The true meaning of idealism, of course, to mean based in the ground of thought, the immaterial realm of mind – opposing not pessimism, but rather one of a material sort – describes a particularly fantasious realm for the development of a political economy. Concepts, theories, entire meta-physics that may co-exist beautifully with one another in the form of idea might be found cumbersome, impractical, or simply nonsensical in the applied paradigm of a political economy. Still, one must look to these dimensions if we wish to speak of metaphysics at all, and rather, of physics as a whole. And so where does such thought lead, and by what means might we attach some immediate, if not urgent, meaning to it? It's seen in the philosophies, the mystics and the quantum physicists – Huxley's grand 'Perennial Philosophy.' Still, though, I find a foundation lacking – while the discussion may occur on material terms, the events described are, inherently, idea – energy vibrating around itself in invisible, and curiously unknowable paths, all of which we attempt to see while being a part of. And certainly, the spectrum is full – the world of material, Utopian, multi-prefixed philosophy has been a vibrant – albeit violent – one throughout human history. To look, then, for some point where the material world flirts with that of thought – where both 'forms' desist, breaking down into one another, energy.

Ironically enough, one such point exists solely as a bi-product of our historical split of the two, our venture into the material sciences, the early mathematics, Sir Isaac Newton and thousands of tonnes of coal – in the digital imitation of our own [meta]physics, information technology. With the advent of digital 'goods', man's political economy has surpassed the material bounds. Surely, previous generations exchanged 'immaterial' goods – religion, music, the healing-arts – but they always required some physical actor – the priest with his ritual tools, the apothecary's satchel of herbs and roots. With the advent of 'digital information', we find a system of trade where the services, as well as the players themselves – are inherently 'root-less'. A basic material sustenance of energy, as well as a viable framework of data-transfer, and suddenly we find an entire economy based in the immaterial. Initially, of course, these economies developed solely in the 'micro' sense – the simple means of transferring information from one localized economy to another was unfeasible. It was in this early stage where the basic, and certainly all-important paradigm of intellectual property was questioned. Prior to this point, 'intellectual property' represented, at most, the rights over an idea with some root in the material – perhaps the patent for an invention, or a cold remedy. However, when the property itself was immaterial – when it represented a, quite frankly, fictional and arbitrary architecture-

should the old paradigm apply?- in fact, could it?

This piece attempts by no means to serve as a primer in the history of information technology, nor even as a brief synopsis. Such a primer, while certainly fascinating, useful, and perhaps even necessary, is simply out of the scope of a single individual – the compilation of such would require the same community-based, dynamic origins as the industry it developed. However, the description of certain principle ideas, movements, and philosophies in this community can lead one to a practical understanding of an immaterial political economy, as such.

The principle movement which this piece will attempt to examine is perhaps one of the largest such, and is built into the frameworks of much of the information economy. The GNU movement defines its basic philosophical foundation in a few curt sentences, “GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it.”¹ At its most material root, it was the creation of a free and open Unix – the proprietary-based operating system that dominating the early network market. To define what would fit within the GNU paradigm, they developed a General Public License (GPL). This provided that any GNU program would allow for: the freedom to run the program, for any purpose; the freedom to study how the program works, and modify it (access to the source code being a precondition for this); the freedom to redistribute copies; and the freedom to improve the program, and release the improvements to the public. This fundamental framework sets precedent upon the entire concept of 'intellectual property' – in fact, of property as a whole – within the GNU framework. It is in this framework that we find the terms 'Open' and 'Free' – terms that have since been attached to the names of hundreds of thousands of programs and applications – and a term which I now attempt to apply to a political economy. For that is what the GNU framework represents, in fact – a political economy of the immaterial – a foundation for the development of thought and idea, into vision – and a very real, and thus material, market.

How would one extrapolate a framework for a macro-political-economy from the philosophy laid out by the GNU movement? And how would such a framework stand against the current two patterns of market management – 'free trade' and 'State-controlled centralized economies'? As we find, the model proposed by GNU isn't simply a flow-chart for bug-checking and upgrade-revisioning- instead it provides what one might call a metaphysical economic framework – a paradigm which does not actually govern or legislate the market, but one which functions on the meta-level – formulating the space in which the market itself resides. This model, called by the GNU project the Bazaar model, does not concern itself so much with the protocol nor the specifics of development and market management in the different sectors – rather, it establishes the paradigm in which these sectors are active. And, as one looks at the failures that the two predominant forms of market control have suffered throughout human history, it is perhaps this fact that is the most staggering – neither system allows for dynamic, community-centered development. While such a statement might seem rather rash, perhaps even blasphemous to some, and a full analysis of the players at hand would require years to complete, a brief glance at some fundamental problems in the current paradigms will suffice for our current purposes.

When discussing macro-political-economies, it is perhaps best to listen closely to one's opponents to become more aware of the inherent systemic flaws which devalue the economy as a whole. The debate is at least a century old – the free-marketeers claims that a socialist/communist economy will stifle development, crush free-enterprise and initiative, lead inherently to a corrupt nepotism, wear the wheels of progress with chains of bureaucracy – the communists claims of wage-slavery, greed-based profiteering, the incorporation of government as a business venture – both stand as valid views of the others political economy. And, one must certainly not overlook the [alleged] benefits of both – free enterprise and liberty in the former, social stability and equity in the latter. However, if one is to examine these, and perhaps other goals of a political economy, the question must be raised – is this structure the most suited for the promotion of these ideals; and perhaps more important, by what means does it endeavor to do so?

In the spectrum of the 'free-market' economies, we find a dominate trend of thought – perhaps one might even refer to it as an agenda, represented largely in the policies and idealogical frameworks of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank (WB). Of these three, the WTO is perhaps the most interesting in its paradoxical nature – while an agenda of 'free-trade', low tariffs, and globalisation of goods and services is touted largely by the first-world constituency, these same members are the most flagrant violators of their own guidelines – supporting government subsidies of private industry, protectionist tariffs and trade practices, and strict intellectual property rights, even in cases of international health-care. The problem with the 'free-trade' model they strive to implement is complex, certainly, but at its core lies the concept of comparative advantage. The 'free-market' principle, when applied atop a historically un-fair, monopolistic, power-controlled structure, results in a very few players having the majority of the bargaining power. Additionally, these few sectors of the economy have historically used this advantage to lobby government interests in their favor – to establish a political economy where their comparative advantage due to previously – and perhaps unfairly and even illegally – obtained capital and influence is heightened and made lawful. This influence is then used to modify the precepts of 'free-trade' to suit the business class – largely through the application of intellectual property rights and structural-readjustment policies.

In trade-related intellectual property rights, we find a contradiction inherent of neo-liberal globalisation – namely the creation of monopoly and comparative advantage, under the guise of the protection of property. Even if we ignore the fact that the majority of intellectual patents do not protect anything material at all, but rather the ideal concept that leads to the creation of the material objects, we must examine the result these patents have on the market as a whole, and question whether such a paradigm of intellectual property is necessary, useful, or even desired. On the macro-level, one can clearly see the negative externalities of intellectual property rights – they lead to monopolistic trends, create disincentive for development and dynamic growth, and actually disorganize the natural correcting mechanisms of the market economy, by creating a system where a lack of competition and development in a field leads to sectors concerned with r&d having no macro-environment to base values and efficiency against. Additionally, by creating a market dominated by a few, monopolistic giants, you create a market where risk-taking and innovation are sidelined by stable, profit-driven development. For a concrete example, one can turn again to the IT world – where the proprietary giant Microsoft exemplifies all of the arguments against a closed, patent controlled market. By creating a proprietary, closed-source product, Microsoft attempts to assure its eternal seat in the chain-of-command. They release a product, but refute the GNU paradigm of treating the end-user as a developer – instead, development is strictly controlled by means of intellectual patents. Obviously, this limits the efficiency of any revision system – the majority of the community is prohibited from solving problems and improving solutions, forced instead to send a simple report (if even that) detailing the situation. This flow-line of progress – from centralized source through distributor to end user – and back again, results in an extremely slow, inefficient, and bottle-necked platform for development to take place. Certainly, though, this is not the 'free-market' capitalism of Milton Friedman, the private sector must retort – but the question, as previously defined, is of an immaterial metaphysics – in no less sense, a political economy- as applied in a material realm. The staunchest application of Friedman, et al's market-forces might be seen in Chile after the overthrow (assassination, murder... other words come to mind, but are beside the point) of Salvodore Allende, by Pinochet. Pinochet applied the theories of the Chicago School to a relative T, with a good measure of Latin American corruption thrown in the mix. The result depends greatly upon whom you ask – whether a businessman who was working in the favored industries, or one of the thousands missing family members, to whom the government still turns a deaf ear. One need not even look at the human externalities to find barriers to a truly free, open economy – monopoly develops, through nepotism, inherited wealth, or simple luck – and when the responsibility of every private enterprise is, at heart, to the shareholders – and when these shareholders have invested their capital on the premise of gaining return – the market becomes stagnant, static, stale. Rather than compete, or even to think of co-operation – the market becomes increasingly dominated by a few interests. A clear example of this is in the so-called 'natural monopolies' – energy and water, for example. The market is increasingly controlled by a few large conglomerates – through takeovers and mergers, and healthy government subsidies – large corporate interest finds the perhaps poorly named 'free-market' economy to be an enormous Risk board, upon which they play endless, cyclical games of conquest with one another. Simply put, to have the markets controlled by the profit interest of a small elite, to have the majority of every economic sector in an unempowered, and even alienated, state, to protect monopoly through intellectual patenting, and prevent the dynamic flow of life and idea in an economy – results in a stagnant society, filled with hierarchy and apparently meaningless order, people empowered to vote only on an agenda that others have set.

The natural polarity to free-market capitalism, then, must be examined in the same manner, if we are to see the full spectrum of our current paradigm. A State-controlled economy, where competition and market forces are abandoned for a strict monopolistic system – appeals to many opponents of capitalism due to the humanistic origins of such a political economy. The free-market, in its most theoretical form, turns all human-services – health-care, social security, education – over to the free market, the idea being that in a competitive free-market, the best providers of these services will flourish, and the market forces will drive innovation and development. However, as we have already seen, unfair comparative advantage, the natural monopolies, and the general trend of conglomeration of power in the free-market results not in the best service for the consumer, but rather the best business plan for the shareholders. Does this warrant, however, strict State control over certain sectors of the economy – or even a totally centralized, market-less economy? The flaws of such a juggernaut are obvious to most Westerners – the massive human, environmental, economic, and cultural externalities of the former USSR speak clearly enough to the degree of stagnation, nepotism, and disarray that such a system results in. A poignant historical example is the anecdote of Mao's apparent lack of knowledge as to the devastating human cost of his 'Great Leap Forward' – his economic planners, apparently, did not wish to trouble him with the startling fact that economic reality did not correlate to economic reality. Such a system actually magnifies the damaging power of market monopoly and corporate power in government decision making, by turning the bureaucrats into the CEOs themselves, rather than merely residing on their pay-roll.

Of course, there is something to be said of the hybrid economies – 'social democratic' lands where the free market is praised and utilized, except in certain issues of societal welfare, where the State-centralized machinery takes precedent. However, a close look at the 'best' modern examples of such a system – modern Scandinavia – results in a realization that a shift of paradigm, and not merely an economic restructuring, is necessary to overcome certain key problems. What we see in modern Scandinavia is most certainly a well-fed, well-educated, and fairly equitable society. However, we also find a society where an increasingly small elite are begrudgingly paying for an increasingly growing group of unemployed, albeit educated, people – who have come to believe that since the State will provide them with the basics necessary to sustain life, what use is it to strive out on personal ventures? Here we see flaws from both sides of the economic spectrum combined in one system – the 'free-market' is tightly controlled by a small group of business interest, making mobility and enterprise difficult at best, and the centralized State removes incentive for innovation industrious labor, making a below-par sustenance attainable, and removing any drive for something more. No, a hybrid of two imperfect halves will not result in a desirable political economy – while the positives from each side may be magnified, so will the negatives – and without a change of paradigm – a step outside the duality of free-markets vs centralized control – these imperfections shall persist.

What, then, is an 'Open-Source Economy'? Metaphysically, it represents a paradigm shift of human consciousness – a turn away from the duality of “I exist as an independent, proprietary enterprise in this economy, in competition with all other players” vs “We (the State) exist and lay order atop the ongoings of our citizens” - and towards one of “I exist as an autonomous member of a community, built of empowered individuals cooperatively working to achieve their own personal - as well as community-established – goals, within a paradigm of free, open exchange of energy.' On a macro-economic level, an open-source economy is an application of the ideological concepts presented in, for example, the GNU GPL, to a political economy. The meaning of this varies in the context – but a focal point is the free transfer of information and idea – and the ability for all sectors of an economy to build upon, work with, and design new application for the products, whether intellectual or material, of all the other sectors. It means a dynamically structured political economy, where market forces are no longer the bank-accounts of capital-holders, but are rather the individual sectors themselves. Through the application of IT, these individual sectors will be empowered to continually update all other sectors of the political economy with the ongoings, changes, developments, and strategy of their individual industry – and long-term decision processes can be turned into dynamic, feed-back based ones. Additionally, an open-source economy applied on a macro-level would mean a more sustainable and symbiotic pattern of development – as economic externalities – whether human or environmental – would be openly included and considered in any decision making. On a micro-level, an open-source economy would take on any one of the innumerable forms of participatory self-management. It would not result in a lack of specialization or development, nor a stagnation of enterprise – rather, by applying a paradigm of free and open knowledge (and thus, on a metaphysical level at least, energy), by application of GNU's bazaar model, the micro-economy will be enabled to function as a community – as a 'brain storm' of sorts – rather than separate opposed industries who drive each other to the bottom in the quest for success and domination.

The most appealing trait of an open-source economy might well be the inherent dynamic structure of the economy. Any traits that develop that are disliked by the various sectors are phased out, or re-structured towards a more favorable outcome. Likewise, innovation and development are aided by the bazaar model, while still allowing for alternate paths or visions. Larger, macro planning wouldn't be the sole realm of annual corporate economic plans and the whims of stock brokers looking for the quickest return on their investment – rather, the individual sectors would continually update economy-wide databases that could then be used by the community as a whole to decide long-term economic plans. These sectors wouldn't merely be their current corporate counterparts – as they would be community run ventures, there would be no public sector to pass externalities off to, and thus the management of sustainable development would be an equal component in any open economic proposal or path. Crudely speaking, an open source economy offers nothing but a paradigm for development. It presents no plans, has no centralized vision, and represents nothing but an open repository for energy – whether material or ideal. This repository is figurative, surely, but only as figurative as the bazaar – it is the marketplace where idea is crafted, thought forged, and symbiotic development borne.

The idea, then, with this piece has been not to 'sell' the idea of an open source economy. Rather, it is a request for empowerment, and the responsibility that inherently follows. Our current system of political economy is a static behemoth, hierarchical and sluggish – and is destroying our world. A new paradigm is required – not that of one ideology or another – but a paradigm of open, dynamic exchange of energy. Through this site, I hope to stimulate the further development of these ideas – from the far-reaching metaphysical idealism, to the ground level systems that will enable different sectors to communicate and cooperate through a shared repository, to the active and dynamic sharing of differing ideas and experiences with participatory self-management – in essence, to provide the initial bazaar and set up my own stalls. Please, come and join.

2005.10.07 – Vijay Krishna Ramesh

The preceding text is licensed under the GNU General Public License. For more information, visit http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html.