# RMS Interview: Free Software as a Social Movement

There is an interesting [interview with Richard Stallman][1] (RMS)
at Znet. It seems they have been pondering the idea of converting to
100% [free software][2], and spoke to RMS about it. For those that
have heard RMS speak, the first part of the interview is a condensed
version of his [History of GNU and Free Software][3] speech that he
gives frequently. It gets interesting near the end, however,
venturing into territory most interviewers neglect. Unlike [some
confused thinkers][4] (and [nicely debunked here][5]), I've long
thought that the Free Software movement was decidedly
[capitalist][6], in that it accepted software as a commodity and
encouraged competition and offered a profit motive for those who
offered high-quality services around Free Software. RMS touches on
this:

> _JP: I have read other interviews with you in which you said you
> are not anti-capitalist. I think a definition of capitalism might
> help here.
> RMS: Capitalism is organizing society mainly around business that
> people are free to do within certain rules. ...
> JP: But "anti-capitalists' use a different definition. They see
> capitalism as markets, private property, and, fundamentally, class
> hierarchy and class division. Do you see class as fundamental to
> capitalism?
> RMS: No. We have had a lot of social mobility, class mobility, in
> the United States. Fixed classes--which I do not like--are not a
> necessary aspect of capitalism.  However, I don't believe that you
> can use social mobility as an excuse for poverty. If someone who
> is very poor has a 5% chance of getting rich, that does not
> justify denying that person food, shelter, clothing, medical care,
> or education. I believe in the welfare state.
> JP: But you are not for equality of outcomes?
> RMS: No, I'm not for equality of outcomes. I want to prevent
> horrible outcomes. But aside from keeping people safe from
> excruciating outcomes, I believe some inequality is unavoidable.
> ...  I'm a Liberal, in US terms (not Canadian terms). I'm against
> fascism.
> JP: A definition would help here too.
> RMS: Fascism is a system of government that sucks up to business
> and has no respect for human rights. So the Bush regime is an
> example, but there are lots of others. In fact, it seems we are
> moving towards more fascism globally.

Something else I haven't heard about RMS before, is that he
discounted political action for direct action (i.e. coding) early
on, given that this was where his strengths were:

> _JP: It is interesting that you used the term "escape' at the
> beginning of the interview. Most people who think about
> "movements' think in terms of building an opposition, changing
> public opinion, and forcing concessions from the powerful.
> RMS: What we are doing is direct action. I did not think I could
> get anywhere convincing the software companies to make free
> software if I did political activities, and in any case I did not
> have any talent or skills for it. So I just started writing
> software. I said, if those companies won't respect our freedom,
> we'll develop our own software that does.

Still, RMS doesn't do too badly at politics, either, as he deftly
fits the Free Software movement in with the ideals of Znet's reader
base:

> _JP: Many of ZNet's readers see themselves as part of some
> movement -- anti-poverty, or anti-war, or for some other form of
> social change. Can you say something about why such folks ought to
> pay attention and relate to the free software movement?
> RMS: If you are against the globalization of business power, you
> should be for free software.
> JP: -- But it isn't the global aspect of business power, is it? If
> it were local business power, that wouldn't be acceptable?
> RMS: -- People who say they are against globalization are really
> against the globalization of business power. They are not actually
> against globalization as such, because there are other kinds of
> globalization, the globalization of cooperation and sharing
> knowledge, which they are not against. Free software replaces
> business power with cooperation and the sharing of knowledge.

That one idea, replacing business power with cooperation, is one
place where I think the Free Software model doesn't fit with the
definition of "perfect" capitalism, which is defined so as to
exclude altruism. There is no such thing as "perfect" capitalism,
however, and there [are][7] [many][8] [businesses][9] have made
hefty profits and still have been socially responsible.

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20060626132626/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=13&ItemID=9350
[2]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[3]: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
[4]: https://web.archive.org/web/20060509002759/http://www.zone-h.org/en/news/read/id=205983/
[5]: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2006-01-14-005-26-OP-CY-LL
[6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
[7]: http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
[8]: https://web.archive.org/web/20060705074904/http://www.benjerry.com/our_company/our_values/
[9]: https://web.archive.org/web/20060702211411/http://www.newmansown.com/commongood.cfm

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.unixlore.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.