think that, or do they simply say " _socialism!_ " because
they've trained their base and some independents to think (socialism = bad)?

Centrailly planned economies generally don't work, and I wouldn't want
_actual_ socialism for most things where I live. But if you don't like a
particular policy, argue the pros/cons of that policy instead of trying to
'slander' it.

A lot of people in the US want affordable health care, and there are various
ways to implement that, but if you label them all as "socialism", then people
will end up "wanting" socialism.

~~~
toasterlovin
This stems mostly, I think, from a confusion about the difference between
social democracy and socialism. And, to be fair, plenty of people on the left
make the same mistake. I see lots of red roses appended to Twitter usernames.
I think most of those people want socialized medicine and safety nets, not
socialized control of the means of production. Yet they call themselves
socialists.

~~~
throw0101a
> _This stems mostly, I think, from a confusion about the difference between
> social democracy and socialism._

Sure. And my argument/thesis is that this confusion is a deliberate tactic by
Right-leaning politicians. McConnell called granting statehood to D.C. and
Puerto Rico, “full bore socialism” in a Fox News interview just this week:

* [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-dem-d-c-sta...](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-dem-d-c-statehood-full-bore-socialism)

WTF?

~~~
toasterlovin
It can be a deliberate tactic of the right, but elements of the left make the
same error. That’s my point. This is more about Americans not actually
understanding the difference between socialism and social democracy.

~~~
throw0101a
The Right has been doing this for several decades:

* [http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1482196/](http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1482196/)

------
s_kilk
As a socialist, this article is moronic, almost offensively so.

~~~
jkingsbery
Maybe the point was to write an article so bad, that it would create a comment
section on hacker news where people I'd wildly different world views could
unanimously agree on something?

------
Dowwie
Just as my car isn't an industrial horse carriage, so too are modern forms of
organization not socialism.

------
robertAngst
While I give away 100% of the stuff on my website for free because I like to
help people, it is NOT socialism.

I could not live off my website being free, I have a day job.

And as the author says, open source advocates tend to be more libertarian.

And also as the author said, using 'socialism' will make people cringe. Yes,
because the author is trying very hard to find 'digital' socialism.

~~~
simonh
The term Socialism is often used for shock effect, but yes this article isn't
about socialism, or even anything new. Just because something has to do with a
social project and sharing resources doesn't make it socialism. Capitalist
societies are still social structures, with communal resources and shared
spaces.

Socialism and Communism are specifically to do with shared ownership and
control of capital resources. Feely choosing to give things away isn't
socialism, or inherently anti-capitalist. It's simply the exercise of one of
the freedoms of private ownership of one's goods or labour - the freedom to
share it or give it away.

~~~
0815test
> Socialism and Communism are specifically to do with shared ownership and
> control of capital resources.

Yes, but know-how of all sorts - including both the freely-available content
of sites such as Wikipedia and the institutional frameworks that are
themselves embedded in the computer code of e.g. MediaWiki, Mastodon, PixelFed
and PeerTube - is a form of capital, too. In a way, the article is not exactly
_wrong_ ; it's just that _this_ instance of socialism - along with a few
others, such as socialization of basic, monopolized "platforms" on a
rigorously neutral basis - postal services, roads, railways, power-grids etc.
etc. - is the only one that can possibly work as part of a wealth-creating
society. "Communal ... shared spaces" _are_ capital in the "capitalist" sense,
as much as a privately-owned factory is.

~~~
simonh
I don't think it's useful to use the word socialism in this way though. If we
do, then socialism simply becomes a subset of capitalism. It has always been
possible in capitalist societies for people to pool their resources and share
the results of their labour, as I said it's simply the exercise of one of
their rights as owners.

Political and economic socialism is predicated on the principle that
individual ownership is immoral, because resources should belong to society.
This is why socialists are against the individual, or even collective
ownership of companies by shareholders because that's still private ownership.
For them the sole legitimate owner is 'society' as a whole, which in practice
means the state.

That's what genuine socialists believe in and campaign for, which would of
course threaten the freedom of individuals to build something like Wikipedia.
That's because they would not have individual ownership of the capital
resources contributed towards it. The decision about allocating those
resources would reside with the state, not individuals as free agents.
Paradoxically, universal collective ownership dramatically limits freedom to
organise collectively without state sponsorship. That's why you see communist
and socialist countries cracking down on grass roots movements. They challenge
the legitimacy of the state.

~~~
0815test
What you say is true of _actual, physical resources_ but not of things like
Wikipedia content or computer code, which is what I was talking about in my
previous comment. These things "belong to society" by nature, so to say;
whereas "state sponsorship" itself is the only factor that can create
"ownership" in them out of thin air. Note that since these are _not_ resources
in the sense of "something that's subject to scarcity and competing allocation
needs", "decisions about allocating resources" simply don't matter here!

(Monopoly platforms are in kind of an intermediate position where what we want
to avoid is simply for "the decision to allocate these resources" to be
subject to the sorts of favoritism, opportunistic behavior and inefficiency
that tend to come with monopolized private ownership. In practice, this is a
weird case where public ownership turns out to work quite well; especially if
the monopolization can be efficiently kept to a very local level, so that
users are still incented to "vote with their feet" for the very best provider.
All in all, it's not _that_ different from capitalistic provision while
avoiding some really obvious pitfalls of entirely-private models.)

~~~
simonh
Sure, but Wikipedia depends for it's existence as a service on considerable
capital resources. Github and Gitlab are also far from capital free
enterprises, yet even though the example of such services is clear and their
value obvious, the Chinese state for example has yet to provide anything even
remotely comparable.

Capitalism has provided a structure to create and sustain such services, while
socialism fails to do so, or even follow in it's tracks. Buy why so? It's one
of the fascinating characteristics of actual socialism that it's universalist
ideals turn, when faced with the problem of practical implementation, into a
centralising and therefore monopolising force. That applies to information
just as much as capital, because ultimately all individual freedoms threaten a
centralised authority that claims sole legitimacy to speak for society.

