Lunar is a user on You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.
Lunar @lunar

« Free software activists should accept that software freedom is not an isolated issue, with its own, completely independent value set, but is just one aspect of a wider struggle for justice, and that we can never achieve full software justice under capitalism. Once freed from this isolated logic, the next obvious step is integrating it into our advocacy, critiques, and educational material. »

· Web · 22 · 17

@lunar I guess it's also because advocating only for free software is way more easy than advocating for a whole new society ?

I agree with this article, but explaining the whole situation is very boring for the persons you're talking with 😛
Part of that is because if they don't see the problem about non-free software, why they would see it about a non-free society ?🤔

I like this article, it makes me thing, but there is no easy answers, as often...

I think it's actually easier to understand how wrong is it for Apple to decide when and where you can listen to the music they sold you than to explain what are DRM…
Explaining issues in terms of power issues rather than technicalities usually works best in my experience.

@lunar I don't understand where the argument against capitalism plays out in this article. It wasn't a short article, and yet it didn't really make an argument. Libre software exists because of capitalism. There was demand and developers stepped in to fill that demand. People like Stallman and others have benefited from libre software.

Capitalism is based private property and making profit. Libre software was born out of challenging private property and volunteer work.
I'm puzzled on how you can say that libre software exists because of capitalism.

@lunar it exists to fill a need. Capitalism is not a synthetic construct, it is an organic construct. Within the construct of capitalism libre software can exist because it is offered by some and consumed by others. But I think I realize now that our terms may not be mutually defined. Perhaps the article is considering capitalism as some sort of over lord structure with masters and slaves?

I'm still not sure I understand. As soon as something is produced to fill a need, it exists because of capitalism?

@lunar not exactly. Capitalism is simply the term. It is defined by action and reaction. A lot of people seem to think that capitalism is some sort of political viewpoint. It is simply a term that describes an action and reaction. That is my problem with the article really. The author seems to think that capitalism is a faction that drives a political ideology, but in reality it is simply a descriptor of an observation. He really isn't making an argument.

Still trying to understand:

So because we live in a capitalist society, libre software was produced by capitalism?

@lunar I think the disconnect is in definition. For the past couple of decades the term capitalism has slowly been redefined. Now it has a pop definition and its actually definition. We don't have a capitalism society. In fact I rather despise the word. Society is based on give and take. Economy, relationships, government, and etc. A number of political scientists observed this phenomenon and called it capitalism because they saw that all transactions are based on what is

@lunar given and what is received. Then came the Keynesianism and socialism and communism. Those were not new observations, but rather ideas imposed to control. So you see that capitalism is different because it was not directly or synthetically created like other theories. It was merely an observation.

Honestly, I don't care if “capitalism” has an actual definition. What I know is that this very world where one is denied access to food, shelter, and health based on wealth, where very basic human needs like air and water are being spoiled for the benefit of a tiny fraction of the population, is not a world in which I want to live in.

And there's no amount of libre software that will create a “free society” until that's the world we have.

@lunar that has nothing to do with capitalism.

@lunar that is why I didn't this morning explaining what capitalism is. Because it has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. Capitalist is not an entity or a theory of living. You can only attribute things like poverty to the governing body and the ones in power. Capitalism is a back end protocol, not a frontend driver.

I care about making the world a better place. You seem to care about which word one must use. I'm not interested in such a conversation.

@lunar That's interesting. Why do you jump to a conclusion of what I care about? I also care about those things, but the poison generated by the misuse of a word drives a lot deeper than you may think. When you use the word capitalism and strap all of the world's woes to it, you are deferring the responsibility from the true culprits. The reason I care about a word is because the word capitalism has become a scapegoat for the true social illness.

The article is about how some discourse around free software doesn't help either free software nor making the world a better place. Yet you engage in a discussion about the proper use of the world capitalism, or if capitalism is the issue. I don't think that's helpful. It's not helpful for me, and I don't think it's helpful for the world. Sorry.

@lunar the article was just a bunch of disconnected thoughts without any true unity or purpose. He may have had a point, but it was easily lost with his disjointed form of discourse. It is an example of very bad writing.

@lunar I read some of Jans other articles after this one... he has some pretty strong views huh:

"Marxism is science, and science is Marxism."

Talk of centrally planned economies, scientifically planned even, brings me out in a cold sweat.