ESR Dismisses PRC "Official Linux" Announcement

webmaven writes "Eric S. Raymond reacts in this LinuxToday story to the recent press regarding the Chinese government oficially adopting Linux. He dismisses the story as untrue, and furthermore states that the principles of the PRC are incompatible with the voluntary cooperation that is the spirit of the Open Source movement." But it's not just China. Apparently Cubans like Linux too. So read Eric's essay and decide for yourself whether this is good, bad or all just hot air. Comments?

Kneejerkin' fun

There I was, all prepared to slag off ESR for "presuming to speak for the whole Linux community", when he goes and apologises for it in advance.

My only problem is the bit about the "repressive ideals of Communism".

It's worth noting that there *are* *no* communist states in the world today, whatever they choose to call themselves. Every country which has tried to become communist, has ended up being something else. If you want to know why, read Animal Farm.

... and yeah, the Chinese Government sucks, and it'd do Linux a whole lot of harm if people in general thought that the average Linux hacker had any sympathies with them.
--

It looks to me like

ESR is hoping this is a hoax, as opposed to actually believing it is. Will he retract if it turns out to be true?

His problem with China adopting Linux is purely political (which after reading the LinuxToday article is what I came away with). And though I don't disagree with his sentiment, I don't see that there's a way he can stop it from happening. There's no control group watchdogging Linux that can actually keep a specific customer (let alone an entire country) from using it.
-------------------------------------------

Just because the PRC likes it...

Just because China likes Linux does _not_ mean that Linux is somehow intrisically communist. Most countries, including communist ones use almost entirely Windows, which doesn't make BillG a communist. Also, why does everyone think that just because _most_ communist ideals are mistaken, that they all are? Can't there be certain issues that communists and capitalists agree on, even if for different reasons? There is a line between communists and capitalists, but that line is not everywhere. Nice people are communists, nice people are capitalists. Bad people are communists, bad people are capitalists. Communists just don't understand the free market, and generally don't understand democracy, but that doesn't make everything they do eeeevil.

ESR

It does sound alittle fishy, doesn't it? But if it's true, ESR does not speak for me, nor I suspect alot of my fellow geeks. I'm all for anything that could get China moving towards a 'free' society more quickly. Using linux probably isn't going to spark a revolution out there, but it may open their citizen's eyes up alittle more to alternative ways to doing things. And in an ironic way, this is an admission by their government that they weren't 'on the ball' - they were afterall using Windows long after linux had been proven as a technically superior platform. The thought of freeing 1/6th of the world population in one fell swoop is enticing.. but if there's one thing I've learned about governments and societies it's that change occurs slowly. There will be no slashdot effect in China.

--

A couple of observations...

1) People here who are saying that the PRC is not communist aren't (necessarily) doing it because they're communist{s/ sympathizers :)}. The fact is that about half of the PRC's GDP comes from the private sector, and that Deng XiaoPeng's "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" isn't really...socialism, in a lot of ways. In China Wakes, Nicholas Krystof discusses this and ends up saying that the PRC is fascist, or authoritarian. Structurally and Economically speaking, "communist" just doesn't fit, except that in America, it's a catch-all for anything that's Bad(tm). See completely random usage of "that's so GAY," for corroborating case studies.

2) Just because the PRC government is bad doesn't mean that the Chinese people are bad. Don't forget that.

3) Things have changed a bit, i hear, since the bubble bu...sort of deflated, but from what i've heard, most of the people in the PRC don't currently give a crap about the government one way or the other. They will, I'd bet money on it, but right now they don't.

4) General Pinochet was our friend. The guy(s) in Guatemala were our friends. Suharto was our friend. With friends like that, where the fuck do you find the moral standing to say who is your enemy?

One Unfortunate Part of Eric's Message

In this message [lwn.net] Eric Raymond writes that a story about China adopting Linux as its official OS is a fraud. It is a fraud, and Eric is functioning appropriately as a spokesperson within the free software community when he says so. Eric's been doing a pretty good job lately, and I appreciate that. Unfortunately, Eric writes:

It may be too much to hope that this statement will head off a flurry of snide opinion pieces divagating about "open-source communism"; the clumsy rhetoric of some of our past ambassadors may have made that outcome inevitable.

Experienced observers in the free software community will note that Eric can't help engaging in one of his favorite pastimes, taking a jab at Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation. The problem with this is that Stallman is emphaticaly not a communist. In Stallman's own words: Karl Marx didn't invent helping your neighbor. It's true, however, that references to communism are often used to discredit many of the best things about community spirit. We don't want to see that strategy used against Linux, but Eric engages in that himself by deprecating Stallman in his China message, a message in which he deliberately takes on the mantle of speaking for the entire community. That's unfortunate.

In order to deflect talk of Linux being a "communist enterprise", we need to be clear about the relationship of Free Software (Open Source) to communism. Free software does create a "commons": a sort of publicly-owned property, collectively maintained for the good of all. Karl Marx didn't invent that either, it's a critical aspect of every community, and most capitalistic enterprises would wither without a publicly-owned infrastructure to support them. Consider, for example, that money is part of that infrastructure. That's the message I'd like to carry to the press: having a commons, helping our neighbors, and protecting our freedoms should not be equated to communism.

Thanks

Bruce Perens

PRC != communism

If that's your definition of communism (that the government runs all and owns all), then China hasn't been communist since the late seventies. The PRC has allowed private ownership of property and private economic ventures since at least that time, and probably before (remember "to grow rich is glorious"?).

If you look at history, you'll see that communism turned out to be a particularly bad idea. But if you looked at the 19th century, you'd come to the same conclusion about capitalism. Don't forget that communism was a reaction to the horrors of the industrial-capitalist state. No doubt libertarianism, especially the objectivist strains, is a reaction to the horrors of the communist state. I don't hold any great hopes for libertarian utopias, however.

I think that you misunderstand the central concepts of communism. The ruling class is supposed to govern for the benefit of the working class (the workers are presumably the bulk of the population). The benefit or ill of individual citizens is secondary to the "big picture" and the good of the masses. Dissolving and collectively owning property is the means to the end, which is a government for the people; a state without individual property is presumably a state of peers (this is demonstrably false, but is rarely pointed out) with interests in common.

Chinese and Russian communism started out on what Marx would consider the absolute wrong foot - agrarian economies, where they had to appeal to small landholders and tenant farmers, and had to go through the process of accumulating capital to industrialize - and it goes without saying that communism is probably the worst system for accumulating capital. With ongoing industrialization, they created further class distinctions. Perhaps they did it better than the nineteenth-century western economies, and perhaps not, but it certainly wasn't pretty and the result isn't pretty.

As for ESR, I think that he should get his knee looked at. It's perfectly possible to indulge in volunteerism in a communist society; it's perfectly possible to indulge in volunteerism in a capitalist society, too. (Of course, in Eric's libertarian-anarchist political ramblings, there's nothing but volunteerism). Still, volunteerism is whollly tangential to developing in an open-source environment; the point is, and always was, to promote further and faster development for the sake of development and developers rather than venture capitalists and entrepreneurs.


--

ESR doesn't understand communism

He obviously has communism and fascism confused. Granted, there are fascist aspects of any communist government, but the Chinese government is a pretty good example, all things considered, of a large-scale communism. Yes, the voluntary aspects are forced upon people, but it's to the point that the people embrace it as their only way of life. I recommend reading the old Doonesbury [doonesbury.com] strips from when Duke was an emmissary to China for a rather accurate (as far as I know, anyway - I'm not Chinese nor have I ever lived in China) portrayal of the Chinese government and the popular American conception of it.

ESR certainly doesn't speak for me. He has no right to claim that he speaks for me. I was all for the idea of China adopting Linux as an official OS, and it also makes sense, considering that GNU/Linux is the current choice of Richard Stalin^H^Hlman. (I don't mean that as a slur, either. I'm a pinko leftie communist at heart. :)

ESR needs to realize that not everyone in the free software movement is an opensource libertarian.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.

This is a non-issue

Look guys... I really think this whole China/Linux thing is a non-issue. First, I agree with ESR that the story is probably mistaken at best and most probably fraudulent. But what if it is true? So what! Who cares?

Linux is not about politics. It's not about communism, democracy, monarchism, or even libertarianism. Yes, many Linux developers and users have strong views on these subjects. I have strong views myself. But that's not what Linux is about.

Linux is about technology. It's about the freedom to use the best technology available, and if what's available is not the best, improve it until it is the best. If China chooses to use Linux, so be it! I think it's great: a billion+ people who use Linux as their default OS? Are you kidding me? This is great!

We don't need to get involved in the politics. Using an OS is not a political statement. And I think the best thing for us to do is to totally ignore this. Why waste our time, energy, and ideology arguing about something that doesn't really matter and we couldn't change even if we wanted to?

Worse, to the extent that you get involved in the politics you will lose focus on the technology. Don't you think there's a good reason why Linus tries to remain aloof from all this kind of stuff?

I fully respect ESR,

But I feel that he is letting his own political views get in the way, in this instance. There is nothing inherently clashing between the Chinese interpretation of the communist doctorine and the Open Source concept, simply because the two don't relate.

There's far more potential for clashes between capitalist America, with it's ideals of profit, personal gain and personal success, yet America has no issue with Open Source at all. Indeed, many companies (IBM, Hewlett Packard, Netscape, Intel, Creative Labs, Corel, etc) have dived whole-heartedly into the entire Open Source movement.

In the end, you can ALWAYS interpret Open Source principles in such a way as to agree with your own personal political and/or theological viewpoint, and you can ALWAYS make use of Open Source to advance yourself, no matter what you believe or where you are.

To argue that China "can't" adopt Open Source is as ludicrous as claiming IBM would never release the code to it's Java compiler. Sorry, but if IBM can see past it's prejudices, to take advantage of an emerging philosophy, so can anyone else.

IMHO, it's more important and more useful to debate -whether- something is happening, than to argue blindly that it can't be.

Bleh

I wonder how all those Guatemalans, Columbians, Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, Peruvians, Bolivians, Chileans, Argentines, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, Indonesians, Timorese, Iranians, Iraqis, Haitians, Angolans, Congolese, Zairians--the list could go on a lot longer--who've been murdered at the behest of (if not by) the US in the name of anticommu^W corporate profits would view ESR's righteous sniffings about "freedom, increased choice, and *voluntary* cooperation." He might try reading Michael McClintock's _Instruments of Statecraft_ [amazon.com] or Mark Danner's _Massacre at El Mozote_ [amazon.com] before pontificating on the subject of human rights again.

Re:It looks to me like

The problem is that the Open Source movement -cannot- and -should not- interfere with the choice of users. So long as the licences are honored, we have no say-so over who uses the software, or for what. Freedom cannot simply be dispensed to those we choose to like, and withheld from the rest.

If we're going to argue the moral issues, things get even more complex. How many people who buy a gun consider that they're giving money to a company which WILL spend it on making devices which are even more efficient killing machines. If they consider it at all, they accept that as the consequence of their choice, and that how those machines are used are not part of the deal. Your choice doesn't affect anyone else's choice. Their decisions are their own. Yes, you fund the means, but the choices of others are theirs and theirs alone.

(I use that example, which is likely to be explosive, precicely because ESR is an avid pro-gun person. That's his choice, and nobody has any right to say it's good or bad, but choice is two-edged. If we can expect the freedom to choose, then so can everyone else. Including China.)

As for "public retractions", "de-politicising", etc, stop and think for a moment. Is Open Source about manipulating and spin-doctoring? Or about coding for the love of coding, to scratch an itch?

If we resort to spin-doctoring to "fix" someone else's decision, to control or manipulate someone else's reaction, we're no better than the worst excesses of politicians or corporations. That is one hell of a slippery slope, and woe betide all who choose to go that route.

Keep your eye on the ball, NOT your opponents, NOT the grandstands, and DEFINITELY NOT the people you are hoping to impress. Focus on them, and you'll fall flat on your face, and that's no way to impress anyone. Go out and focus on what you're trying to achieve. Leave other people to react as they will. Do that, and their reaction won't matter. And THAT gives them the freedom to react well, in a way that matters and will last.

Re:RMS bashing

... so he couldn't resist getting some RMS-bashing in.

I hadn't picked up on that one, but obviously you're right.

At first, I was turned off by RMS's abrasiveness, his aggressive and judgemental polemics. ESR is completely correct when he calls RMS's rhetoric clumsy. RMS is totally lacking in tact, diplomacy, flattery or any other useful skill of self promotion, despite this our industry, and possibly soon all of society is going to be transformed by his ideas.

You've got to respect that.

RMS's style is not politic, but it is candid, rigorous and bracing. It cuts right to the point without flourish or elaborately constructed and analogies. It's only radical because it's simply not media-credible to care about freedom for freedom's sake rather than for efficiency's sake.

When did caring about freedom go out of style in our culture?

I'm impressed by ESR's self-restraint

There are a few of us who have a soft spot for the theoretical Communist ideal of "from each according to his ability, to his each according to his need"; but I am certain that even that minority would not care to be associated with the totalitarian and murderous government of Communist China -- unrepentant perpetrators of numerous atrocities against its own people.

I "met" ESR about ten years ago, when I was an undergraduate reading talk.politics.misc and similar netnews groups. He failed to convince me to become an anarcho-capitalist; I failed to convince him that libertarianism was bunk. But we both tried really, really hard.

The mainstream media now see ESR as a spokesman for Open Source in general and for Linux in particular, and it seems like most geeks are hard-core libertarians. ESR could use his media visibility to argue for libertarian political goals, instead of arguing that Open Source software is good for people of all political stripes.

As one of the people who has a soft spot for "from each according to his ability...", I am glad that he passed up his most recent opportunity to do this.

(Note that in his article, ESR does not criticize the Chinese government's control over the economy; the only specific Chinese atrocity he mentions is the Tiannamen Square massacre.)

Where Marx was right

Care to show us some correct ones?

Oh, I think Marx hit the nail on the head with his "alienation of labor" idea -- that is, industrial labor is qualitatively different from agrarian/craft labor, because (1) the laboror is no longer in control of the "means of production", so he is working for somebody else, not himself, and (2) industrial labor treats the worker as an automaton, not as a real human. Based on my experience in factory work, I think he was 100% correct there. And he was justifiably outraged at the horrific abuses going on in the factory sweatshops of the early 1800's.

Now, Marx was completely wrong about the nature of the human problem (Marxian thought holds that people are fine, generous, and unselfish by nature, and if we can only get the social structures right we can create utopia), about "historical inevitability" and the natural progressions of societies (so wrong, that Lenin had to drastically revise Marx to explain Russian Bolshevism, as KM taught that it would be impossible for a society to move directly from a peasent/agrarian state to a Communist state without industrialization first -- precisely what did happen in Russia). And, of course, so awfully wrong about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the "withering away" of the State that it would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Also, keep in mind that there are in fact many options besides Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" and Smith's "invisible hand" of laissez-faire capitalism. In fact, both stand for the concentration of working capital and the means of production in the hands of a few -- the difference being who those few are (Communists choose goverenment officials, Capitalists choose captitalists). For one alternative, try a search for "Distributism" [google.com], or simply read some of the political works of G. K. Chesterton [chesterton.org], such as What's Wrong With The World [ccel.org]

Big Business and State Socialism are very much alike, especially Big Business.
-- G. K. Chesterton