Message 01913 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01324 Message: 84/104 L11 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: herrschaft



On Saturday 17 January 2004 15:20, Graham Seaman wrote:
However big IBM is as a whole, it does not monopolize the packaged
software market - in that particular sector it is an underdog. And the
strategy of the underdog in many capitalist industries has been to try
to break the control of the monopolist by providing free or semi-free
alternatives. The fact that IBM are currently using gpl-ed software to do
this rather than emulating Microsofts making Explorer free (but still
closed source) to break Netscape is just because they perceive the gpl as
fashionable and non-dangerous. So rather than this being a convergence
of the kind you're talking about - between large corporations and
free software - I'd see it as a temporary tactic, and precisely NOT used
by the largest corporation in any particular sector.


I don't think the comparison with with Netscape/Internet Explorer is apt. In 
terms of business development, it strikes me much more as a shift from 
commodity to service. In the software area, IBM is very much about services, 
so getting the resources cheaper to provide these services more efficiently 
makes a lot of sense. 


The point I want to make is  that this indicates for me more of an
innovation within capitalism (to be precise, on the level of the _mode of
development_) rather than something that points beyond capitalism (as a
_mode of production_). I think this old Althusserian strategy of
distinguishing between the technical and the social relationships of
production is still useful.

I agree that a free society requires a 'resonably secure economic basis'
but this is a bit of a tautology (like saying to end world hunger, we
need food for everyone). Again, I don't see Free Software contributing to
that outside the capitalist context, at least for a significant number of
people.

When the Brazilian government originally announced it's 'fome zero' plan -
with the aim of everyone in the country being able to eat 3 meals a day -
it was at the same time that they first started sounding serious about
backing free software. At the time, they calculated that the savings from
paying license fees for software used by the state (in its broadest sense)
would fund a considerable part of the fome zero plan. Of course this is
not outside the capitalist context, and IMO was probably very optimistic -
but it does show that there is a link, and is perceived to be a link.

Hm, this is interesting. I certainly see this both as progressive politics. 
The Free Software part, IMHO, belongs to the strategy to make Brazil less 
dependent on North America, to build up a local software industry and spend 
their money locally wherewhere they can instead of spending it on importing 
goods that make them more dependent. In this sense -- and many others -- free 
software is great and certainly positive for developing countries, but I'm 
pretty sure (though just gessing) that the companies that will provide the 
Brazilian government with free software service will do this on a for-profit 
basis.

among others, because it's not a public good.

Software is not a public good either -- in the whole of the
Microsoft World.  But there are people migrating out of that
world... Why do you think this happens?

Ok, agreed, I rephrase: Software has a strong potential to become a
public good, not the least because for important sectors of the
productive system (capitalist or not) its more efficient, according to
whatever criteria for efficiency are used by the various actors in these
sectors.

People mirgate out of this world because free software allows them to
what they want to do (be capitalists, or anti-globalization activists,
for example) more efficiently.

Don't get me wrong, I think free software is a great development because
it levels they playing field. Insitutions with money always had access to
advanced technologies, now also insitutions without money (but skills)
have access as well. This certainly is a reason for optimism, but I have
hard time deducing from this a necessary, or even likely. course of
historical evolution.

I don't believe in 'necessary', and am inclined to agree with you on
'likely'. But I would like to find out if it's possible, in order to make
it more likely :-)

Me too. As someone who is more on the analytica side, I think offering precise 
analsys, grounded in a miminum of empiricial evidence, is the best way speed 
up our collective learning curve where the lesson learning with Free Software 
-- and, importantly, where they don't.

On the other hand, there do seem to be two clusters of emerging trends
that seem to me to increase the likelihood already:

1. Technological: the change in a range of industries (food,
pharmaceuticals, entertainment) which are already making exactly the same
issues as have been raised by free software relevant to those industries,
as well as possible near-future developments which may expand this sphere
to other industries (eg. electronics); and in the longer term, maybe
nano-technology too.

I haven't seen all that much in the electronics area. Perhaps Simputer, which 
apparently is slowly getting ready to being produced in real numbers, but the 
question here is: what's the realitionship between the retail price, and the 
value of the IP in such a product. In software, of course, due to cheap 
copying and downloading, once you get rid of having to pay for IP, the retail 
price drops to zero. In hardware, there are very real costs other than IP.

2. Political/social: the coincidence of a large number of contradictions
in the system (including those raised by the technological changes) around
trade negotiations between the developing and 'developed' nations (or
maybe empire and its opponents); coincidence which has already led to
strong involvement by free software exponents within the WSF - would that
have been imagineable a few years ago?) and direct political clashes
between governments and the US over free software.

It certainly seems that developing countries are beginning to realize what the 
new IP regimes mean for them and beginning to organize against that. That's 
certainly good, though TRIPS and other international treaties are pretty 
serious hurdles.

For the near future, my own feeling is that the relationship between free
software and capitalism will probably tend to become rather different from
nation to nation; that the mode of development of capitalism will change
in different ways depending on how it tries to integrate free software;
that this isn't unimportant, even though it is not a change in mode of
production; and that it may lead to a point where how a real change of
mode of production can take place is more visible.

I totally agree with you. The changes surrounding free software are very 
important, and one of the things to make one hopeful as a perspective for the 
future. It just strikes me that 'anti-', 'post-', or 'transcapitalism' are 
not best ways to think about it. For me, what free software does is to help 
to get dependent economies out of their dependence in this crucial area 
(Brazil seems to have recognized this) and to strengthen small businesses 
vis-a-vis large corporations. It also helps non-commercials to get access to 
very sophisticated technologies, reducing some of the disadvantages they have 
in comparision with large, well-founded agencies. Fully realized, this is a 
lot. But, then again, a small business in India is not necessarily less 
capitalist than MS, still, for me there is a qualitative difference.

Felix 


----+-------+---------+---
http://felix.openflows.org

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01324 Message: 84/104 L11 [In index]
Message 01913 [Homepage] [Navigation]