Naw; it's just a parody of Asimov's The Last Question, which see. Adams' is funnier, but it wouldn't be as Cosmically Mindboggling if it weren't standing on the shoulders of SF classics.
As for picking the number 42 out of thin air, it would've been much funnier if he'd used the real magic number, namely five. Or twenty-three.
Given any number of individual members of any species and a resource supply that is sufficient for a smaller number, the individuals who succesfully compete for those resources will survive. The others won't. There is nothig wrong with that.
By cooperating we can better manage and increase our resources. It won't always be enough for everybody, but we can do a lot better than today. It makes no sense for the rich minority of the western world to have such a surplus and wasting such enormous quantities just because our traditional economic systems require it.
Capitalism is about meeting needs, not limiting supply.
I know that that's how it's "supposed to" work, but in practice limiting supply makes sense for many capitalists since that enables sellers to increase their prices. There are many areas of business where that's auctally happening, software being one.
Software has low manufacturing costs (just CDs or bandwidth) but high initial costs.
With proprietary software, Microsoft can prohibit manufacturing (and label it "piracy") to keep supply low enough to justify charging hundreds of dollars for, say, Windows XP.
Resources must be put into the system to generate supply.
Of course.
Absent selling products at a product, the only other way to support production is government mandate and government control.
No. It doesn't have to be like that. We can and must try to find other ways.
That way leads to tyranny.
Capitalism leads to the tyranny of the rich over the poor.
More to the point, F/OSS development and developers must, by definition, have an income stream coming from somewhere in order to continue doing F/OSS work.
People doing work, whether it is F/OSS, or being a nurse, or an artist, or anything else, must ("by definition"?) have a steady supply of food, shelter and other wants and needs.
Of course.
We need a functioning distribution system of goods and services, lest we all have to live isolated on self-sufficient farms. That goes without saying.
But do we need all the baggage that a capitalist system brings with it? Corporations, hierarchies, artificial scarcity, propaganda / commercial advertising, a corporate-sponsored justice system, a corporate media?
Do we even need a trade-based market economy?
These things aren't questioned enough, debated enough, researched enough, experimented with enough. Maybe there are other ways, especially taking into consideration that the level of technology is steadily increasing. With the more advanced level of information and communication technology, it's becoming easier and easier to cooperate and coordinate large voluntary efforts.
Captialism gives me the choice to buy or not to buy Microsoft.
That's not true for everyone - some people are more or less forced to use Microsoft, since they're stuck in a corporation or school where it's mandated to do so - and even for individuals, there's a strong pressure to buy Microsoft; it's bundled with most computers (for a big fee, of course) and there's a heavy push with many forms of advertising.
It doesn't send me orders from a central planning office ordering me to use the government-mandated OS. I'll trade companies like Microsoft for government central planning every time.
I don't want "government central planning", which I see as about as bad as companies like Microsoft.
I haven't yet ceased to be amazed by how people can gladly accept (and even advocate) a system that pushes commercials down their throats 27/7, yet never consider how a system with even a tenth of that information (but with cooperation information, instead of corporate propaganda) could enable us to do so much more with less.
People are competitive by nature, not cooperative.
Maybe that goes for you, but I know that I've got those both traits.
So is every other living species.
Not really. There are many species where taking care of each other is common.
Short of a fantasy utopia that magically supplies al of our needs and wants, and keeps us all competely free of disease and discomfort
You mean a post-scarcity society? It seems to me that the capitalist movement is trying real hard to keep us from getting there; a readily available example is (yet again) copyright - a law that allows (for example) Microsoft to artificially limit supply - to create scarcity.
that kind of "cooperation" can only imposed by force
Well, I'm hoping that isn't true, that we can voluntarily cooperate. There are lot of examples that indicates that, the free software movement being a prominent one. You know, I've never seen so many flamewars and hostility as within the F/OSS movements, and yet it's been able to produce so much.
the right to impose their will on others
How do you mean? It seems to me that it's capitalism that rules us; how's that for freedom? It's easy to want a live-and-let-live attitude when you have the obscene amount of power that some capitalists have. It's like if the machines of the Matrix would say "Neo, how can you be so intolerant and try to impose your will to break free on us? We leave you alone in your cocoons, we've got the live-and-let-live attitude, you're the ones making a ruckus."
If the 20th Century taught us anything, it should have taught to be frightened of ideologies.
It's easy to label dissenting thought as an "ideology" (and use association guilt to tinge it with the likes of Pol Pot) while being oblivious to the "ideology" that's already in power.
I'm always amazed by people who apparently believe [...] making a profit is unethical
Making a profit on the expense of others, by abusing the capitalist system. I'm not opposed to profit in and of itself, as long as society as a whole benefits.
Proprietary software companies deem it necessary to limit reproduction (and often alteration) of their software in order to maximise their profits. When they do that, it's got a negative effect on all of us.
Perhaps, though, they are outnumbered by people, like me, who believe it is immoral to compel individuals to "share" what they have earned with "society" in the the name of "cooperation."
Do you think it's immoral to even ask? And do you think it's perfectly moral to forbid individuals to share? That sharing is "piracy"?
I'd still use it if it wasn't, and I never avoid using good software just because it isn't "free".
Well, I do, mostly because I'm a programmer and having source code is valuable to me, and being allowed to share it freely with my friends and family is valuable, as well.
trying to impose a software development model on the rest of the activities of the human race.
And Microsoft's licences aren't "imposing"?
In this thread, I've merely argued, and been told that I've been "imposing" and immorally "compelling". How's that for a capitalist hegemony?
What do anti-business people wnat to do, replace corporations with village cobblers?
I can't speak for all "anti-business people", but I'd rather have cooperatives than hierarchical corporations, and I'd rather they'd compete fairly instead of abusing copyright law like Microsoft do.
And, Linus was right, swithcing to a new OS is difficult. That's why people don't want to do it.
My point exactly. So it's not a "gun that's to their head", that's not necessary. Microsoft have their hold on the world with a minimum of violence.
Like it or not, the world has a lot of Windows in it that aren't broken.
And it'd be better if those Windows were free software.
Why is it that only geeks say things like "orthogonal"?
It's natural to use the language and vocabulary at hand to form thoughts and express them, even if the words sometimes become clumsily multisyllabical. I guess it's just one of the drawbacks of being a geek.
What is with this "corporate overlord" stuff?
It's because large corporations are very powerful entities with very few checks.
There have always been plenty of alternatives to Microsoft, and there still are, even ignoring free software.
It's not "Microsoft vs other companies", or "Windows vs other operating systems". It's a matter of software freedom.
no one held a gun to anyone and forced them to continue using Windows
I don't know about that. What I do know is that there is, and have been, a massive propaganda push behind Windows and other proprietary programs, going back to the seventies.
These days, while shopping around for a desktop PC, what are you likely to find? "Our computers come with legitimate Windows XP pre-installed" - as if it was a necessary advantage, billed as a "feature"!
No gun, sure, but changing operating systems is a major hassle (Linus described it as "doing brain surgery on yourself").
what is it the rich people do to you thats harming you?
Many rich people are destroying our planet, and they're getting a free ride on worker's blood.
do you feel he [Bill Gates] stole some of the money you somehow diserved?
Yes, by fraud - by charging for a faulty product and jacking up prices by artificially limiting supply (by limiting third-party reproduction, and labeling it "piracy"). Friends, family and the government we pay taxes to have purchased so-called "products" from Microsoft.
Bill Gates doesn't program; he makes his fortune exploiting the loop-holes in the magic you call "an economic system", and getting rich of other people's work.
what about your life would be better if they all flew away into space?
They are thieves.
They drink the coffee that someone bled for. Do they owe us a living? Of course they fucking do.
"Sys admins do not work for free, regardless of the development model used by their OS."
System adminstration costs is an issue orthogonal to whether or not a system is F/OSS or not.
Microsoft could, presumably, reduce the cost advantage of F/OSS by cutting the price of Windows.
A large part of the benefit of F/OSS is putting that pressure on Microsoft. It could be beneficial if Microsoft were to release their programs as free, open source software. To me, it seems so primitive and childish to bother with keeping software proprietary. It has no advantage for consumers or society.
Rather than conjuring visions of besting Microsoft in these markets, the F/OSS community would be of better service if it conjured ways to use its products to enable these nations to tackle those more pressing problems.
Agreed, but A) there are people doing that, or trying to do that, and B) people can do what they can, what they are good at. And even just "besting Microsoft" can prove to be vital in the third world, where Microsoft has the potential to become an even bigger problem than it already is (in it's role as corporate overlord).
I very much disagree with your definition of socialist. You're the one that's oversimplifying so much that you state inaccuracies when you're denying the existance of the (very real) movement that's been, at various times in history, labeled "anarchists", "anarchocommunists", "anarchosocialists" and "anarchosyndicalist".
"Socialism" is one of the words I've been thinking of stopping using; I've found that using it often causes aggravation and misunderstanding since there are so many varying definitions of it.
How about this: Capitalist = people with money own everything = 100% = 1 Anarchist = no private property = 0% = 0
Imprecise, inaccurate? Yeah. That's why oversimplifications are bad, and that's why your Slashdot quips may occasionally cause someone to cry out "bullshit!".
"government ownership of property (including labor) is much older than modern civilization."
Despotism, feudalism? I don't think workers were much happier during the industrial revolution than during feudalist times. (And what was the basis of feudalism? "I own this land; you don't own land - you must work for me." Same as how capitalism works in e.g. some South American countries. (And same as the Soviet system worked.))
"socialist/anarchist" evaluates to "1/0", which is an error."
I found that both obnoxious and untrue.
If I meant to carry out some grudge against "anarcho-capitalists", I would've linked to The anarchist FAQ, but I consider that too rude and unbalanced for my tastes; compared to Wikipedia, which I like because it does bring up "anarcho-capitalism", even though that contradicts my viewpoint (I guess I could be considered an anarcho-socialist, for those with the labelmaker handy. That doesn't mean I'm as prejudiced against the procapitalist libertarians as most of my brothers and sisters.)
I use a different definition of socialist than you, however. ("State ownership" is not a good solution in and of itself.) (And not even Wikipedia can seem to make up its mind on the matter.)
I linked to Wikipedia for a reason - that it isn't oversimplifying things, unlike you.
I remember when the Internet wasn't full of people who thought they where entitled to the works of others without compensation or permission.
UGH! I'm glad that's changed. You'd have to be a pretty fast coder to write enough shareware to get enough cash to pay for Linux, gnu-utils, Xfree86 and so on, should they have been for-pay shareware. (And if they'd been binary-only shareware, there's no way that they'd be as good as they are today.)
Sounds like a silly monetary pyramid scheme with no winners. Pooling our efforts like we do today (with free software) is something that benefits almost everyone.
If I'd charged for the mediocre stuff I've done over the years, I'd have gotten maybe $10. Meanwhile, I use free software that would, had it not been free, cost me thousands of dollars.
You (and others) have chosen a word for your ideology.
Yeah, over a hundred years ago. Most "-ism" words are ambiguous in the same way. BTW; "anarchism" was never used in greece, only "anarchy". There is truth to "to be without any ordering principle" as far as anarchy goes - one way to describe the (unattainable?) ideal that anarchism has.
To summarize:
A working, peaceful non-hierarchical society (which is one of the things that the greek word anarchy fits) is the utopia of anarchists. You might call this nonsensical and impossible, that's fair by me.
Anarchism as a movement has some strategies and goals that can be seen as incremental improvements of people's everyday situation ("direct action"). (Of course, there are also fractions of anarchism that are primarily concerned with tearing down the current system and I can see why you distrust them. In Soviet russia, they aided the revolution but were then killed by the bolsheviks, who set up a tyrannical system. Not good.)
We all make our choices.
And some choices are better than others. And some people are better off than others.
What happens is the unions end up exploiting the workers.
Yeah, I know.
It is when people are chasing impossible and nonsensical utopias that they are left most open to the vilest of tyrannies.
I know that too. Anarchists in Russia ended up in Gulag.
People chasing the American Dream are being ruled by the invisible tyranny of corporations.
The "employers" that I've had (meaning, not managers) usually have no idea what I'm doing, and don't know whether I'm at work any given day or not. They're not so big a deal in my life.
They profit from your work and they can kick you out on the streets. Maybe there's so many layers of middlemen that they don't seem to affect you directly. Like a king or president. (You don't see GWB riding around kicking ass and taking names personally.)
Again, there are more obvious examples than your own life: the movement of the landless (the MST) in Brazil. (Another example is minimum wage workers in the US.)
There are people for whom it makes sense to get organized, who're in an almost impossible situation.
As far as who's a "social peer", frankly, I don't consider anyone above me.
That's great to hear. I want a classless society, too (and a lot of it is about perceptions). I was speaking of the power that ownership brings, not "social status".
I think the times are changing, one way or the other.
A lot of work is being done peacefully (I'm especially happy to see the free software movement growing) and with changing attitudes.
There's still a lot of unsolved problems.
(As for the original topic - The Anarchist in the Library - well, the major schtick of anarchists have always been information.)
That is, they want to abolish the government they're in, and found an "anarchy", for whatever that means.
That's a gross simplification. I do believe the government does more harm than good, and that it can be replaced by other organizations (e.g. healthcare cooperative, food distribution).
how about, "There shouldn't be hierarchies where it is unnecessary or nonsensical to have hierarchies."
How about the ethical problems with many hierarchies? (Wait - that might lead into a circle argument, since what counts as ethical problems to the (egalitarian, or "to each according to need") anarchist ethos are depending on anarchist ideals already.)
I do believe (unproven hypothesis) that hierarchies are "wrong" one way or the other (unnecessary, a hindrance) almost all of the time. That's why I preach anarchy, and often looks at things "through an anarchist lens". I do admit to being more of an idealist than a "rationalist".
As far as the "analyzing the word" rethoric goes, it might be an etymological passtime but it's not the be-all and end-all definition of word.
What's interesting is the three usages the word has in contemporary society:
The large social movement that's a couple of hundred years old (that diminished some after the first world war, but has seen an upswing in later years). See Kropotkin, Le Guin, Indymedia, RMS.
A small but vocal subset of pro-capitalist libertarians founded by David Friedman in the nineteen seventies.
The way many people use the word, the misconception spread by media (and word of mouth) of a never-ending riot and chaos.
Anarchism, in sense one, is the ideal of no hierarchies. I think that's what most political theorists and political historians mean when they speak of anarchism.
Only so long as I choose to give it to him.
The situation is different in other parts of the world, and even other parts of the US. There are people that, to survive, more-or-less have to take any job they're offered, and never complain.
Anarchists propose, to amend this situation, that workers unionize in decentralized, non-hierarchical (for a practical purpose - to combat corruption) unions, and/or form worker's cooperatives. (Debian is a good example of the latter, even though Debian has some hierarchy.)
Anarchists see this as a stepping stone to their utopia, but you don't have to agree to that utopia or even anti-hierarchical ideals to agree with the agenda for the here-and-now. (That's what I personally feel so compelling - even though the anarchist utopia has its share of if:s and but:s, I still believe that worker organization can diminish worker exploitation.)
Also, when I do daydream of the anarchist utopia (again, please check out The Dispossessed (and let me know if I should keep recommending it)) I have human evolution in hand. Educational, social and/or psychedelical changes are possible.
As for your manager examples, I don't disagree. I've seen both in the "office work" field.
I've got two comments, though:
Managers are also employed - I meant "employer", not "whoever in the workplace that's responsible for scheduling and work-coordination", the latter which can be a social peer.
I've often wondered why the Dilberts of the world don't make more noise; after all, they're not in as an exposed position as the single mother working double minimum wage shifts.
And if no agreement or consensus can be reached? Or, for particularly controversial subjects, what's to stop someone from repeatedly changing the entry, even after it was agreed by the community at large that they were wrong? Do they have a system that, for example, would prevent someone from batch modifying entries on a certain schedule?
No. Consensus, agreement, or argument until somebody tires.
Also, I'm still not sure I would quite call it a complete anarchy, if there is even some person who has the domain registered and is in control of the code.
Yeah, I know. That's why I said it was "similar to" anarchy. But the person who controls the server can still take the server down, for example.
It seems that there are a couple major differences between this and trying to run large countries.
But I'm not talking about running large countries. I'm talking about building houses.
Just the guy in charge, so that when person A says "I want a swimming pool here" and person B says "no! Over there", the person in charge can settle it.
As far as the people building the house is fine with it, I guess they can come up with whatever "house-building constitution" they want.
Personally, I don't like super-rigid leadership but tastes vary. Every small group is free to make up the way they work among themselves.
If you don't like it, you can leave, rebel, or in free countries, if your fellow countrymen agree, you can band together and just tell the government to change. But when trying to disturb the system, beware of others who want to keep it as it is.
And they use governmental force; e.g. the proponents of software patents are using the legislative system to combat the free software movement.
I wonder if perhaps you might be happy with whatever country you lived in if you just felt free and equal, and knew that you already are.
But it's not about countries. (There are no borders.) It's about all of life. Work, food, family, housing, healthcare.
Anarchism isn't some dream gubernatorial system of perfect national government. It's the dream/idea of abolishing hierarchies to the extent that it's possible.
Your boss has more control over your life than your president/king.
So (I couldn't quite gather this from the page you cited), what happens if there is some controversy? If someone posts something obscene or untrue as a factual entry? Or if there's disagreement on some subject as to what's true? Do the users sort it out? Do entries ever get edited back and forth (someone adds something, someone else removes, the first adds it back, someone removes it again, etc.)?
Controversies are settled among the users themselves. Obscene and factually untrue entries are removed by users. Discussions are common.
Actuallly "classically" may be interpreted to be speaking, specifically, of ancient Greece and Rome. That era. It's one meaning of the word "classic", which I intended to imply by using the word.
Thanks for the clarification.
but associating democracy with anarchy was meant to be an insult to democracy
That's what I wrote: "derogatory term".
Ah, but what does this "voluntary" mean and what does "organization" mean? I mean, yes, in a real anarchy, someone could choose to be involved in organized activity, and someone could choose not to.
Exactly. One very good example of what I'd like to see going on in an anarchistic society is The Debian project.
The anarchist movement works with loose organizations and (in it's syndicalist branch) decentralized unions.
One can easily think of a health-care cooperative, for example, or a food distribution organization.
If you say "no", then why isn't "having a government" the same as "anarchy"? (since a full government could be seen as an extended version of the "building a house" example)
(I say "no", your housebuilding example would be fine under anarchy.) Well, that really depends on the type of government, doesn't it? Most governments in practice today are involuntary and hierarchical.
Having a "leader" in the undertaking of a house-building is no worse than having Linus manage the linux kernel. If he screws up, we can "fork the code".
(Another example is the Kropotkin quote elsewhere in this thread about (temporarily and voluntarily) defering to the authority of a master something or other, I think it was a boat-maker.)
I view the house-building "leader" as a coordinator or scheduler, not a tyrant. She or he can never force me to do anything. In contemporary society, I would likely be an employee and thus I would be vulnerably to tyranny from my employer.
Anarchism has it's vulnerabilites, too; I recommend the SF classic The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin for a depiction of pros and cons of the type of anarchism I advocate.
Alexei Borovoi spoke of anarchism as "the equality of all members in a free organization".
Slashdot Mirror
It's also
05 + 14 + 23 = 42
So maybe there is something to it.
Naw; it's just a parody of Asimov's The Last Question, which see. Adams' is funnier, but it wouldn't be as Cosmically Mindboggling if it weren't standing on the shoulders of SF classics.
As for picking the number 42 out of thin air, it would've been much funnier if he'd used the real magic number, namely five. Or twenty-three.
By cooperating we can better manage and increase our resources. It won't always be enough for everybody, but we can do a lot better than today. It makes no sense for the rich minority of the western world to have such a surplus and wasting such enormous quantities just because our traditional economic systems require it.
I know that that's how it's "supposed to" work, but in practice limiting supply makes sense for many capitalists since that enables sellers to increase their prices. There are many areas of business where that's auctally happening, software being one.
Software has low manufacturing costs (just CDs or bandwidth) but high initial costs.
With proprietary software, Microsoft can prohibit manufacturing (and label it "piracy") to keep supply low enough to justify charging hundreds of dollars for, say, Windows XP.
Of course.
No. It doesn't have to be like that. We can and must try to find other ways.
Capitalism leads to the tyranny of the rich over the poor.
People doing work, whether it is F/OSS, or being a nurse, or an artist, or anything else, must ("by definition"?) have a steady supply of food, shelter and other wants and needs.
Of course.
We need a functioning distribution system of goods and services, lest we all have to live isolated on self-sufficient farms. That goes without saying.
But do we need all the baggage that a capitalist system brings with it? Corporations, hierarchies, artificial scarcity, propaganda / commercial advertising, a corporate-sponsored justice system, a corporate media?
Do we even need a trade-based market economy?
These things aren't questioned enough, debated enough, researched enough, experimented with enough. Maybe there are other ways, especially taking into consideration that the level of technology is steadily increasing. With the more advanced level of information and communication technology, it's becoming easier and easier to cooperate and coordinate large voluntary efforts.
That's not true for everyone - some people are more or less forced to use Microsoft, since they're stuck in a corporation or school where it's mandated to do so - and even for individuals, there's a strong pressure to buy Microsoft; it's bundled with most computers (for a big fee, of course) and there's a heavy push with many forms of advertising.
I don't want "government central planning", which I see as about as bad as companies like Microsoft.
I haven't yet ceased to be amazed by how people can gladly accept (and even advocate) a system that pushes commercials down their throats 27/7, yet never consider how a system with even a tenth of that information (but with cooperation information, instead of corporate propaganda) could enable us to do so much more with less.
Maybe that goes for you, but I know that I've got those both traits.
Not really. There are many species where taking care of each other is common.
You mean a post-scarcity society? It seems to me that the capitalist movement is trying real hard to keep us from getting there; a readily available example is (yet again) copyright - a law that allows (for example) Microsoft to artificially limit supply - to create scarcity.
Well, I'm hoping that isn't true, that we can voluntarily cooperate. There are lot of examples that indicates that, the free software movement being a prominent one. You know, I've never seen so many flamewars and hostility as within the F/OSS movements, and yet it's been able to produce so much.
How do you mean? It seems to me that it's capitalism that rules us; how's that for freedom?
It's easy to want a live-and-let-live attitude when you have the obscene amount of power that some capitalists have. It's like if the machines of the Matrix would say "Neo, how can you be so intolerant and try to impose your will to break free on us? We leave you alone in your cocoons, we've got the live-and-let-live attitude, you're the ones making a ruckus."
It's easy to label dissenting thought as an "ideology" (and use association guilt to tinge it with the likes of Pol Pot) while being oblivious to the "ideology" that's already in power.
Making a profit on the expense of others, by abusing the capitalist system. I'm not opposed to profit in and of itself, as long as society as a whole benefits.
Proprietary software companies deem it necessary to limit reproduction (and often alteration) of their software in order to maximise their profits. When they do that, it's got a negative effect on all of us.
Do you think it's immoral to even ask? And do you think it's perfectly moral to forbid individuals to share? That sharing is "piracy"?
Well, I do, mostly because I'm a programmer and having source code is valuable to me, and being allowed to share it freely with my friends and family is valuable, as well.
And Microsoft's licences aren't "imposing"?
In this thread, I've merely argued, and been told that I've been "imposing" and immorally "compelling". How's that for a capitalist hegemony?
Some people might find this weird, but there are those of us who think that a program isn't usable software if you don't get source code.
It's not about "getting money", it's about being able to make changes, recompile, that sort of thing.
I can't speak for all "anti-business people", but I'd rather have cooperatives than hierarchical corporations, and I'd rather they'd compete fairly instead of abusing copyright law like Microsoft do.
My point exactly. So it's not a "gun that's to their head", that's not necessary. Microsoft have their hold on the world with a minimum of violence.
And it'd be better if those Windows were free software.
Yeah, and some maybe even found its way to the intended recipients, but I meant the sum that they took back. Why bother with that?
It's natural to use the language and vocabulary at hand to form thoughts and express them, even if the words sometimes become clumsily multisyllabical. I guess it's just one of the drawbacks of being a geek.
It's because large corporations are very powerful entities with very few checks.
It's not "Microsoft vs other companies", or "Windows vs other operating systems". It's a matter of software freedom.
I don't know about that. What I do know is that there is, and have been, a massive propaganda push behind Windows and other proprietary programs, going back to the seventies.
These days, while shopping around for a desktop PC, what are you likely to find? "Our computers come with legitimate Windows XP pre-installed" - as if it was a necessary advantage, billed as a "feature"!
No gun, sure, but changing operating systems is a major hassle (Linus described it as "doing brain surgery on yourself").
Many rich people are destroying our planet, and they're getting a free ride on worker's blood.
Yes, by fraud - by charging for a faulty product and jacking up prices by artificially limiting supply (by limiting third-party reproduction, and labeling it "piracy").
Friends, family and the government we pay taxes to have purchased so-called "products" from Microsoft.
Bill Gates doesn't program; he makes his fortune exploiting the loop-holes in the magic you call "an economic system", and getting rich of other people's work.
They are thieves.
They drink the coffee that someone bled for. Do they owe us a living? Of course they fucking do.
But they took it right back, for nothing..But they paid for those themselves.But they aren't helping.
So it's just a big con game. Thanks for your clarification.
System adminstration costs is an issue orthogonal to whether or not a system is F/OSS or not.
A large part of the benefit of F/OSS is putting that pressure on Microsoft. It could be beneficial if Microsoft were to release their programs as free, open source software. To me, it seems so primitive and childish to bother with keeping software proprietary. It has no advantage for consumers or society.
Agreed, but A) there are people doing that, or trying to do that, and B) people can do what they can, what they are good at. And even just "besting Microsoft" can prove to be vital in the third world, where Microsoft has the potential to become an even bigger problem than it already is (in it's role as corporate overlord).
Wouldn't be easier for the pressuring group to just give the money to MS outright? Why go via a poor country?
I don't really get this. Is this some money-laundering scheme?
"You will recieve money for free if you spend (a large part of) it on Windows."
"Huh, ok? Why don't you give that amount to MS yourself if you're so keen on them?"
I would want that; a stack-based RPN playlist manager.
How do you configure X to work with any random monitor? I've been trying to do something similar.
"Required reading"-books are under the scrutiny of a lot more parents than other books, and thus more likely to become challenged.
"Our kids have to read this filth? No! Ban it!"
It's a shame.
"Socialism" is one of the words I've been thinking of stopping using; I've found that using it often causes aggravation and misunderstanding since there are so many varying definitions of it.
How about this:
Capitalist = people with money own everything = 100% = 1
Anarchist = no private property = 0% = 0
Imprecise, inaccurate? Yeah. That's why oversimplifications are bad, and that's why your Slashdot quips may occasionally cause someone to cry out "bullshit!".
Despotism, feudalism? I don't think workers were much happier during the industrial revolution than during feudalist times. (And what was the basis of feudalism? "I own this land; you don't own land - you must work for me." Same as how capitalism works in e.g. some South American countries. (And same as the Soviet system worked.))
I found that both obnoxious and untrue.
If I meant to carry out some grudge against "anarcho-capitalists", I would've linked to The anarchist FAQ, but I consider that too rude and unbalanced for my tastes; compared to Wikipedia, which I like because it does bring up "anarcho-capitalism", even though that contradicts my viewpoint (I guess I could be considered an anarcho-socialist, for those with the labelmaker handy. That doesn't mean I'm as prejudiced against the procapitalist libertarians as most of my brothers and sisters.)
I use a different definition of socialist than you, however. ("State ownership" is not a good solution in and of itself.) (And not even Wikipedia can seem to make up its mind on the matter.)
I linked to Wikipedia for a reason - that it isn't oversimplifying things, unlike you.
That's bullshit. Wikipedia article on anarchism.
Anarchists were the first socialists, before Lenin and the bolsheviks.
The shell in Windows sucked a couple of years ago (it might still - haven't used it).
And what the grandparent says:
is true.
Jabber is great; there are lots of innovative stuff popping up.
Sounds like a silly monetary pyramid scheme with no winners. Pooling our efforts like we do today (with free software) is something that benefits almost everyone.
If I'd charged for the mediocre stuff I've done over the years, I'd have gotten maybe $10. Meanwhile, I use free software that would, had it not been free, cost me thousands of dollars.
Yeah, over a hundred years ago. Most "-ism" words are ambiguous in the same way. BTW; "anarchism" was never used in greece, only "anarchy". There is truth to "to be without any ordering principle" as far as anarchy goes - one way to describe the (unattainable?) ideal that anarchism has.
To summarize:
And some choices are better than others. And some people are better off than others.
Yeah, I know.
I know that too. Anarchists in Russia ended up in Gulag.
People chasing the American Dream are being ruled by the invisible tyranny of corporations.
They profit from your work and they can kick you out on the streets.
Maybe there's so many layers of middlemen that they don't seem to affect you directly. Like a king or president. (You don't see GWB riding around kicking ass and taking names personally.)
Again, there are more obvious examples than your own life: the movement of the landless (the MST) in Brazil. (Another example is minimum wage workers in the US.)
There are people for whom it makes sense to get organized, who're in an almost impossible situation.
That's great to hear. I want a classless society, too (and a lot of it is about perceptions). I was speaking of the power that ownership brings, not "social status".
I think the times are changing, one way or the other.
A lot of work is being done peacefully (I'm especially happy to see the free software movement growing) and with changing attitudes.
There's still a lot of unsolved problems.
(As for the original topic - The Anarchist in the Library - well, the major schtick of anarchists have always been information.)
That's a gross simplification. I do believe the government does more harm than good, and that it can be replaced by other organizations (e.g. healthcare cooperative, food distribution).
How about the ethical problems with many hierarchies? (Wait - that might lead into a circle argument, since what counts as ethical problems to the (egalitarian, or "to each according to need") anarchist ethos are depending on anarchist ideals already.)
I do believe (unproven hypothesis) that hierarchies are "wrong" one way or the other (unnecessary, a hindrance) almost all of the time. That's why I preach anarchy, and often looks at things "through an anarchist lens". I do admit to being more of an idealist than a "rationalist".
As far as the "analyzing the word" rethoric goes, it might be an etymological passtime but it's not the be-all and end-all definition of word.
What's interesting is the three usages the word has in contemporary society:
Anarchism, in sense one, is the ideal of no hierarchies. I think that's what most political theorists and political historians mean when they speak of anarchism.
The situation is different in other parts of the world, and even other parts of the US. There are people that, to survive, more-or-less have to take any job they're offered, and never complain.
Anarchists propose, to amend this situation, that workers unionize in decentralized, non-hierarchical (for a practical purpose - to combat corruption) unions, and/or form worker's cooperatives. (Debian is a good example of the latter, even though Debian has some hierarchy.)
Anarchists see this as a stepping stone to their utopia, but you don't have to agree to that utopia or even anti-hierarchical ideals to agree with the agenda for the here-and-now. (That's what I personally feel so compelling - even though the anarchist utopia has its share of if:s and but:s, I still believe that worker organization can diminish worker exploitation.)
Also, when I do daydream of the anarchist utopia (again, please check out The Dispossessed (and let me know if I should keep recommending it)) I have human evolution in hand. Educational, social and/or psychedelical changes are possible.
As for your manager examples, I don't disagree. I've seen both in the "office work" field.
I've got two comments, though:
No. Consensus, agreement, or argument until somebody tires.
Yeah, I know. That's why I said it was "similar to" anarchy. But the person who controls the server can still take the server down, for example.
But I'm not talking about running large countries. I'm talking about building houses.
As far as the people building the house is fine with it, I guess they can come up with whatever "house-building constitution" they want.
Personally, I don't like super-rigid leadership but tastes vary. Every small group is free to make up the way they work among themselves.
And they use governmental force; e.g. the proponents of software patents are using the legislative system to combat the free software movement.
But it's not about countries. (There are no borders.) It's about all of life. Work, food, family, housing, healthcare.
Anarchism isn't some dream gubernatorial system of perfect national government. It's the dream/idea of abolishing hierarchies to the extent that it's possible.
Your boss has more control over your life than your president/king.
and yeah, I googled some and stumbled upon this link.
Controversies are settled among the users themselves. Obscene and factually untrue entries are removed by users. Discussions are common.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's what I wrote: "derogatory term".
Exactly.
One very good example of what I'd like to see going on in an anarchistic society is The Debian project.
The anarchist movement works with loose organizations and (in it's syndicalist branch) decentralized unions.
One can easily think of a health-care cooperative, for example, or a food distribution organization.
(I say "no", your housebuilding example would be fine under anarchy.)
Well, that really depends on the type of government, doesn't it? Most governments in practice today are involuntary and hierarchical.
Having a "leader" in the undertaking of a house-building is no worse than having Linus manage the linux kernel. If he screws up, we can "fork the code".
(Another example is the Kropotkin quote elsewhere in this thread about (temporarily and voluntarily) defering to the authority of a master something or other, I think it was a boat-maker.)
I view the house-building "leader" as a coordinator or scheduler, not a tyrant. She or he can never force me to do anything. In contemporary society, I would likely be an employee and thus I would be vulnerably to tyranny from my employer.
Anarchism has it's vulnerabilites, too; I recommend the SF classic The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin for a depiction of pros and cons of the type of anarchism I advocate.
Alexei Borovoi spoke of anarchism as "the equality of all members in a free organization".