Wired: The New Digital Socialism
Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 04:33Here's a great article I read on the plane ride (12 hours) to Taiwan. It discusses much of what I've been thinking about over the past two years based on my experiences creating & running the DP. As a web designer back in 2001, it would have cost me over $100,000 to custom program a site like the DP. In 2007 the complex software that makes the DP possible is completely free, the result of a global, opensource, digital collaboration of thousands of programmers - none of whom were paid for their work. Futhermore, it runs on the equally free, opensource LAMP stack - Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP. Consider further that the site content is a collaboration of all of us sharing our knowledge for the greater good, without compensation of any kind. It is, in a word, revolutionary.
Technological change brings social and political change. It is all happening here and now. Snip from the Wired article:
We're not talking about your grandfather's socialism. In fact, there is a long list of past movements this new socialism is not. It is not class warfare. It is not anti-American; indeed, digital socialism may be the newest American innovation. While old-school socialism was an arm of the state, digital socialism is socialism without the state. This new brand of socialism currently operates in the realm of culture and economics, rather than government—for now.
The type of communism with which [Bill] Gates hoped to tar the creators of Linux was born in an era of enforced borders, centralized communications, and top-heavy industrial processes. Those constraints gave rise to a type of collective ownership that replaced the brilliant chaos of a free market with scientific five-year plans devised by an all-powerful politburo. This political operating system failed, to put it mildly. However, unlike those older strains of red-flag socialism, the new socialism runs over a borderless Internet, through a tightly integrated global economy. It is designed to heighten individual autonomy and thwart centralization. It is decentralization extreme.
Instead of gathering on collective farms, we gather in collective worlds. Instead of state factories, we have desktop factories connected to virtual co-ops. Instead of sharing drill bits, picks, and shovels, we share apps, scripts, and APIs. Instead of faceless politburos, we have faceless meritocracies, where the only thing that matters is getting things done. Instead of national production, we have peer production. Instead of government rations and subsidies, we have a bounty of free goods.
I
Boldly going...
This is Roddenberry techno-libertarian utopian stuff...and I like it. I agreed with Marx only when he got to the state melting away part..
Ultimately Treg is right in this thread. Intellectual Property is an arbitrary (I would argue, illegitimate) monopoly granted by the state..so what you are describing is ideas wanting to be free. This is classic libertarianism.
But, thinking about the future and words like "socialism"....I always answer my friends who describe socialism as a solution for this or that with an, "awesome, I am with you, let's do it...only let's make it completely voluntary and with no use of violence."
That is kind of a stumper.
genius!
"I always answer my friends who describe socialism as a solution for this or that with an, "awesome, I am with you, let's do it...only let's make it completely voluntary and with no use of violence." "
you, sir, are a genius.
"none of whom were paid"? I guess you are very much mistaken...
In 2007 the complex software that makes the DP possible is completely free, the result of a global, opensource, digital collaboration of thousands of programmers - none of whom were paid for their work.
None??? Every top-level full-time programmer on any well-known project is pretty much gainfully employed. Tell many ones who are working for IBM, Intel, RedHat and likes that they are not "paid"! :)
Others, like me, are paid to do something else, and it happens to be that we contribute patches, or, at least, bug reports, to make sure that critical piece of software we happen to use is maintained to be even more useful to us.
Yet others are "paid" in experience they gain, maybe a line on their resume...
To call this normal healthy eco-system "socialist" is quite a bit of a stretch, especially considering that even GNU Public License (GPL), often ridiculed as product of "communist hippies" mentality *explicitly* permitted, if not encouraged, selling software -- only with the caveat that it should come with the source code, and recipient (who bought the whole package, after all!) is allowed to do anyhting, including starting selling the result, or giving it out for free.
Just my $0.02...
Paul B.
Here's some data to back this argument up
The center of the free Linux operating system is referred to as the Kernel. Here is a recent look at who contributed to the the Linux Kernel (version 2.6.20) and who they work for:
http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/
Look down towards the bottom of the article (just before the comments section) and you'll see who is paying for Linux kernel development.
So, while there are still people who contribute to free software in their free time, many are paid these days. A great example is Linus Torvalds, who started the Linux operating system project unpaid, but has since been employed to work on Linux for many years now.
Support and join your fellow Idaho Ron Paul Republicans.
So the people who took control of the media in the late 1800's
are going to let the NET slide?
Oh Gosh! They have lost control! the media is FREE!
I disagree. The lie index is just as high here as elsewhere on the net we just fight about them enough to make it livable.
Wired is controlled media....like this is news. If Wired says it it is because Wired was TOLD to say it.
Thanks for the site Mike and no I don't agree with you on much....you are my hero for the site though...not for what you think.
Unify
I'm scared. Why are you fear mongering?
I need to cry now. You scared me with your scary talk.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
Not a surprising outcome
Programmers who want to volunteer their time to help improve the world are no different than traditional volunteers helping to construct a house for poor people. There are very few tangible assets involved and people are more than happy to give their time towards a worthy cause. This has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with the bounty of goods that capitalism brings about. If it were not for capitalism, these would-be volunteers wouldn't have enough excess resources to afford sacrificing their time without compensation. I know, I'm one of them. If I had to grow my own garden, sew my own clothes, and build my own shelter, I wouldn't have time to write code at all, much less invent the computer to write it on.
This fake-phenomenon kind of reminds me of the film Zeitgeist Addendum which is absolutely overflowing with similar fallacies.
I call it
evolution in the spirituality of our humanity, an ascention, if you will, to the next level in this grand game we call Life!
. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!
Michael, its not socialism...it libertarianism...pure and simple
If you recall other posts that I and others have made time and again here at DP about COPYRIGHTS & PATENTS and other forms of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?
The key point to get is that Copyrights and Patents are NOT property at all. These are just another government monopoly grant. That is it plain and simple.
Jefferson made what is and is not property clear with his famous Candle and Flame example. To take my candle, I suffer a loss and must replace my candle, it is indeed property. But to take the flame from my candle to light your own candle, I suffer no loss, thus it is NOT property. This is true of all such recipes, formulas, codes, designs, ....which is to say, you and I gain a positive Externality -- Economists speak--- from all such discoveries and inventions. It is one of the many reasons we live socially, that we can benefit from the many positive externalities of social life. But government steps in, grants a monopoly of some duration, in an attempt to Internalize the benefit to the creator/discoverer -- its clearly a monopoly grant. The founders knew this, why else would they not make it a fee simple title, that is property forever?
It is a mental change, for sure. But we must STOP thinking of intellectual 'property rights" as property rights, it is not, and its causing MORE HARM than GOOD. Intellectual Property IP, is not property, its the flame.
You might immediately grasp that our economy would look different, very different. But I contend it would be a good thing.
Our situation I believe, is much like the legend of the murderous and feirce tribe from the mountains. They killed every boar and deer in sight, leaving no big game to hunt. So hungry were they, they headed for the coast to hunt small rabbits. Once at the coast and finding no more rabbits, they swam the mile to the nearest island to look for game. Once there they soon killed and ate the few boars and rabbits living there. Now having nothing to eat, they grew weak, looking in the water for disgusting crabs, shells, and lobster. They just could not imagine such things as food, so strange was the look of crabs, shells, and lobster....they all soon starved to death.
By this story I mean we continue to follow the boars and deers of Intellectual Property rights only to find them harder and harder to find. DNA research has provided many rabbits that companies gobble up, and Disney lobbies to have copyrights extended still more, more than what was once in the Constitution. This chase for government Grants, IP, is a bad chase, that leads to bad allocations of capital, gross market distortions, and most of all, denies to us all, the positive externalities of social living.
In peace and liberty,
Treg
Invest in Liberty, one Apartment deal at a time with me. Get a check each month as a passive investor, just ask me how.
What is intellectual property?
As of this point I must say that I still believe a book I have written would be my intellectual property.
I can give a way my book, or I could sell it, it would be my creation I can do what I wish.
I recall the sculpture analogy:
Who owns the sculpture which was brought into existence only by the creative mind of the artist?
Is that not intellectual property?
But do you have any suggestions,
I am currently studying econ at LVM institute, no time to read Stephan Kinsella.
Could you please elaborate further?
Thanks Treg.
I like this one of yours . . . " positive externalities of social living".
peace and liberty Treg.
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
I agree, It's not
I agree, It's not Socialism!
It's actually Freedom, pure and simple.
Don't condone Socialism by redefining it..
People Freely contribute to Open Source initiatives for the betterment of all.. For they see it in line with their principles. They are helping to create a world they envision.
Agreed! Not Socialism, but FREEDOM.
robpatozz
www.trueworldhistory.info
www.campaignforliberty.com
www.endthefed.us
Rob P.
www.RonPaulButtons.com
www.trueworldhistory.info
www.RonPaul2012.com
Interesting Article
The author is playing the dangerous game of using the original definition of the world Socialism instead of what it became. He does, however, clarify what "Old" versus "New" socialism is.... in some sense, he's not letting on the analogy of NS to the free market enough. Much like the free market, NS thrives on effort and quality as differentiators. He is right though in that the money is not paid directly back for effort.
Solid article which provides much food for thought. I think some of these NS / capitalist hybrid models are the future. Certainly, I use a game engine in which the majority of documentation I use is not produced by the company but rather for free by its community. The engine developers make money by more users finding their software accessible and making a purchase, and documentation creators gain reputation, skill, and potential contract work.
Chris
cascadiagames.com
So where do the users get the energy to do this ?
The game engine documentation was not "free" it was shared with you.
It took effort to produce the documentation, effort that could have been expended somwhere else. We can only conclude that the people who do this have a lot of extra energy, to the point that they can give their energy away. For some reason they choose to give that energy to the engine developers, as well as the community of users, but the engine developers benefit the most from it.
Now say they have the energy to do this because they are on welfare. Where does the energy come from to do this documentation ? Say they work for a subsiudized defense contractor or a public university. Say they are getting a subsidized student loan, and are a college student. Some of the energy to do this work comes directly from the government, which comes from taxpayers/ borrowing / printing money
Why won't the company do the documentation, since it helps them sell their software ?
I get the energy from my
I get the energy from my efforts toward my own games biz (which I do part-time, after my full-time day job ends). Often, I may see others struggling with issues I've solved, so I'll share some code and comments. Voila, the company now has new documentation.
I haven't met a single person who's on welfare. Most of us work full-time but have a dream of financial independence via our own software and contract work.
The engine developers do provide their own docs as well. But in my experience, the community documentation has been the most helpful by far.
My guess is folks do it for the combination of reputation / experience (which can lead to contract offers) and genuine charity (as I've done before).
Chris
cascadiagames.com
I guess my use of Energy was not clear
I meant where do you get the free time. I can understand the motivations, and they are all very positive.
The free time comes from a high standard of living, and/or from small families, and fewer responsibilities. Some may get some free time by denying themselves recreation. most people can afford to pay for many things that you would otherwise have to do for yourself - House repair, cooking, yard work, house cleaning, laundry, taking kids to little league, etc. or you have purposely minimized these responsibilities - no kids, live in an apartment, etc. This gives you the free time, but someone must pay the tab for this free time in the long run.
I agree and disagree
I agree and disagree. I agree it can take time away from other activities. I disagree in that this would be energy otherwise put toward better uses. I've substituted watching television in favor of working on my games.
For the record, I do not hire people for home services (lawn, cooking, et al), and I live in a house. No kids yet... it certainly will be interesting to see how that adventure affects things. All of these things I pay for with my full-time day job.
But, I should be clear, I do make money as well off of my software. It's simply that sometimes when I come up with a clever solution, I give it away without charge to other developers. In that sense it's "free." I've expended no additional energy by sharing my working (unless you count the point and click necessary). :)
Chris
cascadiagames.com
its not socialism
its not socialism if it is forfeited without force. if i wanted to make a pie and share it with my neighbors, then that's not socialism.
socialism is when somebody makes a rule making me bake a pie for my neighbor.
the free source meme took off because ingenuity was motivated to fight monopoly. the competition existed between free stuff and not-so-free stuff.
Don't waste your time with this article
The guy in the article claims that Obama's internet campaign helped him get elected. Why didn't Ron Paul get elected then? He goes between socialism and capitalism but never identified the Internet as a medium of freedom.
Reading this is a waste of time. A great opportunity to write something profound and came out with nothing.
It works great for intellectual property.
If I run an application, that doesn't stop anyone else from using it.
It doesn't work so well for tangible "stuff".
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
This is a great article
It might make a good case for voluntary taxes - I tend to think paying voluntary taxes is a better analogy for Open source.
However, In the end there is the energy requirement to produce software, etc. Net sharing succeeds because people have excess energy that they are willing to share. That excess energy comes from borrowing energy from the Chinese, and other countries where labor is cheap. The peasants in china would not lend us their energy if they were not forced to by their masters. So this whole system of free stuff doesn't come out of thin air, it is squarely on the backs of the poor of the world.
Now who is benefitting from this voluntary neo-socialism ? We all are to some extent - but then I did see that many new netbooks are shipping with ubuntu. The people that have the most energy to use and who control the most resources benefit the most from voluntarily produced infrastructure.
So, while I love the free apps, you can't help but wonder who is really paying for it ? - The only light I see for this is Kiva or something similar. Being a typical paranoid DPer, I need more information before I can say Kiva, or things similar will be a good thing.
The internet is conspiring to do us good . . . .
by creating an atomosphere enabling home base business'.
Further, I believe that the best ecomomic model for the future of mankind
will come from the multi level marketing industry.
"It is designed to heighten individual autonomy and thwart centralization.
Instead of national production, we have peer production.
Instead of state factories, we have desktop factories connected to virtual co-ops.
While old-school socialism was an arm of the state, digital socialism is socialism without the state."
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
This is the reason I see the possibilities in Zeitgeist
Technology, whether people like it or not, will replace human labor. The question is are we going to let a few people control the machines through political illusions or are we going to let everyone participate according to their aptitude?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Start getting freedom today by dumping Federal Reserve Notes, Stocks, Banks and anything made outside the USA. Buy precious metals, real estate, businesses, food and guns and get your business community to use local or sound currenc
Technology already has
replaced human labor. However, in the free market people who can afford better will always want "hand-made" stuff: hand car washes, hand-made clothes, etc.
The world already has enough technology to operate on the "work one day eat all year" maxim. The reason we don't is because people always strive to live in the nicer home, drive the latest Mercedes and these things cost money. On top of that we have a bunch of parasites in government and welfare that we have to work for as well.
ARE you nuts ?
Physical labor is the last remaining TRUE profit maker without which nothing will last ...Sorry
you-no
A computer illiterate's point of view
I am a computer illiterate, so I'm not coming from a technical perspective in my opinion of the Wired article.
Steve Jobs produced a fewGrateful Dead events, John Barlow wrote a few "Bobby" songs, and together, they established "The Web", which established, "The Grateful Dead Forum", which, at concerts, tents were set up with computers, you could access for free to communicate, set lists, tape/boot swaps, information about meeting people. I consider Barlow one of the founders of Wired because Wired is the magazine you would see at most dead heads's houses.
I don't know how much you know about the Grateful Dead culture, but I think it is really important to consider when reading Kelly's case for socialism on the Web/Net. The majority of blogs are NOT as successful as Daily Paul, who is not as successful as the Grateful Dead Forum when the net was much freer than it is today. Either Michael doesn't have the tools to share, or he has reasons to not share.. and this is where the socialism falls flat. I don't believe for one minute John Barlow would give anything to anyone for free, if he was not so "Phat", he could afford to be generous. I have thought many times, the media laws coming down were all about protecting those who had established tools, like California's Prop 13, which protects homepowners from property tax raises. You had to have purchased your house in the 70s to have qualified. Everyone else pays more taxes, that rise with each now Governor. The Net is the same I believe, some are protected with laws that were established to protect THEIR property.
I feel like Michael's blog, for example is only a embellished chat room in a mother ship which Michael has agreements. Where's the socialism in that? It's capitalism (assured profit for those who own the mother ship) for those like Barlow, and socialism for the sharing masses... because Barlow NEEDS traffic for everyone, becasue that is how HE profits.
We used to have deep conversations about socialism and capitalism at Dead shows.. Barlow represented capitalism, and he had an "angry" mob, and I say mob becasue Jerry represented socialism, and many people were seduced into socialism. Socialism was this idea that everyone cared about you, but the truth was, the majority were not there for you. We expected you to be responsible for yourselves. We were a co-alation of the willing to come together to profit off each others talent, and many made profits off others socialist efforts.
To drive this point, the Grateful Dead allowed and encouraged free taping of their shows, which lasted three days, and the NET was employed to trade these free tapes (boots). You could not sell a tape, only trade. The Grateful Dead did not attempt to make a profit off recordings. The profit was in ticket sales. This is how Barlow operates.
Here is a little documentary on my tribe, which was made before the net was incorporated. I still have my Gratful Dead Forum tee shirt.. something we wore at shows with our nicknames on them like football team. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsLP9syh0EU
Those who invested $100K in the net a decade ago have protection those who paid NOTHING are under contract and why Kelly is like so many sweet dead heads who thought the whole thing was just one big happy LOVE fest. It's not.
Also I loved how Kelly suggests the net is MSM. Less than a year after the election... If elections were not rigged, Ron Paul was the people's choice for president...
WELCOME HOME!!!
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
I think it needs a name
other than Socialism because I don't think it is that. I would call it Daaa because I can't come up with a better word. LOL
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
IT is called Daaaaumb, You
IT is called Daaaaumb, You down to "their" technology..YOU own nothing it is virtual..You are open to whomever & there are no secrets on the internet...Simple reason..They have a few brainwashed I see.
you-no
It's "free" to a point
Most open-source software can be downloaded and used for free. However, most of these companies aren't without profit motive. If you need support or a production SLA (service level agreement) then you will have to dig just as deep as any Microsoft or IBM product. This isn't a complaint at all, just an observation.
Others, such as Yahoo, Google, etc. provide free access to their web services so that you can integrate their extremely cool widgets into your site. GoogleMaps is one example. Though perhaps not as obvious, these also have profit motives behind the scenes.
So while the "movement" is worth certainly working for, in the end it's all about the Benjamins (or Maple Leafs, if so inclined), and there's nothing wrong with that.