"The Hacker Ethic" is a recent trend in business philosophy that values creativity, openness, and passion. In his book, Himanen explains this new approach to work and contrasts it to other work ethics. Since his analysis suffers from the failure of idealism, misunderstands communism, and describes an ethic that is bourgeois in character, MIM does not recommend this book. Its one redeeming feature is the discussion of Linus's Law. As stated, this law is the selfish product of a decadent culture. However, when applied on a global scale with an internationalist viewpoint, it does capture the communist principle of universal survival rights coming before a particular individual's right to entertainment and profit.
Internationalist vs. Individualist Viewpoint
============================================
Linus's Law appears in the Prologue written by Linus Torvalds, who is the creator of the Linux operating system and one of the world's most famous hackers. It states that all of our motivations fall into three basic categories, and progress is about going through those very same things as "phases" in a process of evolution. The categories, in order, are "survival," "social life," and "entertainment." Regarding survival, Linus correctly realizes that, "To hackers, survival is not the main thing. . .by the time you have a computer on your desk, it's not likely that your first worry is how to get the next meal or keep a roof over your head. Survival is still there as a motivational factor, but it's not really an everyday concern to the exclusion of other motivations anymore." By "social life" he seems to mean people's loyalty to their family, friends, colleagues, or other group. Linus makes a key observation that when people give their lives for their religion or their country, generally they are not dying to uphold abstract concepts, but to fulfill their perceived responsibilities to their deity and other devotees, or president and fellow citizens. By entertainment, Linus does not simply mean games or diversions, but anything about which a person is passionate, by which he/she is engaged.
Linus defines a Hacker as a person who has progressed beyond the first category and is motivated by the second and third. A hacker works passionatly at something not for the purpose of survival, but for social and recreational ends. Linus notes that this progress from survival, to social, to entertainment goals can only occur if survival concerns are not foremost in one's mind. He is quite correct on this point, but his mistake is seeing this progress as the goal of individuals, and not of humynity as a whole.
According to an internationalist perspective, which is essential to the communist ethic, the best course of action in a given situation is the one that most benefits humynity as a whole. This value is diametrically opposed to capitalist culture's focus on individual gain. Linus's Law is an outstanding example of this self-centered mindset. Is it fair that Linus, and so many others like him, have the luxury of worrying only about social and recreational pursuits, while other people are on the brink of dying of starvation, their very survival in jeopardy? The communist ethic answers a resounding "NO" to this question, and insists that the basic needs of every humyn on this planet should be met before resources are devoted to satisfy other secondary desires.
Materialist vs. Idealist Analysis
=================================
Himanen does a thorough job of comparing and contrasting the Pre-Protestant, Protestant, and Hacker Ethics. However, he fails to explain how these abstract, general concepts are related to concrete conditions. This is the fallacy of idealism, which views things solely from a theoretical perspective, without considering practical evidence and experience. Materialism, on the other hand, recognizes that an understanding of general principles springs from, and then enhances, knowledge of particulars that we observe with our senses. Materialism is the method of thought and analysis used it the communist ethic.
For example, Himanen's idealist account of the three ethics mentioned above gives no explanation as to their origins, while this is easily seen using a materialist analysis. When Himanen describes the Pre-Protestant, Protestant, and Hacker Ethics he uses the examples of a cobbler, an information professional, and a computer programmer, respectively. Each of these ethics fits with the particular occupation used as an example. A cobbler is generally a sole proprietor of a shop, and his/her work does not depend on close coordination with other people, meaning a cobbler can easily follow the Pre-protestant work ethic in which clocks and time did not play a major role. The cobbler can take a break in the middle of the day, and his/her productivity will lose nothing except time, and no one will be affected, save any customers who happen to call. On the other hand, an information professional who is frequently required to attend meetings and interact with peers, managers, and subordinates cannot be unavailable during the workday without causing many people great inconvenience. This can be seen even more clearly when considering a factory worker, who may halt an entire assembly line or production cycle by his/her absence. For these occupations, the Protestant Ethic which emphasizes structured time and clearly organized division of labor is most appropriate.
Similarly, the Hacker Ethic fits typical computer programmers, who invented it. Programmers, unlike office or factory workers, do not require much interaction with their peers, are not part of a time-critical business transaction or production line, and do not require specific reference material, tools, or machinery, except those they can easily replicate at home, such as a computer. Yet unlike a cobbler, who learns a trade that he/she practices for life, the rapid pace of technology requires the programmer to be constantly learning and sharpening his skills. Thus, the programmer is more likely to share his/her knowledge and be open about what he/she has learned, since he/she needs the same help from other programmers in order to stay current with industry trends.
Here we see that the Hacker Ethic did not appear out of thin air, as Himanen's idealist account might have one believe. Even this brief material analysis shows that it developed as a result of the concrete conditions experienced by computer programmers over the last twenty years, just as the Pre-Protestant and Protestant ethics were a product of their own particular situations.
Communism vs. Socialism
=======================
Himanen does not mention communism except in his discussion of Free Software, where he quotes Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project. He notes that Stallman's vision of "a free market economy in which competition would not be based on controlling information but on other factors...is not really communism: communism involves a centralized authority model and that is alien to hackers." Himanen seems to be confusing socialism, which does have a centralized State authority, and communism, which does not.
Socialism is a necessary intermediate phase between capitalism and communism, which is evident by considering the example of the Free Software movement. How can Stallman, or any other hacker, prevent source code he has designated as "free" from being used to create a closed-source product? Stallman can sue to enforce the "copyleft" clause which prohibits this action. Who is going to judge his lawsuit and enforce the verdict? A court appointed and backed by the authority of the State. Or perhaps since authority is alien to hackers, as Himanen claims, Stallman will not sue and simply attempt to convert others to his position by force of reason and logic. This is a reasonably accurate summary of the approach he has been taking for several decades, yet the vast majority of the world's software is still not "free."
Yet, if the State mandated "free software," educated people as to its benefits, and aggressively corrected anyone who worked against it, after some time "free software" would seem to be normal. People would realize that fairness requires sharing information for the good of all humynity, instead of hoarding it to make a personal profit. At this point, the authority of the state is no longer necessary to ensure the continuation of "free software." This is the reason that a Socialist state is a necessary first step towards communism. Before people can naturally think in terms of what is most beneficial to humynity, they must be made aware of the selfishness perpetuated by our capitalist culture and protected from those who wish to sustain it.
The centralized forces of capitalism can only be toppled by a centralized socialist revolution and the building of a strong socialist state. Most anarchists deny this fact, and believe that a direct transition can occur between having powerful governments to having no central authority, which violates the lessons of history as well as scientific reasoning. When Himanen says that "authority is alien to hackers" he comes very close to assigning to them an anarchist ideology.
Learned Behavior vs. humyn Nature
=================================
Reading Himanen's account of the wonderful world of Hackers, it is easy to forget that half the world's population has never made a telephone call, much less used a computer [1]. This is true of virtually all books, movies, or music produced by our decadent culture that relentlessly seeks to entertain a lucky few, while the daily life-and-death struggles of the many are rationalized, minimized, and all but ignored. One may argue that selfishness is humyn nature, although Himanen gives a convincing example of how some attitudes that seem innate are, upon closer inspection, tied to specific cultural forces. In fact, this seems to be the main argument of his book: that the Protestant Work Ethic, a doctrine so ingrained into modern consciousness, was unheard of in Pre-Protestant times and is being called into question by the Hacker Ethic of today. It is only a matter of time before the tenets of Capitalism, unthinkable in feudal and tribal societies, are replaced by the communist ethic which places survival rights above the right to make a profit.
Note: [1] "The Economic and Social Impact of Electronic Commerce: Preliminary Findings and Research Agenda." Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris, France: 1999.