where did i claim that? if you are reading that from the "underlying methods of production", i put production in quotes to imply that i am not making some marxist like claim about means of production. rather, i was referring once again to the point that open source development and its products are the result of the works of a collective. the way the software is produced is different from the way conventional software is produced. i find the open source way better. i do not know if it is an economic system that will turn capitalism on its head. but i do believe it is worthy of recommendation, nonetheless, much as people circulate petitions on LBO for various causes that stand little chance of turning capitalism on its head.
> What I mean is,
> if you really want to speak to leftists who are Marxists and Heavy Users of
> Marx, then you would need to explain why Marx's theory of how capitalism
> will be undone (cf., my recent discussion with Michael D.) is wrong-headed,
> and show how your theory, however inchoate it is in present form, is an
> advance.
are marxists the only kind of leftists on LBO? am i required to engage them in putting forward a suggestion? i must confess i have not read the list charter at all, and if that is so, i will quickly throw in the towel: i have a very poor understanding/knowledge of marxist theory, and have no plans to supplant it with a new one!
i do not have a "theory", but i believe i can put forth good reasons (again much similar to those of people promoting various causes and petitions) to promote open source, as a leftist.
> Just waving your hand at the _appearance_ of a supposed alternative system
> of production -- and was it purposeful or accidental that you choose
> _method_ instead of _mode_?
see my point about my use of the phrase "method of production". i use 'method' in what i understand to be its simple english meaning: a way to do something, in this case software development. that said, the open source "way" is still a "way" (or set of "way"s) of development, imho, not just of distribution.
the last thing i want to get involved in is a flamewar about these things. my post was a simple half-serious recommendation of an alternate browser. i find value in a communal form of development and software use. to me, this value can be expressed in many simple ways: i try to help people, who cannot afford to use microsoft's or others' products, to use a computer by providing them software, assistance, etc. i think such things are helpful since as a leftist i think helping people is an important thing. my ability (and that of others i know, who do a lot more than i do) to do such things would be pretty close to impossible without the open source movement. i realize this is a very simple, non-theoretical presentation of my reasoning, but at least to me, it sounds consistent.
> I just can't see even open source
> developers as anywhere _near_ engaged in anything resembling collective
> social struggle. There may be a few among them--such as yourself. But what
> you have to demonstrate (not necessarily empiracally) is that such
> activities are changing consciousness.
i believe, perhaps naively, that a just"er" society or "better" world could arise through simple human actions based on some principles, perhaps even those that have been codified as moral/religious ones. for that, i do not think open source developers need to be engaged in struggle. many of them are motivated by a simple desire to solve some problem and share that solution with the community. i think that is good motivation and worthwhile action. perhaps a thorough-going revolution that alters consciousness is what will bring about the just'est' world, but i think it would be a stretch where it claimed (and i am not saying someone is making that claim, but i see such a claim as one way to criticize open source) that open source distracts from the grand project and undermines it by buffering the oppressors.
--ravi