Yes FOSS is communism, spontaneously arising under capitalism, requiring zero bloody revolutions.
Marx was right about the need for people to be nice and give things to each other, but he was wrong about it being necessary to destroy capitalism before this happened.
he was wrong about it being necessary to destroy capitalism before this happened
I thought it was more that (using modern terminology) he viewed socialism as an emergent phenomenon that would arise due to the unresolved contradictions within capitalism. So socialism doesn’t require the destruction of capitalism in order to start, it’s more that once it emerges, it’ll supersede capitalism. The Leninist approach of destroying the old order, then building the new one at gunpoint didn’t work all that well (to vastly understate), leading to a long period of totalitarian state capitalism, where workers had no control over the means of production (which is the main attribute Marx ascribes to socialism) and degeneration into nationalism, imperialist nostalgia and cronyism.
But so far, along with failed revolutions hijacked by totalitarians, the main thing we’ve seen is that spontaneous emergence of working, non-coercive socialist organizations such as co-operatives has been met with strong and sometimes murderous opposition from the incumbent capitalists.
Marx believed this unresolved phenomena would lead to violent revolution, Lenin only added his analysis of Capitalism’s evolution into Imperialism, and his theory of Revolution, which focuses on the idea of the most radical workers forming a vanguard to bring the other workers up and help direct them. Marx believed the Revolution would happen and from it Socialism would emerge, hence him advocating for “siezing the Means of Production.” He also pointed directly to the Paris Commune, a hostile takeover of government aparatus, as the Dictatorship of the Proletarait he advocated for in action.
Lenin wasn’t just “hey, let’s ignore Marx and do this at gunpoint,” it was more “hey, let’s listen to Marx, and do this at gunpoint.” Lenin actually addresses this utter de-fanging of Marx in bourgeois society in the opening section of The State and Revolution:
“What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they claim, educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of waging a predatory war!”
As for the USSR, it wasn’t totalitarian. Workers did have control, there were no real bourgeois elements, no competing markets, and the state was not an “other” compared to the Workers. They had democratic measures in the form of Soviets, and the consequences of this were free education, healthcare, high home ownership rates, and so forth. Was the USSR perfect? Absolutely not, but it was history’s first major attempt at Marxist Socialism, and we can study it for that. The revolution wasn’t “hijacked,” it was led by the Workers and continued to be until corruption took hold over time and the USSR collapsed, being hacked up and sold for parts as a part of “Shock Doctrine,” plumetting life expectancy, GDP, and causing 2 million excess deaths.
Co-operatives are met with hostile action because it’s easy to crush them when you have the state and monopoly on your side, hence why they will never likely be a leading force for Socialism within Capitalism, even if they should still be supported by Socialists everywhere.
FOSS isn’t communism, Foss hasn’t eliminated class relations. Using an free open source library to make more money for your boss isn’t communism. While I love FOSS, it’s definitely not communism.
Marx never said people aren’t nice and don’t give things to each other under capitalism as far as I know, where are you taking that from?
And the existence of FOSS is reliant on a few key sectors which capitalism could very well destroy or mutate into something much different than what they are now. I don’t see far-fetched the idea that the entire physical infrastructure of the internet will one day be privately owned, and companies will be able to decide who takes part and who doesn’t, what kind of content is allowed… The fact that the capitalist overlords still haven’t eliminated it, doesn’t mean they possibly can’t.
But it’s not “from each according to his ability”. FOSS is what people feel like contributing. And it’s not “to each according to their need”. It’s take it or leave it, unless someone feels like fulfilling requests.
Traditionally, the slogan meant a duty to work. Contributing what you feel like is just charity.
Capitalism, at its core, is private control of the capital. Copyright law turns code into intellectual property/capital. I’ve read the argument that copyleft requires strong copyrights. That argument implicitly makes copyleft a feature of capitalism. You know how rich people or corporations sometimes donate large sums to get their name on something, EG a hospital wing? That’s not so different from a FOSS license that requires attribution.
Agile is the anarchism of software development: sounds nice on a high level but basically no theoretical foundation behind it and thus in practice everybody makes it whatever the fuck they want it to be.
There’s some theory and computer science behind parts. The value of peer review is evidence-backed. The idea that dev teams should self-organize is consistent with some varieties of management theory. Retros have been shown to have value, though the way they’re often done in Agile teams I’ve worked in has left much to be desired. Estimation with dimensionless points has zero evidential backing. The notion that the team should be able to set dates rather than having milestones imposed by management is, at best, woefully naive, since it presupposes a commitment by management that, in real life, few managers are willing to make. And in most cases where the shit has hit the fan, we later find that we needed more analysis, more planning and more design up front, rather than less. There are only certain application domains where you can get away with being as minimalist with those disciplines as Agile exponents claim you should be.
There’s plenty of theory to draw from, like the Cynefin Framework or Wardley Mapping. But like the left, there’s no real consensus on what we ought to be doing but no shortage of opinions.
Software exists in a world that kind of exists outside of property. Cynics like to think that Agile got big because as some kind of fad because the kids love it, but the reality is that fully hierarchical models just cannot keep up with self organising teams.
The old model - the model that most of the rest of the world of work still uses - simply cannot compete on a level playing field where the means of production (a cheap computer) are available to all. A landowner can stop you building your own house, but Microsoft can’t really stop you building your own software, so they still have to put in work to collect rent.
Imagine what we could accomplish as a species if the goals and distribution of resources were also decided democratically.
Thank you for everything you said in the back half! In regards to the first idea – do you think agile is half way to self-management because of its attributes, or because it is something to get people making software in a structured capacity? I live in a world of bad agiles and agile cynics, and so I wonder if I am missing some nuance you may have intended. I guess I ask because I agree with everything you have said but don’t see agile methodology as being important to spreading this message myself.
Agile is a limited form of workplace democracy that succeeded because the usual forms of disciplining workers couldn’t be enforced to stop it. It’s taken off in software because the outlay for software is so low that people can just quit their jobs and start a rival project with preferable working conditions. It’s stuck around because it’s significantly more effective than dictat.
I have problems with agile too. A lot of the “ceremonies” seem more like cult rituals and bad practices are often assumed to be self justifying when they should be interrogated. (I once had a bust up in the office because I insisted in creating a future proof test framework instead of writing just what’s needed at the time. I was overruled and I’m still mad about it).
So I guess my point isn’t even about the specific agile practices either.
The point is that workers are able to self manage when they’re allowed to, and agile has accidentally proven this to be the case. Other work places should adopt some of these ideas. And these ideas should be pushed further, into business decisions and HR and management. And physical communities etc. all the way up to actual government.
Interesting perspective, never really looked at it like that, I’ve always just interacted with the corporatized bullshit implementations of Agile.
It seems Agile really did have a kernel of worker self management in it but the original people behind it didn’t have the right ideological framework to realize that this is what they’re trying to achieve.
As I’ve been putting it: software is made of labor.
Unfortunately the actual reason Agile got big is that the cult of MBAs saw daily meetings putting scores on estimates and absolutely creamed their slacks.
What is impact engineering though? If it’s it’s just agile while being cognisant of technical debt over MVPs, I don’t know if it’s necessarily that different.
It seems the study was designed to sell a book and I can’t find anything about what that book says. I should probably read it but the bait way it’s being sold makes me resistant to paying to find out.
The goddamn article you yourself posted as the proof mentions how it’s an ad right at the top
Even though the researchcommissioned by consultancy Engprax could be seen as a thinly veiled plug for Impact Engineering methodology, it feeds into the suspicion that the Agile Manifesto might not be all it’s cracked up to be
Yeah haha it’s really weird and I tend to switch between the “normal” way and the “french” way without noticing. Basically in french the rule is that if your symbol is “tall” ( ! , ? , brackets, semicolon, I think dashes as well…) it needs to be preceded by a space
I live next to a tiny local airport that sees maybe 4 Cessna 172s a day.
But, the army flies about 6 of these in every week and does touch-and-goes with them at the airport and sometimes they stop for Jet-A.
Why does a tiny airport have Jet-A?
For the Chinooks.
But I love those bastards, they shake the whole house when they fly over and I always stop to look, even after more than a decade.
I’d rather have Jet-A particles than the 100LL Avegas exhaust coming down around my house.
The worst part is that our town elementary school is under the turn to land for the most common prevailing wind. The kids love seeing planes nice and low, and I do still too, but I can’t help wondering what the school playground’s lead levels are like.
feddit.uk
Active