[ox-en] Re: Money
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz hbv.org>
- Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 18:19:02 +0100
Hi there,
sjhs freeshell.org wrote:
>>Important is here: The capitalist game is not a problem of (unjust)
>>distribution, but of the kind of production. And in core free software
>>is exactly that: It is not a new type of distribution, it is a new
>>type of production with self-unfolding as core (of course including
>>the other three aspects StefanMn mentioned in the interview:
>>self-organization, global network, being free of economic value) - on
>>the societal level.
>
> But it *is* a new type of distribution! The GPL has no effect on the
> method of production. A free program can be worked on in secret by a
> small group, just as a proprietary program might be developed with
> colaboration that is "typical" but not necessary of free software.
> However, the GPL does explicitly change the way in which the program
> or its source is distributed, and this *indirectly* alters the types
> of production used for it, since the set of possible developers is now
> larger.
Agreed. That's the reason why I talk about two historical "strokes of
genius". The first one was the release of the GPL by Richard Stallman.
However, as we all know, this had nearly no impact on the way of
producing software. The GNU project worked like traditional projects in
a kind of a 'fordistic' way, they don't reach the level of
selbstentfaltung. This appeared at first with Linus Torvalds, who
intuitively brought self-organization and self-unfolding to free software.
GPL fights scarcity, which indirectly hinders in making money with free
software. Making money can be a side effect (beside others), but is not
the main purpose why free software is developed. And this is the base on
which the germ form of the new type of "developement of forces of
production" (Produktivkraftentwicklung) grew.
The GPL creates a niche inside the ocean of money-making logics which
was filled by selbstentfaltung and self-organization.
>>A new society can only have money like the game "monopoly" has money
>>(money only in the sense of paida-play as Benja explained). In other
>>senses money is not needed. Why money if there is no exchange? Look at
>>free software, its production has nothing to do with exchange. And
>>users only take it. Taking and giving is unlinked (uncoupled?): You
>>don't need to give in order to take or get. It is the first time in
>>history we have such germ form here.
>
> If you write code, you are giving your time. You might just be giving
> your time to yourself, or you might be giving it to someone else. In
> capitalism it's expected that if you do the latter you will be repaid
> for your time because it is considered "lost". However, in free
> softwarism ;) if you follow the idea of selbstentfaltung you can give
> your time to both yourself and others. Since this gift benefitted you
> just as much as others, the time is no longer "lost" (on the contrary,
> it is compounded--you have actually given others time they would have
> had to spend writing the same code themselves).
Agreed. Important for me is, that giving is _not_ a precondition for
taking as we know it today: Someone who is not working, shall not eat.
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft ver.di
Internetredaktion
Potsdamer Platz 10, 10785 Berlin
--
stefan.meretz verdi.de
maintaining: http://www.verdi.de
private stuff: http://www.meretz.de
--
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/