>One Marxian thinker who writes critically, but
>nonetheless sympathetically, on issues of technology
>and intellectual property is Sabine Nuss
><http://www.wbk.in-berlin.de/wp_nuss/> whose book
><http://www.dampfboot-verlag.de/buecher/647-5.html> on
>this and other topics has recently been released.
Has anyone translated his work?
What I find troubling about FOSS is its tendency to *devalue* or erase the existence of labor, it's tendency to further obscure the role of labor in creating something. I cannot see how this is valuable or a contribution to our goals as socialist (heavy users of Marx :) (BTW, I'd like to extend my thesis here, so if anyone knows of a publication outlet that might be interested, ping me.)
Not too long ago, some snot wrote a post on her blogspot (google subsidized and FREEEEE WHEEEEE!) blog to say that she was disgusted by people who took advertisements and/or held yearly blog blegging campaigns to raise money.
She imagines that, since she has never paid a cent to blog, and since no one else has to either, then she can be 'pure' and is 'not bought' by advertisers or by her readers. I about pissed my ratty gym shorts laughing at that. She can only blog for FREEEE WHEEEEE because she unwittingly became a tool for a variety of Free-As-in-Beer tools and applications someone or entity created with the goal of making money. She is their content provider *AND* their marketer. She provides data galore in exchange for FREEEE WHEEEE tools: blogger, site meter, link exchanges, stats counters, third party comment hosting, you name it. I counted at least 20 entities that had bought her by giving her a free gizmo to help her publicize her blog, measure and track traffic, etc.
She is oblivious to the labor involved and fancies that it all just magically landed in her lap. She devalues her own labor and turns around and devalues that of others -- in fact, has no idea that they exist!
And interestingly enough the comments I got on my own blog post, as well as the comments responding to the post when it was linked elsewhere indicated that people were often thinking just like her: they had no idea what labor it took to create the things they use and then bitch about when it doesn't work or when they have to view advertisements.
FOSS does the same thing. I don't see how that's helpful since one of the things Marx warned us about was the way the increasingly division of labor and commodity fetishization obscured the *social* nature of labor. By constantly focusing on how it's "FREEEE WHEEEE", it encourages passive users to be clueless as to the labor involved to create FREEEE WHEEEEEEEEEE wikipedia. (I realize that the common refrain is, 'Free as in speech, not free as in beer." But the fact is, evangelism directed at ordinary users who don't even understand what you are talking about (free as in speech) is directed toward their desire to get something for nothing. This is an ideology bound up with capitalism: it is a selling *feature*. Encourage people to think they are getting something for nothing, which ultimately depends on a system where *most* people are not scouting out the "get something for nothing" free deals. [1]
An example: http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/1707
In the free-market of community-based peer production (CBPP), labor is spontaneously contributed to the completion of goals for the pure joy (or enlightened self-interest, if you preferwhich I generally do) of helping the communal effort, based on the skill sets of the people contributing. This happens completely without state coersion or market controls. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" occurs without any kind of state enforcement (i.e. in a free market). Hence, CBPP or free software development, is a real, working case of "free market communism".
We already know that this system works. It built GNU. It built Linux. It built X. It built Wikipedia. It has accomplished things with little or no capital investment that cost corporations billions of dollars in capital (compare to Microsoft Windows, the Apple O/S (before Darwin/OS X), and Encyclopedia Brittanica). And far from being inferior copies as our Western capitalist education says they must be, they appear to be at least as good if not better than their proprietary equivalents. In some casessuch as the Internet itselfthere are no proprietary equivalents.
----
"spontaneously contributed"?
Take ravi's example of user contributions to the project via bug testing. Right. I do such a thing because, for instance, I can't afford to donate, so I help the techdewds out with this. I do so because I feel compelled to do so out of a sense of obligation inculcated into me by a wider society that says that you shouldn't free ride on the hard work of others. By a value I place on "Do unto others...".
Thus, you need a system of social control. It can be informal and often usually is. Such a system occurs when, for instance, people are ridiculed for being free riders. One observes the ridicule and shame to which they are subjected and one grows up thinking, "Don't want that to happen to me." Currently, FOSS evangelists use ridicule and an appeals to tech elitism to encourage people to join the FOSS Phun!
How many times have I read email discussion lists for professional where someone looking to get their foot into the business is told: FOSS! Work on a FOSS project! This is hardly, then "spontaneous". The n00b needs a job, can't get into one, fortunately depends on a spouse, parent, relative, or whatever to support his ass while he "spontaneously" volunteers. But does so with the goal of getting a "real job". This person is no more "free from" the chains of capitalism than anyone else.
The implicit assumption here is that state (formal) social control is *worse than* the informal social control of social judgement, ridicule, shame, and elitism. I'm not so sure this is the case. [2]
"little to no capital investment" -- except if you have half a brain, it probably used just as much capital investment. Someone donated space to Wiki, others created entries, someone created the code, users supplied free market research and feedback, the kind that other companies pay for. None of this is "free" and you can assign a value to all of it and find out precisely how much it costs.
[1] Same thing happens when people give advice to, say, the poor. It's important survival advice, but it ultimately reinforces the system. E.g., the advice to shop at salvation armies. You get a bevy of advice on how to find the best deals. But if every poor person and struggling to make ends meet working and middle class worker followed this advice, there simply wouldn't be enough of the 'good finds' to go around. The advice only works b/c the bulk of people don't know about it or don't take the advice. The system stays in place and those who can figure out how to scam it are the ones who fancy they are winners, the smart ones, and the rest are dumb. But they can only be winners -- smart enough to know how to find bargains -- if the rest are not. Since if everyone else did same, no one would be special and smart coz everyone would be.
[2] Sidenote: As I noted not too long ago in another venue, the ethic of the freelancer is one of instrumental reason: you only ever do anything to get a gig. You volunteer, network, make friends, shop, etc. always with an eye toward what you will get out of it. To be a successful freelancer, so the common wisdom dispensed by those who view themselves as successful, is to proclaim and embrace your fundamental selfishness toward everything.