Daniel Davies wrote:
>
>
> But I also get the impression that the talmudic interpretation of computer
> licences is less important than the general issue of whether an attack on
> intellectual property is an attack on capitalism. Some of the things Stallman
> has said seem to suggest something in this line, but it seems pretty
> far-fetched to me. Intellectual property is a convenience of some types of
> capitalist economy; the fact that, as you point out, most of the development is
> these days carried out by wage labourers suggests to me that capitalist
> economics without intellectual property are perfectly conceivable.
>
You touch on one of the most important built-in (and automatic, requiring no conscious human intention) defenses of the capitalist system. The list of features which _seem_ essential to capitalism but are not at all necessary is probably indefinitely large. And this provides an unending series of temptations which succeed in draining off potential leadership from the working class. Every university campus, every thinktank, every R&D department, must contain two or three "anti-capitalists" whose intellectual energies are devoted not to contributing to the anti-capitalist struggle but to exploring how one of those illusory weaknesses of the system can be exploited. You are quite right: capitalism would get along splendidly if the patent and copyright laws were all repealed tomorrow. Capitalism would get along splendidly if all of Microsoft's programs were declared in the public domain tomorrow. Capitalism would get along splendidly if an enforceable cap on the remuneration of CEOs was made law in every capitalist country. Capitalism would get along fine with a perfect set of election laws and a splendid control of campaign finance. And so on and so on. But every one of these will-o-the-wisps draws good people away from the struggle against capitalism.
Carrol