 Feature:Open Source and Capitalism |
 |
 |
 |
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday August 24, @08:55AM
from the stuff-to-read dept.
Greg Perkins
has written in with a nice paper on Open Source and
Capitalism. A lot of people say that these ideas are
oil and water, but click the link below and read what
Greg has to say about it. Update Greg sent in
response to the many comments. It's appended to the end
of his original piece.
The following was written by Slashdot reader Greg Perkins
Open Source and Capitalism
Greg Perkins
Many people associate the idea of Open Source software with
collectivism (socialism, communitarianism, or communism). This is
understandable given the language and ideas of some of the movement's
founders and prominent participants, and given the average political
tendencies of college students (at least here in the US), who seem to
form the core of the Open Source movement. That is of course no cause
for concern. What troubles me is that I keep noticing an undercurrent
of mistrust and even open hostility toward capitalism among Open
Source fans. There is really no good reason for this, and I worry that
it may grow into something truly dangerous to the movement.
I have seen it asked: how can capitalists enjoy and even
embrace the Open Source ideal? Hidden in this question is the notion
that capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with Open Source, and
that collectivism is not. While this is sure to be a touchy subject, I
would like to try sharing the principled perspective of the Other
Side.
In contrast to the above, I think that it is capitalism
which is harmonious with Open Source, and that collectivism is
incompatible; principled and thoughtful Open Source advocates
should want to fully embrace capitalism for exactly the same reasons
they love the idea of Open Source.
The (Societal) Elements of Open Source
I know that most people here have studied the meaning and mechanism
of Open Source pretty carefully (consider the popularity of Raymond's
The
Cathedral and the Bazaar, for example). Let's focus briefly on
the crucial societal elements which Open Source depends on for its
success:
First, Open Source depends on the idea that cooperation is
the preferred mode for dealing with one another, that cooperation and
voluntary association to mutual benefit is the most effective, most
productive, and, well, simply the Right Way for people to live in
society, as contrasted against the use of fraud or physical
force. Individual Open Source authors have the right to choose
what code they will write and with whom they might like to work --
nobody is allowed to make them do it. When someone else makes that
choice for you it is called slavery, and Open Source couldn't be as
successful as it is on those terms; peoples' active, willing
participation is required.
Second, Open Source depends on the idea of the individual human
right to private property. Code wouldn't exist except by the
effort of the people who build it -- it is by their choice and their
sweat that their code even exists, and so they naturally have
the right to decide how they will deploy their creation (otherwise,
why should they bother to create it in the first place?). Linus
himself expressed this spirit perfectly when he said, "he who
writes the code gets to choose the license, and nobody else gets to
complain." Open Source authors generously choose to apply licenses like the GPL to
their code, thereby exercising their right to dictate how their effort
may be used (and how it may not be used).
And finally, Open Source requires the protection of private
property rights by a government. People need more than to merely
feel justified in saying how they wish their code to be used
(and not used) -- they must have confidence that their wishes will not
be violated and the product of their best efforts taken and used at
just anybody's
whim. People can be secure in their cooperation with one
another toward whatever ends each may choose when their right to
private property is protected. Doing so essentially means
barring the initiation of physical force and fraud from peoples'
legitimate dealings, leaving them with nothing but cooperation and
trade to mutual benefit. We can see this confidence
manifest as authors willingly write Open Source code, or help someone
write Open Source code: they do so because they trust that the license
will be enforced, that someone else cannot take advantage of them and
direct their efforts to ends they do not wish.
Another Look at Capitalism
Here's the point that might surprise some Open Source advocates:
the above three crucial factors are precisely the same foundation that
is required for true, unadulterated, laissez-faire capitalism.
Capitalism is a social system which respects and defends peoples'
individual human rights, including the right to property. Further,
capitalism is epitomized by cooperation, not by competition --
competition arises in the context of several participants trying to
out-cooperate each other in a division-of-labor economy. As a tiny
example, consider the handful of pencil companies competing in
"cutthroat, dog-eat-dog" manner with each other for the
chance to cooperate with you. Now think about how many
other economic partners each of them works with in trying to
bring you that pencil, from the people mining the graphite and
harvesting the wood and rubber, to the transport systems which take
them to the factories full of people, the manufacturing and chemical
engineers who design the processes, the marketing and distribution
channels, and the retailer who makes it easy for you to have that
pencil with little or no effort. Thousands and thousands of people all
peacefully work in concert to bring you a pencil (not to
mention all those who cooperate with them, and those who cooperate
with them, and so on). Multiply that by all the other economic
values in your life that aren't as insignificant as a humble pencil,
and you can see that fundamentally, capitalism means cooperation.
Full-blown capitalism is actually the separation of market and
state. In particular, it is not the current American- or
European-style mixed economy, with some people and businesses having
the ability to use government to secure special advantage over others
by lobbying for taxes, regulations, etc. To the extent that people and
companies can use government to indirectly compel others in
economic matters, capitalism and everything that makes it great is
undercut. In the same way that we react to proposals to control the
press or the church, in a true capitalist system everybody would
simply laugh at someone trying to use the heavy hand of government to
some economic advantage. We would just point to the
constitutional clause banning any such interference, telling
them, "Tough beans -- why don't you try to persuade the
people in the marketplace that you are worth doing business
with?"
Common Grounds
So if you cheer for the idea of Open Source, then please cheer for
what makes Open Source work. If you do that, then you are also
cheering for exactly what makes capitalism work, and everything that
makes it such a powerful force for improving the human lot in the
world.
As a libertarian and staunch capitalist, I get a true charge out of
seeing an innovative entrepreneur or inventor serving himself by
serving his fellow man in some new, clever, or powerful way. As a
software engineer and rabid Open Source advocate, I get a true charge
out of seeing the genius behind Stallman's GPL and the meteoric rise
of Open Source and GNU/Linux. What makes these great to me is
the same in both cases: people are able to be productive and
peacefully reap the rewards of their hard work as they see
fit.
Banning fraud and the initiation of force in our dealings with one
another, and respecting people and their choices as individuals by
protecting their property rights... These form a kind of systemic
encouragement which brings out the very best within us -- and that is
precisely what drives the raging success of both Open Source and
capitalism.
Recommended Reading
Economics
in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is a classic, widely regarded
as a wonderful (perhaps the best) first introduction to
economics.
Capitalism: a
Treatise on Economics by Dr. George Reisman is a lucid and
encyclopedic account of capitalism and all things economic.
Also see the works of scholars from the Austrian school of
economics, like Ludwig
Von Mises and Friedrich
A. Von Hayek (1974 Nobel in economics), or scholars from the
Chicago school of economics, such as Milton
Friedman (1976 Nobel in economics) or James
Buchanan (1986 Nobel in economics).
A Followup from Greg Perkins
250 comments in a day -- what a wonderful firestorm of discussion!
Now, surely the more harsh commentators understand that in a short piece
like my editorial, no author could even try to cover every anticipated
objection or outright mistake in reading and reasoning that a minority
of the audience might bring. That would simply bore or distract the majority
of readers, perhaps to the point of missing the original thesis!
I needed to leave such issues for the ensuing discussion.
And boy, I was pleasantly surprised by what happened! A horde of nimble-fing
ered
Slashdotters quickly jumped in after the first wave of commentary, answering
and dissecting almost all of the incoming criticism quite nicely, relieving
me of a lot of work -- thanks much, guys! :^)
However, there remain a couple of important themes that my quick-response
comrades didn't address, and so I'll try to cover those here -- starting
with the most important and surprising one.
What the Hay??
This trend really did surprise me. Here are a handful of examples
where it happened -- notice what they have in common when I put them side-by-si
de?
People, it amazes me that some one can equate Linux, a shining example
of sharing and cooperation, with capitalism, a system based on hoarding
and selfishness. [Rodion Raskolnikov (), "POLL!! POLL!!
POLL!!"]
[The] only thing i can assume is that the author had only 1 thing in
mind and that was to get people to join his movement. "Well if i can
show that capitalism==GNU then fellow GNUers will join my organization
or whatever". [Paul ([email protected]), "Propaganda"
;]
Open source functions on a gift economy. Sure, some of the behavior
could be explained with free market principles ... but it is fundamentally
different than the sort of role that the original essayist is trying to
force it into. When I write code and I give it away, I get nothing but
the satisfaction of writing interesting code, and the satisfaction that
someone else is using it. That's not capitalism. [Anonymous
Coward (), "Re: Back-asswards!"]
It's always amusing to me to see some ultra captial weenies taking
an idea like Open Source, which is effectively as socialistic as
you can get in today's society falling all over themselves to cry out
that it isn't, that capitalism and open source are exactly the same
thing, yammer yammer yammer. [adr ([email protected]
.muohio.edu),
"amusing"]
Sheesh. Grow up. "Open Source" ... only superficially shares
some ideas with economic theory. There's more to living than just
money, and there are many more models of economy than just two.
[Markus Fleck ([email protected]), "Bla
bla bla..."]
What these and so many other lines of criticism share is a clear misundersta
nding
of my thesis: they somehow latched onto the idea that I am identifying
capitalist free markets and the Open Source movement as being the same
thing, and then they went running down the rhetorical road on that
false premise. Maybe I was not quite clear enough in the original
piece, but I trust that if you look back up at my editorial with a little
care, you will find that I never make such a claim. I was not even
hoping for such an inference. Indeed, the summary in my conclusion
seems quite clear about my hopes:
So if you cheer for the idea of Open Source, then please cheer for
what makes Open Source work. If you do that, then you are also cheering
for exactly what makes capitalism work... These [common underpinnings]
form a kind of systemic encouragement which brings out the very best
within us -- and that is precisely what drives the raging success of both
Open Source and capitalism.
Of course the Open Source movement and capitalist free markets are not
one and the same, and I wouldn't want anyone to think so. My point
is that they share a common foundation which fuels their
tremendous effectiveness; these common underpinnings are themselves neither
Open Source, nor capitalism -- but they foster both, and identifying them
allows us to see and better understand the strengths of both Open Source
and capitalism. This point leads naturally into my argument that capitalism
is not fundamentally at odds with Open Source, a system which shares the
same foundational underpinnings -- and so the mistrust and hostility I
have been seeing directed at capitalism by some Open Source fans seems
misplaced.
Open Source in the Here and Now
An interesting complaint surfaced regarding those underpinnings: some
seem to think that it isn't legitimate that I rely on the fact that licenses
like the GPL use the ideas of private property and the defense of individual
rights, since by some interpretations of the Open Source Founders, its
current form of is only accommodating our current circumstances and is
not yet the Ideal Deal:
The GPL exists (in this form) just because we live in a more or
less capitalist world. Therefore it is adopted
to the needs of this capitalist world. To conclude
that because the GPL shows capitalistic elements, Open Source is
capitalistic is IMHO an infinite loop. [Sebastian Schaffert
([email protected]), "Re: amusing", my underline]
Open source matches the Marxist notion far better that the libertarian-ca
pitalist
notion, although it matches it only imperfectly. The GPL is very
much a legal means of enforcing the kind of relationship that many
believe ought to be natural law. It's a loophole,
not the core of the philosophy. [vlax ([email protected])
,
"Sometimes, you just have to laugh", my underline]
But my observation is resting on the actual, stunning success of Open
Source in today's world, on today's GPL terms, and in today's<
political systems -- not in some dreamt-of, hoped-for future place that
may be talked about in recommended readings at the FSF. If
someone wishes to argue that some other prospective Open Source
system might do as well as (or better than) what we have today, then I
welcome their giving it a try. But even if someone somehow makes
that argument work, it wouldn't itself do anything to disturb my thesis
that the powerful and successful Open Source movement we have before us
right now shares the very same foundation as capitalism.
There's Cooperation -- and then there's Cooperation
Several people expressed trouble with my saying that "fundamentally,
capitalism means cooperation":
This is one of those motherhood statements that means nothing when
you think about it carefully. Consider some alternatives:
- "fundamentally, communism means cooperation"
- "fundamentally, anarchism means cooperation"
- "fundamentally, fascism means cooperation"
- "acephalous band-level hunter-gatherer groups are fundamentally
dependent on cooperation"
The truth is, human existence pretty much "means cooperation".
[Danny Yee ([email protected]), "capitalism
means cooperation?"]
I agree entirely with [the] gripe on the assertion "capitalism
means cooperation". It is a null statement. What societal system could
exist at all without some degree of cooperation. [The Famous
Brett Watson ([email protected]), 'Null statement: "capitalism means
cooperation"' ]
Certainly there is a lot of cooperation among people in most any societal
system. But capitalism, with its explicit ban on fraud and
the initiation of force between people for the express purpose of
leaving people with nothing but persuasion and freedom of association in
their dealings with one another, is quite different. Communism,
fascism, socialism, and even our mixed economy, etc., do not consistently
demand that we behave as traders, acting to mutual benefit, persuading
our neighbor to work with us. Non-capitalist systems legitimatimize
the initiation of (often quite naked) force as a common and convenient
means of dealing with one another: all you need is to get the political
pull or the popular votes to have your way, and others must "cooperate&quo;
t;
-- whether they ultimately benefit or not, and whether they want to or
not.
The Slavery of Wages
Okay, one final, tiny point.
Interesting comment coming from a capitalist.. So when my boss <
I>says
"do that" I am a slave, eh? You're basically defining
capitalism as wage slavery.. not a very good start on an essay that
is supposed to defend capitalism. [ir ([email protected]
ox.com),
"Free Software"]
Notice that I said "someone else makes that choice", not just
that "something forces your choice". Despite appearances
,
I was actually being pretty careful about it. When your boss says
"do that", you clearly have a choice where a slave does not:
you can quit. But you would starve, you say? Not to be too
flip about it (well, maybe just a little :^), but it sounds as if your
primary complaint of "injustice" is with reality -- not
with your boss. He should have freedom of association just as you
should, and you have no right to do business with him unless he wants to
do business with you (othewise you are not being a trader, and he would
be a slave).
I know of no capitalist who would argue that you have a right to be
exempt from the laws of reality. | 
