>But anarchists warn about this ancient line of discussion. David Graeber
>writes:
I was in an FM dead zone the other day so I tuned into AM radio. Some preacher says, "But Christians know that the arguments of the secular humanists are based on that ancient line of discussion...."
Look, I realize y'all perceive me as hostile, which is pretty funny because I'm a pretty big fan of open source and wrote a column for Linux.com and would write more articles if I could actually ever get the time to do it and I hadn't been bogged down in piddly ass projects paying min. wage. I also edit d articles for OSTG, the company the runs slashdot, linux.com, sourceforge, newsforge, IT managers journal, etc. and was invited to be a regular "feminist techgeek" columnist at Slashdot by Rob Limo last year. I declined. I may take them up on it, however, if I ever get a steady job. (Limo discovered my writing via the blog, that's how I got the gig and the invite.)
So, there are my creds. Deal. I'm not saying I'm super great at it, but I'm certainly not the moron some of you think I am and I'm certainly not the anti-linux Bitch y'all think I am.
My arguments are intended (and conceitedly so) to get you guys to actually make an argument that addresses the criticisms. Doug isn't some idiotic nay sayer. he'd like just as much as anyone else to see some signs that there is an alternative economy blossoming out there -- if I may speak for him. Well, fuck, I don't care if he wants me to or not. I've known him since 1996 or so. He's basing his arguments on real research and serious thought -- serious engagement -- with the issues.
Colin at least understands the scaleability problem. Take for example, the gift economy issue. The point is that I think you guys need to actually understand what DG means by that. What are the sociological elements involved in a gift economy. What is the motivation to work. How are people socialized to do this work. There are answers to those questions, good ones. But understanding them will also bring you smack up against the problems talking about. And what I should hope is that those of you in the guts of Open Source, would actually come back with an explication of how it works.
E.g., when Justin has tried to tell me that workers cooperatives, where no one does the same job all the time, won't work, I can give him examples of my actual experiences working in enterprises where people didn't stay in their isolated jobs. And then I can explain the processes whereby I saw that such a situation actually improved workers' lives, however small, and how it might improve the production process. I can then turn around and reach in to the research literature for more examples.
This is w hole fucking lot different than what has been presented so far. Which, sadly, had been rehearsed on this list every single damn year. I almost spit my gum out when I read Colin's example, because we already know about the Red Hat model for making money. Doug isn't dumb. Nor am I. Nor is anyone else who's offered criticisms and expected some coherent response.
I don't know what the fuck to call what you just did, maybe Carrol has a word for it. But it doesn't read like much of an argument. Appeal to expert, then recite expert's claims about how those so and so's always say the same thing. *yawn*. To Doug's serious and frequent, well-argued elsewhere criticisms, you treat them as if they were the product of a pod person.
This is insulting and didn't once respond to Doug's points. It just sidestepped them.
If you know what a gift economy is and how it works, then explain further. If it is so damn important, as worker's cooperatives and worker ownership is to me, then I should think you could spend a few moments of your life actually making the argument.
And Bryan, sweetie, I have a price tag, especially when the flatter is so fucking transparent. My kid didn't get good at gambling for nothing. He can spot a tell 'coz I can. :)