#narodnik

Alexander Ulyanov, or Sasha, was a 19th century Russian scientific socialist revolutionary. He was also the older brother of the leader of the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin. Sasha is known for influencing his younger brother’s revolutionary tendencies by attempting to assassinate Tsar Alexander III of Russia in 1887, thirty years before the October Revolution led by Lenin. Sasha went on to become a hero to the Soviet people for this, but few actually know the details of his life.

Sasha was born on 12 April 1886 to Ilya Ulyanov and Maria Ulyanova. He had five siblings and was the eldest son in their family. Sasha was known to be closest to his sister Anna, who was the eldest daughter. The family was described as “neither poor nor well-off.” His mother was the daughter of a physician and his father was the son of a serf, but became a school inspector. His parents were “cultured” and secured their children with education. Sasha was a small and often sickly child. Anna wrote in 1870, “I remember his only dangerous illness - inflammation of the stomach - when he was only four years old. I remember how Mother’s despair astonished me: she fell on her knees before the icon, and whispered to me, “Pray for Sasha.” I remember how she tore a howling Volodya from her breast, thrust him toward the nurse, and threw herself toward Sasha, who had taken a serious turn at that moment….I remember Mother’s glowing face, when she guided and supported him during his convalescence - when he had to be taught to walk all over again.” Anna and Sasha had a complicated relationship. It can best be described as emotional incest between the two siblings. Anna and Sasha both relied on each other, and according to Anna, in their younger years she had a “crush” on him. Sasha’s relationship with the younger Vladimir was very different, because they were very different people. When asked about Vladimir, Sasha replied, "Undoubtedly a very able person, but we don't get along at all…” Photos of Sasha present him as a sad and “unhappy” child, and his relationship with Anna was likely a consequence of his mental state. From a young age, his father wanted him to be a great scientist. Anna suspected that this had an impact on Sasha and “blamed her father for pushing him too hard.” Ilya was more harsh on Sasha than on his brothers. Sasha was too “sensitive, shy and introverted.” Ilya disliked Sasha’s effeminacy. Sasha’s mother provided him with an education in the arts. He loved literature, music, and drawing just as much as he loved science. His favorite book was House of the Dead by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Sasha’s father wanted him under a more “masculine influence” and sent him to the Simbirsk gymnasium to attend school with other boys. Sasha allowed his classmates to copy off of his work and helped them consistently, but “otherwise avoided their company.” What really amazed his classmates and family was that he was almost incapable of lying. Sasha was described as “younger and smaller than the other boys, and gentler in every sense.” Despite this, he became one of the best students in every class that he took and excelled in Latin, Greek, French, German, mathematics, science, history, and literature. Within the time period that Sasha spent at Simbirsk gymnasium, Ilya became state councillor and was given hereditary nobility. Sasha was not one to care much about nobility. In fact, it’s believed that Sasha became radicalized during his senior year at the gymnasium. He began to write about the “dreadful poverty of the lower classes” and of the French Revolution. Sasha deemed the French aristocracy “hollow” and “corrupt.” Science was still Sasha’s favorite subject, but history quickly became an extremely close second.

In May 1883, Sasha graduated from the Simbirsk gymnasium at the age of seventeen. He had the best record out of all students at his school, the best final examination scores, and he was a gold medalist. His peers still described him as “small” with “narrow shoulders. By this time, he was already somewhat detached from his family. He was spending the majority of his free time in his laboratory, hunting with one of his cousins, playing chess with the young Vladimir, or reading. Sasha usually avoided his dad. He was described as the “carrier of Ilya’s hopes,” and was paid much more attention to than he wanted. He and Anna even began to drift apart due to their “intellectual gap.” Sasha began to write nihilist works about “scientific morality,” appreciating “human suffering,” but was awkward when it came to the needs of the people in his own life and having empathy for them. In August of that year, Sasha left his family to attend St. Petersburg University. It was there where he became involved with the Narodniki - of course, this was not an instant connection. Sasha did not seem fond of the Narodniki for his first five semesters at St. Petersburg University. Sasha remarked about the radicals: “They chatter a lot, but don’t study very much….I don’t join revolutionary organizations, because I haven’t yet solved many problems that are important for me, personally, and more important, social problems. Surely, if the natural sciences….are only now entering that phase of their development when they can look at phenomena from a quantitative as well as a qualitative point of view - are only now becoming genuine sciences, then what do the social sciences represent? Clearly, social problems cannot be solved quickly. I propose, of course, a scientific solution - another makes no sense - and a social activist must find one. It would be absurd if an ignoramus of a doctor tried to cure a disease; it would be even more absurd and immoral to try to cure social diseases, without understanding their cause.” Later on in his junior year, he grew to have a more sympathetic understanding of the Narodnik cause. When a writer for a narodnik journal was arrested, Sasha exclaimed, “This is such a rotten despotism - it’s throwing all of the best people in jail.” Sasha’s sophomore year, though, was when Sasha became involved with the narodniki. Now, what did the Narodniki believe? The Narodniki were scientific socialists and they believed completely that peasants needed to possess the land. Their theory was that this would transform Russia into a modern socialist economy. The narodniki that Sasha became involved with were part of a party, The People’s Will, and Sasha was going to build a bomb for them.

Sasha was not building a bomb alone, no, he was one of several bomb makers, but Sasha felt the largest responsibility to the group. It was a perfect example of the anarchist tactic called Propaganda of the Deed, a “specific political action meant to be exemplary to others and serve as a catalyst for revolution.” The goal was to bomb the Tsar Alexander III on the anniversary of his father’s assasination while he attended church. The act would not just kill the victim, but the perpetrators of the assasination with him. These revolutionaries were young, “reckless,” and “suicidal.” Terror was their philosophy. During the fall semester of Sasha’s senior year, the police picked up on the plan. They found this out very quickly on the date of what was supposed to be the assasination of the tsar…they waited outside of the church before finally leaving to meet at a tavern, where the secret police arrested them. In an attempt to save his comrades, Sasha admitted to crimes that he did not really commit. His final address to the court: "Terror.... is the only form of defence by which a minority strong only in its spiritual strength and the consciousness of its righteousness can combat the physical power of the majority... Among the Russian people there will always be found many people who are so devoted to their ideas and who feel so bitterly the unhappiness of their country that it will not be a sacrifice for them to offer their lives. My purpose was to aid in the liberation of the unhappy Russian people. Under a system which permits no freedom of expression and crushes every attempt to work for their welfare and enlightenment by legal means, the only instrument that remains is terror. We cannot fight this regime in open battle, because it is too firmly entrenched and commands enormous powers of repression. Therefore, any individual sensitive to injustice must resort to terror. Terror is our answer to the violence of the state. It is the only way to force a despotic regime to grant political freedom to the people.” The court had sentenced him to death. Sasha was not afraid to die, for "there is no death more honourable than death for the common good.” Sasha was hanged on 8 May 1887 at the age of twenty one, over one century ago today.

As a hacker in MIT's AI laboratory, Stallman worked on software projects like TECO and Emacs for the Incompatible Timesharing System (ITS), as well as the Lisp machine operating system (the CONS of 1974–1976 and the CADR of 1977–1979—this latter unit was commercialized by Symbolics and Lisp Machines, Inc. (LMI) starting around 1980).[17] He became an ardent critic of restricted computer access in the lab, which at that time was funded primarily by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). When MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science (LCS) installed a password control system in 1977, Stallman found a way to decrypt the passwords and sent users messages containing their decoded password, with a suggestion to change it to the empty string (that is, no password) instead, to re-enable anonymous access to the systems. Around 20 percent of the users followed his advice at the time, although passwords ultimately prevailed. Stallman boasted of the success of his campaign for many years afterward.

Richard Matthew Stallman (/ˈstɔːlmən/ born March 16, 1953), also known by his initials, rms, is an American free software movement activist and programmer. He campaigns for software to be distributed in such a manner that its users have the freedom to use, study, distribute, and modify that software. Software which ensures these freedoms is termed free software. Stallman launched the GNU Project, founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in October 1985, developed the GNU Compiler Collection and GNU Emacs, and wrote all versions of the GNU General Public License.

Stallman launched the GNU Project in September 1983 to write a Unix-like computer operating system composed entirely of free software. With that he also launched the free software movement.

He has been the GNU project's lead architect and organizer, and developed a number of pieces of widely used GNU software including among others, the GNU Compiler Collection, GNU Debugger, and GNU Emacs text editor.

/ A younger Richard Stallman, in Balkan folk costume, dancing with Lisp Machine >> This wasn't really a prank. RMS has always been a fan of folk dances - he had to quit dancing because of his, erm, portliness. The Free Software Song was based on a Bulgarian folk song, Sadi Moma (not the version found on "Les Mystères des Voix Bulgares", though). /

_____________________

>> his website >>

_____________________

HCPP23 | Richard M. Stallman & Amir Taaki - The Economics of Free Software

The ideas of liberty, independence, innovative thinking, and the development of society are the main underlying foundations upon which the whole project is built. The project intends to remain state-free as it operates entirely without support from the government, and most of the funds come from voluntary contributions of our donors and partly from commercial activities such as running a unique co­working space and the world’s first bitcoin-­only cafe. It was founded by members of a contemporary-­art group Ztohoven, and Slovak and Czech hacker­spaces. Its main goal is to promote economic, social, and digital freedom. We try to be a vocal voice of freedom to shape the public discourse and ultimately work towards a freer future.

HCPP23 | Richard M. Stallman & Amir Taaki – The Economics of Free Software

Richard Stallman:

I started the free software movement for freedom-respecting software — because freedom is what makes life good.

If you're using computers and you're running software, your software needs to respect your freedom too.

Otherwise, if you're running non-free software, it's an instrument for somebody else to have power over you — whoever controls what's in that software.

If you're running Apple software, then Apple has power over you. If you're running Google software, then Google has power over you. If it's Microsoft software, then Microsoft has power over you.

And that's not right.

Anyway, I’ll give a talk this evening and say more, but this is more of an interview with Amir Taaki.

Amir Taaki:

Thank you very much, sir.

So I just want to give a preamble — this should be interactive, so feel free to throw things, yeah, throw things, join in, even come up if you want.

The title says “The Economics of Free Software.” Now, economics doesn’t mean money. It comes from the ancient Greek meaning “household management,” and it concerns the well-being and needs that sustain life.

The most contemporary definition of economics is:

“The science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means, which have alternative uses.”

So you have a sought-after end, but there are scarce resources to achieve that end.

Given the end of technological freedom, parallel infrastructure, and ownership by society — how do we reconcile that with the means? The means being developer focus, actual resources (like money, time, quality of life), and community momentum to achieve maximal effect.

That’s the kind of topic I want to go more into.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to also give an introduction to you, and why you're so important to this movement.

Stallman:

Okay — but I would not have chosen that title.

Amir:

In my life, there were three moments when my mind was completely blown.

One of them was discovering Bitcoin. Another was discovering zero-knowledge proofs.

But the first — the first time was when I learned that you could change the operating system on your computer. That free software existed.

I was a teenager. I was at school. One of my friends said, “You know, you can change the OS on your computer.”

I said, “What? Really?”

He said, “Yeah, you know there’s Windows and stuff, but you can change that. There’s another one called Linux.” (We used to call it G/Linux — but my friend said “Linux.”)

I said, “What’s that?”

He said, “It’s an operating system made by people all around the world. It’s not owned by any company.”

So I went home. I started researching. I started watching videos. I saw the documentary Revolution OS. I saw Stallman.

I was so inspired. I decided I would dedicate my life to the free software movement.

That was the beginning of the path that led to where I am now.

Amir (continued):

Let’s also give some historical context.

The personal computer revolution — which Stallman was very much a part of in the 1980s — that was a time when computers were these giant machines, in the hands of industry and military.

And hackers, like me, acquired that technology because they saw it as a tool of power. They said, “We need to bring that power to the people.”

They started getting jobs as janitors, or whatever, just to access those machines. They learned how they worked. They put them together in their garages.

People shared software freely because there was mutual recognition — a shared mission. That led to the development of the personal computer.

But then, what happened?

This formerly niche hacker community — suddenly, a ton of money started to flow in. Kind of like with crypto.

A lot of people lost their morals. They started throwing themselves at companies. The culture changed.

But one person didn’t change. One person said “No.” And that was Stallman.

Stallman:

[laughs] Well...

Amir:

When I was 16, I literally wanted to be Stallman.

I used to say, “When I grow up, I want to be Stallman.” I even wanted to have a beard — to look like a hacker.

But when I grew a beard, I ended up looking more like a Muslim terrorist... like Al-Qaeda. [laughter]

But seriously, Stallman is the reason many of us are here today.

I kind of liken him to the Diogenes of hacking.

I want to tell a little story — but in it, we’re going to replace Diogenes and Alexander with Stallman and Elon Musk.

So... Elon Musk comes up to Stallman and says:

“Stallman, I’m a great admirer of you. I yield to your greatness. I can offer you the heavens. What do you want from me?”

And Stallman replies:

“You’re in my metaphorical sunlight. I want you to just get out of my way. I’ve got work to do.”

Stallman (cutting in):

No, that’s not me. I’m sorry to mischaracterize you.

Amir:

Fair enough, fair enough...

Stallman:

I might ask him for things he wouldn’t do. True — they’d be things that would help other people.

But he, being what he is, wouldn’t want to do things that are good for other people. So he wouldn’t do them.

But I wouldn’t waste the opportunity just asking for “Get out of my light.”

Amir:

True. You're very perceptive and always practical.

Stallman:

I’m a practical sort of philosopher.

I see things that are unjust, bad, painful in the world — and I look for ways to make them better with whatever is at my disposal.

Often, that calls for more than just me. So I ask other people: “Would you like to help?”

Of course, only a fraction help — but that’s better than nothing. And so good things get done.

Amir:

I made a short two-minute video — a compendium of clips from the 1980s — with you, Stallman, talking about free software.

It’s a gathering of hackers discussing the future of the personal computer. They’re talking about business and technology.

Then you stand up, in the middle of the crowd, and make a giga-Chad move. You say:

“I want to make all software free. That’s my life goal.”

[Video plays – archival footage from 1980s:]

At the touch of a button, you can now correct a letter without retyping it, recalculate financial projections, or send electronic mail across the world. Hundreds of programs let you manage money, draw on your screen, teach your kids to type, and play games. But the real purpose of the get-together was to discuss the unique set of values that made the computer revolution possible and to brainstorm about its future. Richard Stallman: “My political platform is that we need an electronic Declaration of Independence. My project is to make all software free.”

Amir (continues):

You’ve been called the last pure hacker — for staying at MIT and not chasing the temptations of the commercial world.

What early hackers had in common was a love of excellence in programming. They wanted their programs to be as good as they could be — to do neat things, exciting things that others believed impossible.

But today hackers are divided. Some believe source code — the blueprints — should be shared. Others don’t.

There’s a quote from that same documentary:

“Tools I’ll give away to anybody. But the product — that’s my soul. I don’t want anyone fooling with it.”

To which you responded with a great metaphor:

“Imagine if you bought a house, but the basement was locked — and only the original builder had the key. You’d be stuck.”

Stallman:

Yeah — and that’s what happens when the blueprints to a computer program are kept secret by the organization that sells it. That’s the usual way things are done.

Amir:

Would you object if a few of us took a bow to you — just out of respect?

Stallman:

I would. It would be bad for me.

Nowadays, I get tremendous amounts of irrational, misguided hatred — but I also get tremendous amounts of perhaps excessive admiration.

I’ve learned to resist some of that influence — but I still need to keep practicing.

Instead of admiring me, admire justice, admire truth — those are the things that are bigger than me, and they are good to admire.

Amir:

Recently, you were “canceled.”

We’re all big believers in free speech here. You were attacked by people — would you like to talk about that?

Stallman:

I don’t want to go into details.

But there’s a website called stallmansupport.org — not written by me, but by supporters and friends. It refutes many of the false claims made about me.

Sadly, a lot of people don’t even bother to check. They just see enough hostility and assume I must be a monster — because their friends say so.

And that has practical consequences.

It limits what I can do for causes like:

Free software

Justice in computing

Freedom in computing

Privacy

Still, I do what I can.

Amir:

You created the free software movement.

When you first started, a lot of people thought you were crazy.

But through your will, you created the GNU system…

Stallman:

Well — that’s a bit of an oversimplification.

What I wanted was a world of software in which people could continue using computers and have freedom.

At that time, the old free software world had pretty much sunk beneath the waves. There was very little of it left.

So, I looked for the most practical plan: to make a free operating system similar to Unix. Unix was a non-free system, but it was widely used — and its structure made it a good model to imitate.

It was divided into many separate components. That meant each component could be replaced by someone else. Different parts could be developed in parallel, around the world.

Eventually, we’d have all the parts we needed — and we’d have a complete, free system.

I announced the GNU Project in September 1983. I started coding in January. By 1992, we more or less had a complete system.

Stallman (continues):

One of the components was a kernel called Linux. It was first released in 1991 — but initially under a non-free license.

So, at first, it didn’t exist for us.

A non-free program has no value or contribution to the free world. But when its author re-released it under a free license, it became part of our free world.

So now we had a version of the GNU system that used Linux as the kernel. It became possible to get a PC, install the GNU system, and use it without software that put chains on you.

Of course, it took a few years to make it easy to install. But the important thing was: it was possible again to use a computer in freedom.

Stallman (continued):

But it didn’t end there.

We want to do many things on our computers — and usually, new things come along tied to non-free software. Companies present them with chains.

So we have to come along and create free ways to do those things. There’s a lot of work to do.

And there’s plenty for you hackers to help with.

Amir:

These days, we see companies like Microsoft and Google talking about “open source.”

But in the 1980s, it was hackers who created the personal computing revolution.

Then corporations hijacked it. The free culture was lost.

You revived it — but as it started to grow again, people began to say, “We need to bring in big business.” They stopped talking about freedom and values. That’s when the term “open source” was born.

Why do you think big tech finds that narrative more attractive?

Stallman:

To understand that, you need to know what the term “open source” means.

As you saw in the video, the idea of free software is about freedom — for the people who use computers.

That’s always been the point of the free software movement.

But in English, we don’t have a word that clearly means “free as in freedom” and not “gratis.” In Czech, you can say “svobodný software.” If we had such a word, I might have used it.

So people get confused. They think we’re talking about price. But we’re not. We don’t care if you sell the software — we care whether it respects users’ freedom.

Stallman (continued):

Some developers say,

“This program is my soul. I don’t want anyone touching it.”

But we say:

“Your freedom matters more than a developer’s ego.”

There are people who say the only value is how much money you can make.

We don’t say it’s wrong to make money — but there are more important things. There are unjust ways to make money. If doing the right thing means making less, so be it.

The origin of “Open Source” and how it diverges from free software

Stallman on surveillance, “the cloud,” and digital anonymity

A heated dive into modern tech platforms and peer-to-peer systems

Stallman (continued):

In the 1990s, there were disagreements in the free software community — disagreements between people with different values.

Some people just wanted to be successful and make money. They were involved in free software development, promotion, and use — but they didn’t agree with me about why we were doing it.

In 1998, some of them coined a different term: “open source.” They preferred it because it let them disconnect from the values I had brought into the free software movement.

That’s what “open source” has been ever since: a way of talking about more or less the same collection of programs, but with different underlying values.

Stallman (continued):

If you look at what open source advocates say, the values they promote tend to be:

Convenience

Success

Cooperative development

In the free software movement, we fight for people to have the right to change the programs they use, and to share those programs — so others can collaborate.

It’s not just about whether this particular program was developed collaboratively. It’s about whether you and your friends can collaborate on it in the future.

So for us, the key is the freedom to collaborate — to change and improve the software together.

Open source, on the other hand, tends to focus on how a particular piece of software was developed — not on what freedoms it gives the user.

Stallman (continued):

They don’t criticize non-free software. They never say:

“This program is bad because it’s closed source.”

Because they don’t believe that. They don’t want people to think that.

So they never even ask the question.

In contrast, for the free software movement, that’s the most important question:

“Why is it harmful for society if a program is non-free?”

So you have two different philosophies. And they’ve been disagreeing ever since.

What makes it hard is the misinformation.

For example:

More people will tell you that I am an open source advocate — which is false — than will tell you the truth, which is that I disagree with open source.

Most people have never heard of the free software movement. The only thing they’ve heard is someone connecting me with “open source.”

That’s a pain.

How can I promote the cause I actually stand for, when everyone’s out there saying I support the opposite?

Amir:

Fast-forward to today.

On one side, we have neoliberalism, big tech, surveillance capitalism.

On the other, we have free software.

Users are being turned into farm animals — their data harvested. Devices are designed for consumption, not creation.

Would you say the utility of a technology is linked to its ability to help people collaborate?

Stallman:

Well… I get the impression that many communities work together while using what I call “snoop phones.”

I’m not going to use a snoop phone myself — because the surveillance makes me too angry. I won’t tolerate it.

But I can’t claim that no good comes from using them.

Amir:

Take platforms like Google Docs — the computing paradigm is: a user, and a company delivering “content.”

Stallman:

Let’s not call it “content.” I don’t use that word.

“Content” embodies the values of someone trying to sell a product. It reduces what people create — books, music, drawings — to stuff to fill a box.

And it says what’s inside the box doesn’t matter — just keep the box full.

I’d rather look at a novel, a memoir, a song as a work — with value in itself, independent of whether it can be monetized.

If we use the word “content,” those values start to rub off on us. So I refuse to use that term.

Amir:

Okay, I hear you. But let me rephrase the question:

Is a technology’s value linked to its ability to help communities work together?

Stallman:

That’s one measure.

But another is: Does the technology respect your freedom?

Does it require you to sacrifice your freedom to use it?

There are political causes I want to support — rallies I’d like to attend. But the websites for those causes require non-free JavaScript just to find out where and when the event is.

Because of conscience, I can’t visit those sites. I can’t direct people to those rallies. And often, I can’t go myself.

It hurts me deeply when that happens.

They focus on one cause. I focus on another. These causes don’t conflict — we could help each other.

Just enough attention — enough care — to avoid harming one another. That would be good for all the good causes.

Amir:

You were part of the personal computing revolution. Hackers birthed it. Crackers too — breaking into networks, challenging authority.

Today, it feels like we’re on the defensive. We have to hack our own devices just to avoid surveillance.

What conceptual breakthroughs did you witness during that early era?

Stallman:

I don’t think about that. I really don’t.

I don’t ask myself that kind of question. I lived through those years, but I don’t analyze them in that way.

Amir:

Okay — then what did you experience firsthand? What did you see as the shifts?

Stallman:

In the early years of my computing life, any computer you could do anything useful with belonged to an institution.

It might be a school or a lab — and they’d let me write programs on it. Sometimes because they needed those programs.

At MIT’s AI lab, we — the system hackers — were staff. We wrote programs for others in the lab. Sometimes just for fun.

That was fine with me.

I didn’t want to own a computer. I was happy using the lab’s multi-million-dollar machine — funded by the Department of Defense.

But what mattered was what we were doing with it.

We weren’t doing anything bad. Nothing military. Just useful tools.

Stallman (continued):

Some people were uncomfortable that the funding came from DARPA, especially during the Vietnam War.

But I pointed out:

“DARPA lets us release everything we write. If a business were funding this, they’d make it proprietary.”

And later, when business did take over — it was far worse.

Next up

“There is no such thing as the cloud” – Stallman’s takedown

Cryptocurrency, anonymity, and peer-to-peer tech

Questions from the audience on the future of freedom and software ethics

Amir:

So — can you explain why “the cloud” is dangerous?

People often say, “The cloud enables collaboration,” but I know you’ve strongly criticized the concept.

Stallman (interrupting):

There is no such thing as “the cloud.” It’s a confused, confusing term.

If you treat it like it refers to a real thing, you’re already spreading confusion — no matter what you say.

The only way to avoid spreading that confusion is to reject the term completely.

There’s no “cloud.”

Let’s talk about what actually exists:

Servers.

Owned by companies or institutions.

Located in specific countries.

Governed by specific laws.

If someone says, “Your data will be in the cloud,” they’re trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

What servers? Whose servers? Who owns them? What laws apply? What governments might access them?

These are the questions that matter — but the term “cloud” exists to blur them.

Stallman (continued):

In reality, what’s happening is:

You connect your browser to someone’s server.

It pulls in data from you.

It forwards that data to other servers — maybe across the world.

You don’t know where it’s going.

They don’t care to tell you.

So my answer is:

“I don’t want you to get any of my data. Get lost.”

When I buy something, I pay cash. I don’t tell them who I am.

Amir:

You've just clarified the serious issues with today’s computing paradigm — especially pushed by Google, Microsoft, Facebook.

Now, about Unix — one of its early strengths was its ability to network computers. That allowed it to scale.

Do you think that was a factor in its success?

Stallman:

I don’t even know what “achieving scale” means. That’s too vague.

Yes, Unix had networking — usually based on phone lines. One great use of that was Usenet.

You could post an article in a newsgroup, and it would propagate across a network of computers via modem calls.

Each machine would send and receive articles from others — spreading them around. It was pre-internet. A decentralized information system.

It was nice.

Amir:

Recently, I was using Jitsi, a free software tool for making video calls. But their server went offline — probably due to lack of funding.

Many free software projects are trying to replace tools like Google Docs, but they rely on central servers that are hard to maintain.

In contrast, Google just eats the cost — and you pay with your data.

What do you think of peer-to-peer technologies like BitTorrent? And can cryptocurrency help fund infrastructure for free tools?

Stallman:

I’m in favor of peer-to-peer systems for communication and collaboration.

I’m not against server-based tech either — sometimes you need to run a server. But it doesn’t have to be big or expensive.

You can set up a server with friends. That’s fine. It’s not a huge problem.

As for cryptocurrency… I don’t lean toward it.

Amir:

Let me give you an example.

Take Tor — they run many relays, but bandwidth is expensive. And it comes with legal risks, since states might pressure you.

There’s a project called Nym — they’ve created a mixnet, and when you run a server, you earn micropayments. That incentivizes people to host servers.

Do you think that could be a useful model?

Stallman:

I’m not against it, but it raises a concern:

How would I get that cryptocurrency in the first place?

I don’t do that sort of thing.

Amir:

There are crypto ATMs in most cities. No ID needed. You put in cash, scan your wallet, and get anonymous currency.

You can then use it to access services. Or exchange it.

Stallman:

I hope they don’t require ID — because if they did, I wouldn’t use them.

It sounds complicated, though.

What would the actual implications of this system be for anonymity, privacy, and freedom? I’d be slow to draw conclusions.

Amir:

In the crypto world, there’s lots of new cryptographic tech being developed. I come from both the free software and crypto communities.

But I often notice the free software world is skeptical of crypto — maybe because of conservative attitudes or misunderstandings.

Do you see a way for the communities to collaborate more?

Stallman:

Most cryptocurrency implementations are free software. So in that sense, there’s already overlap.

But the community I built — the GNU community — is about building useful tools for people to use together.

Not something that depends on millions of people running it. That’s not how I think.

Yes, a program might be used by millions. But it doesn’t require that scale. It doesn’t rely on it.

Stallman (continued):

It’s all decentralized — in a loose, informal way. Not organized like a single network where all the parts must function together.

I like the Tor network. I use it. But it’s not the sort of thing I would personally design.

Amir:

I helped grow the crypto scene, but I see a big task ahead of us — resisting the Big Tech surveillance paradigm.

Free software and crypto both aim to give power back to the user — but they often don’t work together. I think there’s potential synergy.

Stallman:

That may be. But personally, I don’t do any digital payments.

What would I even want to pay for online? Mostly just bills: electricity, gas, internet.

Amir:

Then maybe telephony is something we could decentralize.

Stallman:

We already have GNU Jami — a free software tool for voice and video communication.

It avoids central servers — except for locating peers. Once you’re connected, it’s peer-to-peer.

Amir:

There’s also GNU Taler, right?

Stallman:

Yes. GNU Taler is an anonymous payment system.

It’s not a cryptocurrency. We designed it specifically to avoid speculation.

We didn’t want people buying a coin that fluctuates in value. That’s not freedom — that’s gambling.

Stallman (continued):

With Taler:

Payments are denominated in national currencies.

The payer is anonymous, using blind signatures.

The payee is known — so they can be taxed.

That’s intentional. We don’t want to help rich businesses evade taxes.

One of the biggest economic problems in the world is hidden wealth — money flowing from the poor to the rich.

We didn’t want to contribute to that. So GNU Taler supports anonymity for users — not for large corporations.

Amir:

That’s a powerful distinction. Thank you.

We’re coming up on the final segment. Shall we open it up to audience questions?

Stallman:

Sure.

Audience Question 1:

Mr. Stallman — you’ve spent your life fighting for freedom at a time when it’s increasingly being taken away through surveillance.

Are you optimistic about the future of free software?

Stallman:

I’m never optimistic. That’s just my nature.

I see all the ways things can go wrong. I see powerful enemies. I feel discouraged.

But I don’t give up — because giving up is useless.

All it guarantees is defeat.

So we keep fighting — whether we think we can win or not.

Next up :

Audience questions on values, inflation, monetary systems

Stallman’s views on “free money,” taxation, and decentralization

Closing thoughts on strategy, philosophy, and resistance

Audience Question 2:

Thank you, Stallman, for being here with us.

What strategies or tactics have you found effective in propagating the values of free software?

Stallman:

I present these issues in terms of values — because ultimately, values are what matter to people.

Yes, different people have different values — but those differences are what we need to discuss.

What should matter to you?

Wealth?

Freedom — for yourself and others?

Working together to prevent harm to society?

These are broad questions — they apply to all of life. Software is just one domain I focus on because that’s where my talent lies.

Audience Question 3:

Since you care about freedoms — what about monetary instruments? In many countries, they’re the main tool of enslavement — through mechanisms like inflation.

Isn’t using state money another way to propagate control? Shouldn’t we also be creating free money?

Stallman:

Your words contain a lot of assumptions that I don’t fully understand — and I may not agree with any of them.

It’s hard to respond directly to what you said.

Stallman (continued):

It’s true that governments often serve the rich, and the rich lobby to change laws to divert more wealth toward themselves.

That’s why things get worse for the rest of us.

But I don’t believe that monetary systems, in and of themselves, are the core cause.

For example:

Union laws affect wealth distribution.

Public health policy affects well-being.

Tax policy affects social equity.

None of those are caused by money per se. They’re caused by political capture. The rich control politics — that’s the deeper issue.

Audience Question 4:

You’ve spoken about “the rich.” But who are the rich? Because by some standards, you might be considered rich — living in a developed country.

Stallman:

The rich are those who, through their wealth, dominate politics — in whatever country we’re talking about.

By US standards, I’m not rich. I don’t have political influence.

Yes, I donate to candidates — because I want the US government to allocate more resources to non-rich people.

I support progressive politics.

Audience Question 5:

Back to the topic of cash — you mentioned paying in cash whenever possible. But in many countries, we’re seeing rapid moves toward cashless systems. What then?

Stallman:

That’s an exaggeration.

Take the UK, for example. I read The Guardian, and people there are fighting back.

They’re demanding the right to use cash — because they’re running into real problems:

Disabled people can’t access card readers.

Some towns don’t have working ATMs.

Some stores refuse cash.

So yes — people are organizing. And that’s exactly what they should do.

Demand laws that require stores to accept cash. Demand laws that require there to be an ATM in every town.

For example, New York City passed a law a few years ago requiring all places that sell food to accept cash. I celebrated that.

Audience Question 6:

In the crypto community, we talk a lot about how open-source software is necessary — but also insufficient — for confidence that software does what it claims.

Free software is auditable, yes. But it’s often too complex for most people to really verify.

So what about accidental complexity? Wouldn't it be better to build systems from small, provable modules — like the old Unix philosophy?

Stallman:

I think you're mistaken about our origins.

I never endorsed the Unix philosophy. I was not interested in “provable” behavior.

I wanted programs to work in practice. And that meant:

Build features. Fix bugs. Improve it continuously.

Yes — our systems were big and complicated — because that’s what people wanted them to be. We needed them to be that way.

So, no — I never aimed for that minimalist philosophy. I wanted systems that were useful, not formally elegant.

Audience Question 7 (final):

Thank you. That actually answered my intended question too — I was going to ask whether the Unix philosophy fits with free software.

So instead, I’ll just say: congratulations on 40 years of GNU. We haven’t had a chance to say that yet.