22C3: Free Software and Anarchism



my name is Sandra gaiking I'm a researcher in science and technology studies in at the University of bielefeld basically in the OU des exists basically concerned with the philosophy of technology and philosophy of science and one of my focuses is actually to try to velop some anarchical theory of technology and from within this focus I I found it quite interesting to look at this connection of free software and anarchism which has been quoted frequently in the press over the past years so I'm going to talk a little on this whether it computes or not the structure of the talks going to be the following first of all I'm going to try to try and develop the connotation what actually led to the conversation between free software and anarchism second I'm going to sketch briefly what the other theory of anarchical technology will be about third will be then given this out outlines of an anarchical theory of Technology the case of free software is a case study within this theory and then my outcome main thesis so to speak will be that free software is not very in ARCA cool at all in fact not very political at all it's my opinion that we can debate about that and but still I believe that a certain demonstrative value can be obtained that will be the fourth part of this talk and then in the end so to speak i'll try to sketch just a few ideas for an article computing from within the anarchist theory of Technology so part one the conversation free software and anarchism the connotation actually stems from the if you compare certain patterns of software development the first pattern is the industrialised pattern of software development which is very rigid very framed very hierarchical because it's very expensive of course very very strict strictly ordered and of course the main feature which is which we come to terms with when we talk about free software's that is largely secret because of course it costs a lot of money and it's so to speak the capital of these of the of the companies to have their methods secret and some certain patterns of their design so these are some central characteristics of the industrialized development and if you now compare the free software development then it's basically guided by other principles it's more or less produced by users directly there is very little hierarchical ordering and I mean the official hierarchically ordering the citizen decisions are largely reached by consensus of the certain community which is concerned with it and in a way you could say it's cheap of course this is a strange thing to say about free software but it's actually the development is distributed among a lot of developers who are voluntarily working on these projects so it's in comparison not as expensive as huge companies were developing their software within very small groups and have to pay them for this and of course the most significant characteristic in the comparison with the industrialized civil design pattern is that it's design is largely open the source code is accessible and everybody is invited to look at it and to develop it further and by this also the success of free software during the last years has been guaranteed so if we have this comparison we can easily find some anarchical elements in it in in free software development from at least from this now colloquial meaning of anarchism first of all we don't have any leadership or hierarchies in such an explicit sense in which we find them in actual companies second the decision-making is largely consensus-based although their derivative models as well third the designer yet everybody who's actually designing it has individual design options so everybody who able to participate actually can change the design or bring something into it and work with it and of course most significantly is open for parts patient for everybody who wants to more or less open and you can also of course derive some negative notions from this colloquial meaning of anarchism which is basically connected to burning cars and things like this which has been has also been a part of the f UD initiative this fear uncertainty doubt initiative which was launched by the marketing came a marketing squat of Microsoft and they also use the term anarchism to describe free software to connote it to order lessness to bring in some notions that it has no stability and then of course it doesn't have any quality and such then another thing so these are basically the the features in which which allowed generally the connection and which have invited in the in the history of these these of the free software development the terms anarchism and arnica call development and what then happened during the last years was a certain politicization of the whole process of the whole free software development and this came to pass because the openers basically implied new models for for business new models for design new models for development and connected it to cooker to communities of designers and so there were whole new concepts on new models developing for concepts of property and concepts of design and all these things and these were very soon taken to as to take it to be very fundamental challenges towards general social structures in in late high capitalism and as such these were very easily extended to to some general notion of social reform which might be going on some some general sense of revolution which might actually happen through open open software free software and we see this currently developing that there are quite a few open x initiatives opening up in the number of aspects also directly more directly political projects like equinox and some other institutions who open up upon this idea so this whole first rather colloquial meaning of anarchism now got some political impact so was politically laden with the that there was something value valuable politically in this and what we now see is that actually quite a few quite a few developers or forefront figures of this field actually use this the term enter key to describe some certain set of values and certain political characteristics to actually describe free software like Stallman said it's a step towards the post-scarcity world and post-scarcity world as some as a term which was invented basically by americ book chin well I don't know if actually invented it but at least he has written a very very decisive article on it and he's a very good anarchists and that was the cornerstone of one of his Annika's theories so Stallman referred to that Milton said countif eyes are not equal methods at what Morgan says head has anarchists benefits and this Indian guy says it's an anarchist mode of communication I don't know what the name is so the connotation is there and it seems to imply that there's some sort of political and article thing going on with the free software but if you're actually an anarchist then you can easily find some preliminary criticism of the conversation namely that the that the whole concept of free software was not a very genuine anarchical program in the first place the connotation rather developed after the after the bell or after the free software development so was really attached later and then another point is that you do not find any explicit references to anarchical theories will try to met the certain certain features about open software free software which are really anarchic Oh suits rather really colloquial and so the the other points follow from that that the we have to assume cute this lack of references that the uses of the term anarchic L in this context have been rather metaphorical and rather stemmed from the colloquial understanding of anarchism and so the connection has been rather superb is superficial and as such the whole question which is guiding my talk is quite legitimate to actually ask if free software really is an article and now to judge this we will first have to develop as a brief sketch of what the anarchist theory of technology would be about and this is what we're going to do now so the first question which we of course have to ask ourselves is how can technology people be political after all I mean in a way you could say okay political politics and technology technology actually seems to be rather neutral can lend itself to purposes of course but it could also lend itself to good purposes or to bad purposes and so in a way it appears to be neutral but that really is something which has been rejected by philosophers of technology for the past well 30 years at least the new left with 1968 with Hobart marcuzzo made a turning point in this whole discussion of neutral pneus of Technology and we can now discern some rather clear clear factors in which technology has to be rated as to be political one of course is known ever since marks that technology of course is part of the productive force and as such part of the the productive force of the productive power of the people and as such it also substantially as a part of how as a certain society has to be designed as certain means to to get food and to get infrastructure and educate energy and so on and then another point is that technology actually often media liza's power scratches what we mean by this is a philosophical term of the media lies medial ization of power structures and what we mean by it is that certain certain governments or people who hold power are trying to introduce these powers or two to actually manifest these powers and certain technology which are then being made universal so everybody has to use them and then you have manifested these power structures and what follows is so a sort of an inherent necessity to follow these power structures because you have to use the technology one very clear example of courses surveillance or biometrical passports to give a very current example so that is an issue as well another of course is that some some technological structures also demand certain social structures to operate for example a big grid of subway and trains needs a very very competent organizing team and so on Sony needs hierarchies it needs certain levels of decision-making and so on so the whole technology of tread that the Train technology so to speak demands a certain social order in which it can function and another point of course is that it is a technology can also be a conceptual ideological paradigm which is a this is rather an abstract point which is being debated a lot in philosophy and how how far we think actually technologically and then how far of course we also think of our fellow humans as being technological items or something in some senses for example bureaucracies use or would do so quite often for them the people who are into the coming into the bureaucracy are just small parts of machines and so on so technology actually is quite political in many aspects and once we know that we can ask ourselves well if technology is such a political impact and this is so little neutral actually then we should really ask ourselves how we can we can construct technology in a political awareness starting from our political ideas and that would be sort of the picture we would have if we were political construct technologies politically aware we would have some political ideas and then develop the support of technologies for these political ideas and discard the destructive technologies which are so to say in the way of our political ideas and so this would be the general pattern to to derive or to come to a political theory of Technology and now to come to the political theory of anarchists technology we have to look at some demands anarchism would make and this would be rather brief and intuitional approach to anarchism could say the primary goal of anarchism is liberty freedom and individual liberty which is only limited by the liberty of others in a very direct way not this very media lized way in which it is mostly distributed by a democracy and from this primary goes some very simple demands can be derived the first set of demands would be a set of negative demands from also termed negative freedom by Isaiah Berlin and that would entail the abolition of authoritarianism and hierarchies of all sorts be they implicit or explicit would entail the abolition of any sorts of inequalities and as a result of that of course of some prevailing systems or thought patterns we have in our current society such as capitalism competition sexism and all these things and these are called negative demands negative freedom because they aim at abolishing something of something and distracting some sense something apart from that we can also clear out some positive demands the one of course is self-determination everybody should be able to really say what he wants to do in his life for himself then another demand which is not taken to be quite natural from from these demands it's a certain decentralization this is to say that the anarchists picture of society generally assumes that we have to decentralize these huge cities and huge compounds of humans because if you have cities which entail a couple of millions of people who have to have certain social orderings and you have to have hierarchies and you have to have police and everything and so really these very centralized structures which we have now really sort of demand or deterministically ordering and and and all these things and so it's generally assumed that we should decentralize these structures into communities or break up these structures into communities with each other little smaller communities and free association and these can be ranging from small community ideas around how that can be pursued up to communities of some to 3,000 members yes and among within these communities of course you have to have some sort of decision making process as well for example for processes which concern the community and these have to be these decision-making processes have to be based on some sort of free agreement so nobody is ruled over and there of course we have a couple of different models and within Eric histories how these goals can be how these positive demands can actually be implemented and in which scale and so on but basically this is this and free agreement for instance goes with the direct democracy would be one way or consensus where we everybody has to agree would be another way so now we have some demands from anarchism now we can we have this picture that we need if we can we can politically construct technologies from political ideas and we have this picture what the basic demands of anarchism won't be like now we can ask ourselves this question what is it an acute anarchical theory and that of course now simply be technology which supports the positive in a critical demands about trying to abolish the Menace's which are being stated in the negative demands and from this it's easy to draw some minimal demands as designed for for technologies which would enable anarchical communities actually to develop one of course would be that we should generally not allow technologies which media lies power principles such as biometrical passports should not be constructed or should not be a topic within energies technology then of course size and proportion is a substantial issue because if you have these decentralized communities in mind and then you have to action machines which actually work for these small communities are giving an example in in a second machines have to be fitted to local demands and to only a few workers who work them are not like tens of thousands also some demands concerned complexity and needed skill they have to be fitted to little organizations so they can actually be handled by small communities they have to be fitted to little training because we cannot expect everybody to be a specialist in a very highly advanced stage or something and they have to be very robust and sturdy technologies so that they do not need much maintenance and another point of causes resources has to be fitted to local resources as well with little energy and infrastructures so that these decentralized communities can actually live on their own without being is very dependent from global structures or international structures or anything so maximal demands have been outlined as well basically by Marie book to know is written a very good article on the anarchist technology and one maximal demand is full ultimate ation and full mechanization of any sort of production such that humans are really totally free to decide whatever they want to do in their life to be creative or do programming or whatever they want to do and there's a nice metaphor for this actually in a very nice science fiction story from German science fiction writer habit Frankie was unfortunately not very much translated into English and he is like 11 once science fiction story where people on earth just live and do whatever they want to and they only do sports and are everything and then there are these big holes in the in the floor everywhere and out of these holes come comes with everything they need like houses and cars and food and everything and so that would be the ideal model of technology which which an anarchist would sort of dream of to really liberate people from this necessity of work another maximum of the man of course would be that we would have a fully sustainable local production we wouldn't use renewable energies would not pollute our immediate surrounding and everything so we can really live in peace and don't need to well don't need to wage wars for its for instance due to our lack of oil or anything and then another demand which is quite interesting is the emergence of positive so called positive technologies which has been outlined by book gene and even ilic as well and this is some sort of concept of the technology which is not only there to produce things but which also enables people to to be more creative and to develop really their human potentials in a creative way and well but as I say this this theory has not been outlined very good so probably computers could be taken to be positive technologies in a way and so far as they can be used to for people to buy people to develop themselves yes and I also have some examples on what is being meant by this a negative example for example would be a large steel factory compound as we have found them within these Stalinist era of industrialization they build it like very huge centralized structures whole cities who were only concerned with the production of steel and they were really thousands tens of thousands of work is there and this of course needed hierarchical ordering needed the decision maker is specialists everything and the whole process was very becoming very inaccessible for the people who actually actually had to work there and then it also only produce more or less one product the Baron's of Steel had needed a very sophisticated access to resources need a lot of energy which again produced through the centralization and other places infrastructure and of course a big market a positive example on the other hand for an anarchy anarchical technology would be a son furnace to actually melt iron into steel which is just being worked by the Sun can be handled by 50 people about 50 people and you don't need any special skills to operate it you can produce a variety of products from it and its various uses very little resources can be switched on just for a date of production and then switched off and also as an energy of course only uses Sun energy and so on and really works for local demands so this would be a technology which would really enable a localized community to live independent of anything else and anyone else and really develop in freedom so these are the this is the brief sketch of the anarchists theory of technology or some just some outlines just to give a broad idea of what that could be and if we now have this in mind keep this in mind and now look at free software we can look at it in two ways the first way is to look at it as a technology in as such and as a technology we have to see that free software is basically a computer component of computers and so we have to look at computers as well the computer production now is very demanding at least in its current stage it needs a very rigid division of labor it has a lot of hierarchies has needs global resource infrastructure is because we need some resources very complex to get it consumes high amounts of energies and it really needs big markets and in the current ordering at least two to pay off so these are all things which we would from a point of production which we would generally but rather reject if we have the development of free communities in mind also the use of computers is not really accessible to everyone who wants one you know you need money first of all to buy it and quite a few people on earth don't have computers because they don't have the money then you need energy of course and you need a certain infrastructure like internet and what you also need is some specialists for maintenance for instance so this also has some demands on some sort of structure which you have to have 2x come to a computer and some other characteristics of computers are that they also predetermined in their possible uses and then they very often media lies power structures or at least they are very supportive in media lysing power structures to say this this other speech yesterday the lost war could actually be a result because computers lend themselves so very easily to media lies power and of course the computer as such is also proliferating social and ideological paradigms regarding hierarchy and authority because it is being maintained by specialists and is such not very accessible produces a hierarchy generally between laypeople and specialists and so on and implicitly purports the structures so that would be free software as a technology another way to look at it whether it would of course be and this of course of course the way a connection is meant the connotation is meant intended to be to look at free software is a technological design method and here we can see that it is of course partly anarchical because the decision-making is consensus based it is largely unguided except probably for some inherent necessities some internal logic of design in general it's an individually variable open nonprofit and we have seen this already but if we look into it more closely we have to see that the freedom actually is quite and framed namely by rules in the first place some there of course some implicit do's and don'ts and then we have all this copyleft stuff like the GPL and creative commons and that of course generally quite opposes the the whole idea of anarchism the introduction of rules is I think it was for call said that the it's a very stupid human idea idea that you think that you have to ensure freedom by rules and order because freedom is just the absence of rules in order so it's not a good idea in general to introduce rules to ensure freedom because it's just not the way freedom is and then you have quite often of course implicit more or less in places explicit hierarchical structures as in the case with lineups for example then it also requires specialist not so the whole thing is actually quite quite quite easy Tareq can only be mayor pursued by people who are really into these sorts of things that programmers so to speak so it's really not open to everyone but only to people who have a very sophisticated education already then another point is that it also often uses capitalist measurements to to to value itself it often refers to how how profitable it is or how productive it is to actually measure its value and one thing we cannot forget in the whole design if we even if we look at it as a design method is that it is still also a technology which associate presupposes computers as a technology which again bring in all these other things which are not very light by an anarchists theory of Technology so my judgment somehow is that free software is not a very genuine anarchical technology as a technology as I said it happens only with in computers which need extensive capitalistic production methods there is still in a way a luxury commodity more or less although of course people are working to to get to make them more accessible to everyone and they're very often and very easily media lies power structures and as a design method this is then framed by rules by implicit hierarchies and only accessible by specialists so for my point of view free software is not a very good anarchical technology at all so the connotation is not very valid at all and or at least this political connotations but still I believe that even if we if we set these things aside and these political hopes and connections aside still as a certain demonstrative value can be obtained by it namely a value within the certain arguments which is being put forward by capitalists and authoritarian is because they argue that effective production and development really needs hierarchical structures needs competition and it needs money to really make make people work and development design so creativity basically needs money it's the whole argument which also been fought forward against these free software copyleft and other things as well that the financial stimulus is really not there and people really start to be lazy and don't do anything anymore and as far as that is concerned this of course also is an argument which is being bought for fourth fourth against anarchists theories as well so them quite a few people actually say that anarchism would never work because people would only be lazy if they could choose whatever they want to do that was certainly not produce or certainly not develop things and development sort of needs competition and all these things to happen but here actually we can say they're free software has demonstrated quite the opposite namely that quality and productivity do not need all these capitalistic measures but are actually quite quite obtained quite well also in in the absence of these structures so from this point of view we can take free software to be a case study against this electric connection of production and development and profit and authority so it sort of supports the claim that a society which would not be based on capitalistic and hierarchical ordering would still be productive and probably even more so if you look at the rate in which free software development actually takes place in comparison to the industrial developmental pattern so free software actually is politically valuable but just as a case study for this specific kind of argument but I wouldn't take it to be political in itself and I wouldn't take the whole discussion about it to be so very revolutionary after all because it really happens just in a very tiny space somewhere so you know this is my judgment of free software basically and now what I wanted to add were some additional ideas for anarchical computing which can be obtained from sort of as a lesson from these from this judgment and from within this theory of anarchist technology one idea of course would be to further liberate free software by abandoning rules and implicit hierarchies and all these things so to throw away a Creative Commons throwaway GPL and all that stuff and throw away all these implicit hierarchies who and do's and don'ts and just do things you know and even if they're illegal then still just do it you know I mean who's gonna stop you another point would be to make sure you make make programs and programming a lot easier so really everyone can participate and not only programmers and specialists you know like uh none expertise these things to really make them accessible to people because you cannot sensibly speak that really everyone can access these and everyone can participate in this process if you really have to have a very sophisticated education so that would be a point another point would be to actually write free machine software which would work on machines which are specific production machines which can be used by smaller communities and to free them from company dependence this would also be a program for it for instance for third world come to third world countries who often obtain these sorts of technologies mostly from Siemens but then these technologies are so have such as sophisticated software that they're really have a lifelong dependence on these companies to maintain the software and everything so this would really be some very concrete thing where some free software would have entirely different value in comparison to our free entertainment software more or less then another point of course which has been has been sketched also a number of times i believe already is to actually design free hardware of course this does not mean to be free hardware of caen a sense of Grady's but in this Stallman sends free as in free speech and not in free beer that it has to be patent free but that really technological designers should take time and design things design technology and give them out pet and free and give the designs out so really people in smaller communities can build these technologies and these of course could then embody anarchical principles and promote actually the the construction of an Arctic communities and independence of the bigger companies so that would be also a point where one could be producing the much rather anarchic all technology and on the last point which I find particularly interesting is to design sabotage software and devices which enable people to sabotage surrounding technologies which often media lies power structures that which they do not approve of this would be some sort of enabled people to heck you know very like very generally everyone and this is a concept which I'm trying to work on a little and my current research to and in how far sabotage and actually the distribution of sabotage software and sabotage devices could be a some sort of action to liberate people from from this technological determinism because if you would put up like design plans how to design sabotage devices and if you would put up sabotage software to sabotage voting computers or to sabotage biometrical passports and everything you would enable the people to get get rid of these inherent necessities of the machines that surround them because they could simply switch them off again that would of course be a great help for they for these two to just try and get out of these inherent necessities and gain control of them again especially when when when they're being introduced in political and social contexts and this is of course something which is happening right now in all these anti-terrorism stuff so that would allow people to d media lies power structures around them as in so far as they incorporated into technologies and this would give people more choices towards technological determinism in general and I also believe that this could be a very good action in a way if one were to it officially and officially give out sabotage devices and sabotage ideas because then that has a very strong and substantial demonstrative value and sort of puts puts us into the defense because then the the judicial thing game of course would be that others would have to attack this idea of sabotaging power structure technologies and so the the well the standpoint would be much better for discussion and so this has some value as social protest protests as well is yeah and these were just some ideas on the end of my talk of something which i'm thinking of currently and this is it thank you now in orbit for questions so any questions I thank you for a very interesting talk at the beginning us saying that free software is mainly developed by hobbyists and people who do that in their free time what I believe that was true up to five years ago I think you should know that currently most free software is developed by people who get paid for it I mean IBM and sun microsystems just to quote a few names and my employer actually pay people to develop free software and rising most of the free software now is developed by those companies so of course that means that free software is even less anarchical today I believe yes thank you that's a good combination um I just wanted to say the thing you called the so-called rule of this copyleft GPL stuff it's not my opinion I think a different way I think that GPL it's a quite good weapon against the thing that you have been swallowed you've been swallowed by companies you swallowed by capitalism because the open source movement it's quite a little one when you compare it against global players so you need protection and this is a kind of weapon so it's more weapon than a rule my point of view on this thing is that really you cannot use certain weapons without becoming your own enemy this is like as soon as you start playing this this license game and playing the legal game and everything you are again affirming the store firming the general structures and the basic structures which I actually which made you a captive in the first place so we're really from an anarchist and rather revolutionary point of view you would say that these this is just totally wrong way to do it because this is a corruptive system which has been invented to corrupt all these things and which again now in turn turns on you and to derive so to say a counter-revolution a counter system to this license stuff by introducing new licenses just rubbish from my point of view I'm really nervous hi I would like to expand on this point of criticism you said earlier that destroying sexist and racist man Catalan capitalist was a strong point of our neck ism and I agree with that and well the rules that repels sets up is certain rules to protect our individual freedom so that no one could take that word away from you me Lu for example as our rules against racism in society protects all the weak people who don't have a strong voices the strong people from a strong people so it rules are a necessity in a arnica society i would say i wouldn't say so because I mean really anarchism I mean of course it depends on the point of view which you have about anarchism a little but generally to be an anarchist in the first place means that you have to believe that humans are basically good creatures you know i mean the the basic belief which you have to have is that humans do not kill each other as soon as you abandon rules and that's the whole point about anarchism to abandon rules you know to say that people can do whatever they want to and we don't have to control them all the time and give them all these rules because they don't need them you know if you just if they don't have if they have their bare necessities and everything is being being cared of like food and shelter and all these things then they would basically not go at each other other of the throats you know so rules are generally have always been a tool of oppression from the from an anarchist point of view that's really anarchism is to me we use the absence of rules sorry sorry I have to say one more sentence I don't think so because for me it it sounds like turning away from reality when when when I believe in this when I believe every human is a good person because I think that's not the question if one person is good or not if a human is love full or not the question is how is the system working and and and it's not it's not good and yeah there are there are many ways to face it and to go to take another way and one of the things is make rules to banish all the other rules human rights are not bad because their rules I don't think so well then you're a Democrat I don't know I mean democracy is a different thing than I don't believe in democracy because it apparently doesn't work very well very well so it only works for a certain minority of people who profit from it but so I wouldn't say so I mean anarchism is really the absence of rules well it's not the total absence of roots but is generally the absent of the absence of the concept of the relevance of rules so anyone else I'd like to bring in another point I think you were one thing totally missing in your analyst of free software and that's the economic point free software the main thing in my opinion is that it's not it doesn't hit something like of Earth it's a the software itself you can just take it and it doesn't cost money and that's also the reason why I think the GPL is a very clever thing because it just doesn't matter if the developer is paid by IBM or whoever or if he's hobbyist because the software itself is free in a sense that everyone can use it and that it's taken out of economic EEE eek it let it take out of economy because it doesn't have a verb and I think we don't need the GPL at all but we need it as long as we have a capitalist system where yes because of this impact to have to protect free software as long as there are companies out there who could take it else yeah sure I mean that's a point but you see I've gifted to see that all these things that that we have seen these these attitudes in in other parts of history as well and that this is sort of a compromising attitude and this I don't want to draw it such a very big connection but for instance this the the dictatorship of the of the masses in and soviet communism has never ended and that was meant to be a compromise as well and i don't believe that that compromises work because they still try to try to use the same structures and try to try to hell hold up the same principles that actually your opponent is using to impress you and because he has the majority on these things and has sort of the power of these things you will always be able to to rule you or to overrule you as well um I can't follow you by saying I'm annika stand you are Democrat um from my point of view I know no anarchists was not a Democrat and I don't know anarchists who doesn't accept human rights again what's sorry but the other point is that um in my opinion the GPL has formed the small room where we can perform such a study of how we can work better and sure it's a small room and maybe we're corrupted by this but in my opinion this small room is really big think what we have are reached and in my opinion it's the GPL like I think you can also reach this justin name in the very absence of GPA why why do you need GPL you know let me just do these things I don't well I have an answer to that we could look at the beastie code which I presume you prefer and discipline stack of the base decode that marks off took and incorporated in their software windows and therefore became a lot better and more selling still but if we just got better isn't that a good thing of a humanity now frankly it's better if when this is a good thing if windows like supports capitalist structures that oppresses people it's a bad thing and I'm not really going to go into that right now windows is a good thing if you take it windows it's a bad thing if you buy it I would say it's a business concepted to stage this as a question of compromises as being not compromising I think we are dealing with an idea of a pure subject which is i think is false so for instance when seeing if free software is an acoustic or communist or not we are always to point out that we live in a post for post forest capitalism which is making use of free labor and so on so on did and you make those points which are important but they doesn't rule out at at the same time there is another potential always active where people decide to break away from wage labour and these to exist at the same time so in the same wits so that's my point to be cooked yeah I don't really know what to say to this a little bit tired as well hurry sorry so anyone else I think so free sofa is not so answer for Anika system because at first you must ask for the system what we have you must know who owns this building here for example this is not our building it's a building of the owner of the PCC and we must take this building that we can say it is us then we are anarchists and I think free software is just a playing field for rich or middle-class and upper-class students and they are saying we are so on a hist aqui are now programming in our universities and I think this is not the main question of a changing of this system we must first destroy this system that we can speak about moronic ism and this is the most question who is the owner of our production things and our companies yeah sure I mean that the general thing is that it's not so much so much really about now finally judging free software finally judging GPL or something the the point I just wanted to make was that the connection to call these things and anarchic alors na kisi is really not so very valid and from my point of view and really from the from the point of view of anarchist theory you would really have to have different concepts and not not again rules or anything so and that was just basically the point I wanted to make what is your revolutionary subject revolutionary subject what do you mean the workers class the students or all the people in the world also everyone for himself everyone yeah you are I am disappointed okay anyone else yes microphone I'm just wondering you that that programming means to be an expert disagree with scripting languages it's so easy it's much more complicated to learn how to build a house yeah yeah okay you have to read it that's I think it's even more difficult to repair bikes and to program that's probably your point of view I don't know anything about programming and I don't think I will yeah I guess people are not so easy I think how you program because they don't see the value of it they could learn programming within a week but I don't do it but that's that's really a luxury commodity isn't it they could learn programming within a week I don't think so could they could they learn programming within a week up to a grade that they could reap are ticipate in the development of linings no that's a bit more difficult okay no but that's the thing we're talking about you know that's the thing we're talking about we're not talking about like riding a little script for something but it would be a start and it's lots of things you can do a scripting vivo yes but i mean the the vast chunk of of mankind doesn't have the time or just dearly the commodities to really work themselves into these topics so very well that they could we participate in it yeah it's just not that accessible ok and there on the other hand you say is that the hardware has to be much simpler to be accessible also or in an acoustical sense and I wonder if you have any practical idea that look what look like I mean it's already very complicated and nano techniques maybe next thing and what you want to go back to mechanical devices to make it no we don't have to go back to mechanical devices but we can can of course enable people to we can make things or design programs which enable us to design programs so too will speak and make those very easy or just divide go back to more easy machine structures and as far as nanotechnologies and all this crap is concerned I don't think we really need that you know i mean we that's really crab most of what i heard about nanotechnologies really uninteresting stupid there's no killer application form a low technology so far i mean you can you can switch the color of your car every morning but that's about it so i don't think we need this we should rather try to develop some some technologies which enable us to have clean water everywhere tree of sustainable energies to have a healthy environment and those are very basic simple technologies which are already hand at hand you know i don't think we have to really know oh my god how can we make nanotechnologies available for everyone you know i mean most people have other worries then mo technologies so you




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *