[quitspamming]

I'm surprised the HN crowd isn't calling this out for what it is, anti capitalist BS. I've seen people talk about tactics, DRM, ethics, but the author's point was Stallman is right expect for one thing: profit. Stallman tries to explain over and over again how free software can be profitable, and the author of this post's whole point is, "nah, it can't be. Want free software? You need socialism."

Stupid article pushing tired socialism, in old arguments.

[Mouq]

Don't really see why it needs to be called out as such. It's pretty explicitly radical leftist. Is Hacker News exclusively capitalist now? TBF I tend to avoid this site, so maybe it is.

If you think materialist analysis isn't useful, well, maybe it's not useful to you. But geez, the author didn't even get into, e.g., Marxist analysis or anything so controversial :P

[afsina]

Actually IMO majority of hacker news commenters are left leaning, and I try avoiding political news here because their rethoric is tiring (to me).

[witty_username]

I was just thinking on this.

I notice that the comments usually the fit the article. For example, this has tons of comments sympathetic to Stallman (he's generally pro-socialist). While some other pro-libertarian article would have mostly comments sympathetic to capitalism, libertarian, etc. This occurs on Reddit too.

So libertarian/pro-capitalist people see HN as left-leaning, while left-leaning people see HN as pro-capitalist.

[vacri]

I think it's quite the opposite. There's a lot of people living in the high-paid tech bubble here. Actual lefties seem thin on the ground, and less numerous than libertarians.

If HN is seen as left-leaning, then the political diversity spectrum in the US is in truly dire shape.

[Grue3]

Far left is just as dangerous as far right, and needs to be called out. Ideologies that resulted in deaths of millions shouldn't be socially acceptable.

[Mouq]

Alright bro. Have you considered the millions of deaths caused by American conservativism/liberalism?

[jcora]

Yes I am a socialist and as such I employ materialistic and systemic analysis. Just calling it "anti capitalist BS" is a pretty shitty attempt at critique.

> but the author's point was Stallman is right expect for one thing: profit.

Did you even read the article?

[quitspamming]

Yeah, I read it, it was a bunch of Marxist buzzwords with one important line...

"How can our politics be effective, if we don't connect them to the actual source of the problem: profit?"

You also draw a really simplistic and ignorant call to action here...

"Free software activists should accept that software freedom is not an isolated issue, with its own, completely independent value set, but is just one aspect of a wider struggle for justice, and that we can never achieve full software justice under capitalism."

I am a free software activist. I write, use, modify, and evangelize free software for my paycheck. I also think socialism is a garbage philosophy. So your goal that we shouldn't take software justice as an isolated issue is betrayed by the fact that you better hope I take it as an isolated issue, because if I don't I'm going to tie it to capitalism and fight you tooth and nail. This is why Stallman is careful to not tie it to much else. He is trying to maximize the number of people involved.

[jcora]

> Yeah, I read it, it was a bunch of Marxist buzzwords

I tried to keep it buzzword free, if it was understandable, what's the problem?

> You also draw a really simplistic and ignorant call to action here...

Well this is a critique of an ideology. The majority of the text deals with what's wrong with it, and only general pointers are given as an alternative. However I believe they are enough to get free software people to question parts of their approach and start researching important topics for themselves. I never set out to write an article titled "How to free the whole society in 10 easy steps".

> I am a free software activist. I write, use, modify, and evangelize free software for my paycheck.

That's great, this article was aimed at you. What concrete problems do you have with the article? I hardly said "Stallman is not a socialist and is therefore wrong about everything", I created arguments from the ground-up, and I believe they deserve to be engaged in such a manner.

> I also think socialism is a garbage philosophy.

All of us have our personal backgrounds and beliefs which are hard to get over. You say socialism is a garbage philosophy, well, what do you think about exploitation of workers, of the huge amounts of labor we waste as a society, of unequal distribution of wealth both inside and between countries? What do you think about imperialistic wars? Do you believe your interests align with the interests of those who own the means of production and exchange, those who control finances? I hardly believe you like any of this.

You don't have to identify as a socialist to begin thinking about problems which the current system has. I certainly didn't, in the start. But as I started reading more and more, I slowly realized how Marxism was the most thorough analysis of capitalism and its problems, and how it formalized the most effective ideology of the working class.

I suggest, if you haven't already, that you give The Communist Manifesto a read--it can't possibly hurt you. If you have, try Engels' Principles of Communism: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com....

[quitspamming]

We fundamentally disagree. You, as a Marxist, see it as us versus them. That economics, money, and means of production (in this case software) is a zero sum game and that if others have, then someone has not. If the rich have money, they took it from the poor. If there is closed/proprietary software, that has subtracted from free/open software. And that is not true. Money isn't zero sum, Windows can have their proprietary software and GNU can have their free-as-in-freedom software. You don't have to, better yet, you don't get to force (and socialism IS force) other people.

I want people to want FOSS. I want people to be free, that's why I want them to use FOSS. Part of freedom is the choice to make unethical choices. Using government levers to force is the opposite of freedom.

[jcora]

I employ a materialist analysis of society in which means of production are owned by the few, and in which the majority of the people have to sell most of their time simply to have food. This is an undeniable fact of reality, and you merely choose to ignore it. Your ideology obscures simple facts of economic life in capitalistic society, I mean your entire comment completely lacks substance: what do you even mean by "If the rich have money, they took it from the poor"? Which part of my beliefs are you attacking? It's completely vague.

> and socialism IS force

This, again, completely lacks substance. Even by bourgeois ideologue standards.

> Part of freedom is the choice to make unethical choices

Pure ideology. The point is to look beyond individual choices, and analyze how the entire system functions. It is impossible to make ethical choices under capitalism.

[quitspamming]

"I employ a materialist analysis of society" translation: I regurgitate Marx's works.

"and in which the majority of the people have to sell most of their time simply to have food." as opposed to farmers who work 16 hours a day to grow food. Different occupations sell for different value and require different time.

"This is an undeniable fact of reality, and you merely choose to ignore it" a smug way of saying 'I'm right and you're wrong'.

"I mean your entire comment completely lacks substance: what do you even mean by "If the rich have money, they took it from the poor"? Which part of my beliefs are you attacking? It's completely vague." I'm attacking the fundamental assertions of Marx's conflict theory. Redistributing wealth is predicated on the ideology that someone having lots of money is the cause of someone else not having money. So you redistribute it from one person to the other, ignore any rights of the person to their private property.

"> and socialism IS force This, again, completely lacks substance. Even by bourgeois ideologue standards." - Not only isn't it lacking substance, it's empirically true. Given your next poorly thought out statement...

"The point is to look beyond individual choices" - look beyond individual choices? There is only the individual choice if you have freedom. If I don't have the individual right to choose that means I'm being forced. Hence, socialism IS force.