The Potential Importance Of Free Software For A Socialist Movement

Alexander Prähauser

December 12, 2025

1. Introduction

   
   

The role of technology for socialist revolution is ill-understood. 

For about a century now technology and the Left have drifted apart. At this point the Left seems both unwilling and unable to pick up new technologies or even grant them some interest, perhaps even moreso than the general population. Worse, its fantasies reveal that this is not merely a sign of mental inflexibility but caused by a deep despair that has long ago killed any desire to learn: the slogan of “fully automated luxury gay space communism” is instructive in this respect. It demands not the use of technique for the manifestation of spirit but the complete triumph of technique over spirit, which is what full automation would mean. It is not merely naïve but nihilistic at its very core. But even when the character of current technology is grasped more fully, this understanding is often instrumentalized to justify one-sided dismissals or gut reactions. Its technical confusion mirrors the Left's overall regression.

Technology meanwhile, the study of technique made manifest through dead labor, has been poisoned by capitalism in its very core. At this point describing a mainstream operating system such as Windows or Android as a kafkaesque nightmare would be an undue compliment. Kafka’s nightmares contain a glimmer of recognition, whereas now people are starting to worship future robot gods so they don’t retroactively kill them. 

But there has been an apparent change in the wind. Somewhere between Microsoft taking constant screenshots of Windows systems (initially without even the option to opt out), advertising on its own system and deleting files from user’s computers, a dam broke and users began fleeing to Linux in droves. The Linux desktop share has doubled compared to three years ago and Youtube is flooded with occasionally entertaining videos by professional “bros”, and some “broettes” that often make their lack of technical knowledge a trademark. Even Pewdiepie uses Linux now! 

Good for them! But the revolutionary potential of this movement is virtually nil. For one, the estimated total percentage of Linux users is still only at about 5%. This might be an undercount and/or give a false impression by ignoring the momentum involved, but still, Microsoft could stop such an exodus by releasing a better version of Windows. On a deeper level, capitalism is perfectly capable of running on an open-source basis (but not free software), given the “software as a service” model and the gargantuan amounts of resources required for tasks such as the training of AI models. We can already see this in these newcomers’ approach to Linux, which is treating it as if it were Windows: there is generally no mention of the basic tools needed to make sense of a Linux system, such as man pages or the apropos command. The inherent resources of the system and the community are left unused. Instead, problems are often tackled through LLMs, which can be useful as an auxiliary tool but will quickly lead users astray when they don’t know what they are doing. I have sympathy for these new users, I was once like them, but some of their behavior has the air of city dwellers entering the countryside for the first time and not knowing not to poke a rattlesnake with a stick. 

But socialists would still be remiss if they paid no attention to this trend because it does hit at something real. To understand the situation in more depth we should take a step back however or we risk bad analysis. Let us first off note that Linux is far from the underdog in this situation. On the contrary, Linux runs on a majority of web servers and smartphones and all top 100 supercomputers. If we take these facts together, the image becomes more one of Linux being the rising sea and Windows a resisting island. 

As a result, a fairly large sum is invested in Linux. Currently, Linux is valued at USD ~22 bn., a trifle, except that the valuation of a free software product has to be ridiculously undercounting the labor time spent on it almost by definition. Since anyone can duplicate and modify Linux at any time, its ownership is essentially that of a brand. If there is any real money to be made from Linux it is in the maintenance of servers, but even the USD ~138 bn. market value of Red Hat is unreflective of the labor time put into the ecosystem. The vast majority of free and open source software is developed by individuals or companies who see some financial or personal benefit from the improved functionality and either want or are forced to share the results, and is thus not valued at all. 

This also creates a fundamentally different kind of incentive structure where, to use Arch terms, user-friendliness is often deprioritized in favor of user-centrality. However, the gigantic amount of labor that has gone into free and open-source software has had its effects, and though a lot of them are “under the hood”, i.e. not primarily directed at the end user, they do have the potential to dramatically improve the usage of a computer. There is at this point no comparison anymore between Windows and Linux when it comes to security, package management, data integrity and many other areas that are not immediately visible but important in everyday use [I]. The difference between when I started using Linux ~15 years ago, where I couldn’t use many Live CDs with my graphics card, and now is, in its totality, staggering, particularly when compared to the development of software overall, which is arguably declining. 

But on its own this is of limited worth. As already mentioned, Android is based on Linux, and very few people would argue that Android has furthered freedom even on a software level. What it is is technically open-source in that the source code can be read. This is symptomatic. 

2. Open-source vs Free Software 

   
   

What is called the “free and open-source software movement” is really an uneasy alliance between two different movements. The larger one, the open-source movement, defines itself by the visibility of the source code, which is not really coherent as an ideology: there is no inherent reason to prefer software whose source code is open. It is a technicality and as such only derives its value from an outside source. Which source is left unspoken and differs between actors: for instance, a large company like Google has an interest in establishing an open-source standard in certain areas because an open-source program can be compiled by anyone with a sufficient amount of resources, which makes it almost impossible to sell in a commercial fashion. This ideological incoherence also shows itself in a political naïveté that can be exemplified by a statement Linus Torvalds made on the issue: 

Me, I just don’t care about proprietary software. It’s not “evil” or “immoral,” it just doesn’t matter. I think that Open Source can do better, and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is by working on Open Source, but it’s not a crusade – it’s just a superior way of working together and generating code. 

It’s superior because it’s a lot more fun and because it makes cooperation much easier (no silly NDA’s or artificial barriers to innovation like in a proprietary setting), and I think Open Source is the right thing to do the same way I believe science is better than alchemy. Like science, Open Source allows people to build on a solid base of previous knowledge, without some silly hiding. 

But I don’t think you need to think that alchemy is “evil.” It’s just pointless because you can obviously never do as well in a closed environment as you can with open scientific methods. 

This statement is a great example of a kind of ideology that is widespread among technicians, where a veneer of pragmatism masks a generic progressivism. In reality the situation is much more akin to the American revolution, where an old regime seeking to extend itself along a new frontier has to be defeated by a superior form of social organization. This is because the struggle between free and unfree software is a direct extension of the contradiction of capitalism. Where such incoherence becomes dangerous is in the interface between technology and politics, which is inevitably expanding as politics has to become more authoritarian to stabilize capitalism. This naïveté will be exploited in the fight against socialism. This can already be seen by the Torvalds-sanctioned restriction of developer’s freedom to contribute based on their Russian nationality — given a real socialist movement with the aim of getting the working class into power, this would undoubtedly be decried as fascism. Actions such as this ban show that, when push comes to shove, such “pragmatists” cannot even be relied upon sticking to their pragmatism and remaining impartial in political matters. Further evidence for this is provided by the Linux foundation’s endorsement of the United Nations (as well as several DEI initiatives), displaying a nationalism that would put it directly at odds with any self-respecting socialist [II]. 

It should come as no surprise then that the open-source movement constantly tries to mask its lack of ideological coherence by erasing the difference between it and the free software movement. The latter defines itself by appeal to the ideal of freedom, for which openness of the source code is merely one necessary condition. But such attitudes extend into the free software movement as well, as could be seen in the disgraceful cancellation of Richard Stallman, in which large parts of both movements, and particularly their organizations, participated. What truly distinguishes Stallman, and the reason he was such a vulnerable target for cancellation, is that from early on he had an understanding that we are in a constant war for our freedom. This allowed him to notice the tendencies that would inevitably push software into an authoritarian direction, and to develop the idea of free software as an alternative (though impossible under capitalism) and give it some teeth through the idea of copyleft, which presupposes an ideological commitment to freedom but includes a strategic commitment to keep unfree software from using free software using copyright law. While this strategy has obvious limits, since it relies on the state to enforce property rights, it has created a small environment around the (American) FSF, which has stayed clear of ideological distractions and remained focussed on the fight for free software. So while the FSF would not ever enter an alliance with a socialist movement, because it is an organization focused on one task, the same commitment ensures it can be relied on to uphold its task (unless institutional corruption sets in) [III] 

But before we can evaluate whether this commitment is actually worth something, we have to understand more deeply the reasons technique, and free technology in particular, are important to socialists. 

3. The Reasons Technique Is Important To Socialists 

   
   

The most obvious reason is that good technique increases efficiency. But technique cannot be located solely in technology because the use of technology requires proficiency, which in turn requires understanding. But the very nature of unfree technology requires a restriction on understanding, which is why there is a skill ceiling to unfree technology while there is none on free technology. For this reason unfree technology fosters an understanding of technology as a set of tools, when really it is the process of tool creation [IV]. Because no set of tools can cover every use case, such an understanding inherently restricts the notion of what can be done with technology, as it alienates its most vital aspect — creation. Therefore, an insufficient understanding of technology, fostered by unfree technology, risks both not being able to use technology and not knowing what technology could be used for. For this reason, unfree technology also inherently leads to mystification, as technical understanding is a prerequisite for steering clear of both progressivism and neo-luddism. 

Because thought has to have both technique and self-reflection to develop, unfree technology is directly opposed to it. Thought is limited by technique, so to transcend its limits, it has to transform it. Thus, if technology is unfree, thought remains limited. But since thought is in the transcendence of limits, it cannot remain limited or it will whither and die. This can readily be seen in current unfree software: it cannot let the user comprehend it, only expose its surface functions, so appearance has to take the place of comprehension. To distract from the lack of real progress, an illusion of progress has to be conveyed using gloss and polish until the exterior of the program becomes an appetizing poster around an impenetrable monolith. This is a direct consequence of the software’s unfreedom — free software is not infantilizing in this way, even if it can be infuriating. In fact, a lot of free and open-source software displays a downright lack of sparkle [V].

The GNU Emacs startup screen without customization (or an X toolkit).

Its beauty is an inner one, that has to be grasped through understanding. It can only be expressed through intimacy, through years of interdependent use: The user develops the software, and the software develops the user. The linearity of time made it so that thought had to be linear, but recursion allows new nonlinear patterns of thought to emerge, for instance along fractal subdivisions, linked nets (such as wikis) or tagging systems. Soon after these are grasped, it becomes apparent that thought is often much better this way [VI]. Divergences between local and global structures, different levels of locality or time periods can be easily kept track of using version-control systems such as Git [VII]. Important tasks such as information gathering, communication and task management become quicker and simpler over time. The system becomes an intimate friend, an extension of the mind, allowing it to prosper in ways that were previously impossible. 

Yet, therein lies a danger, which is that intemperate technique becomes alienating to non-technicians. However, technical virtuousity is attractive, and this holds on all levels, from the visceral to the mental. And while a proper appreciation of virtuousity requires some technical understanding by the observer, a proper virtuouso can, through parlor tricks, convey an impression of their skill [VIII]. On the other hand, a lack of technical understanding is inherently unattractive. The question, “What do you know?” becomes hostile, and rightfully so — good intentions without understanding are dangerous. 

But still, there is a possible objection to this line of thought, which is that it is merely social but not properly political. A certain degree of mystification has to be accepted to be able to even use a computer. The notion of a Turing-machine is almost inherently mystical and the millions of lines of code between each stroke of a key and letter on the screen could not ever be understood by one person at one time. Moreover, since most of them are not important to a revolutionary, one might quip that to Lenin the question of the typewriter might have been secondary. But some understanding of the nature of typing would not have been, particularly if the presses were falling apart. And Lenin needed to use a typewriter, or someone would have to type his writing. The state of the art had to be used. 

So if the task is to train ourselves as revolutionaries, that should include some technical training too. The analogy to city dwellers is apt because the digital is a new kind of environment that spirit creates for itself; one where what previously had to be ideal materializes itself. Not being able to handle yourself in your environment should be frowned upon, and knowing a bit about the environment might come in handy if you want to encourage people to take care of it. In other words, if we want to make a bid for political power to reorganize production, some understanding of that production would be necessary for our bid to be worth being taken seriously, and particularly at the nexus of innovation, which is software [IX].

And this is where the FSF’s work is invaluable because Stallman’s early insistence on the freedom of software as a value above its technical efficiency has provided us with some pieces of software that hold great potential for a socialist movement, in particular Emacs and Guix. What makes these so different is that: 

• They try their best to expose their internals to the users as part of their function and allow for reconfiguration. 

• They are highly modular and thus allow for easy extension. 

• Guix is fully functional, which means it is very secure. Security seems like a secondary concern that could easily be overemphasized — the idea of the great socialist revolution failing because people weren’t using the right encryption algorithm is largely a fantasy. But a serious socialist movement would almost certainly make some significant enemies, not only the state but also other actors within society. Malware can cause a lot of damage, such as deleting data or falsifying records. 

• They have a declarative approach with regards to their configuration. This means that the essence of a system can be captured in a few config files and used to reproduce it at any given time. These files can in turn be version-controlled using Git or some other version-control system, allowing them to be adapted to any specific situation and solutions found for any particular problem to easily be replicated. Through this, a small number of experts can create and supervise sensible default configurations that can nevertheless be tailored to a specific use, making it possible to use these systems without too much prior expertise while keeping them fairly low-effort to maintain. 

• They are based on Lisp. 

  
  

4. A word about Fundamentals 

If there is one lesson to draw from the recent developments of software it is the importance of good fundamentals. In the current state of software countless man-hours are thrown at problems that cannot be fixed because their root cause is so deeply buried that the investment cost for the required rewrites would be too high. Free software is not immune to this issue, although the ability to freely duplicate and modify it does at least mitigate it. But the FSF has generally been good at getting its fundamentals right. And one of the smartest decisions they made was to put their faith in Lisp. 

Lisp is a strange programming language, or family of languages, one of the oldest and yet ever fresh. Its most vital part (the eval mechanism) started as a meta-object that was thought to be purely mathematical, so it has abstraction at its core. Because of this, it was used in early AI research, where special (and very expensive) Lisp machines were created just to have it run faster. It has since fallen out of fashion, then come back into fashion, then fallen out again, but always rediscovered and honed by enthusiasts, and by the FSF. The elegant simplicity of its syntax makes it easy to learn but also to this day unmatched in terms of meta-programming. This gives it a flexibility that no other language has. They might be faster, have better type-checking or more functional features but their expressive power pales compared to Lisp. 

Emacs is written in Emacs Lisp and Guix in Guile Lisp, the FSF’s attempt at a universal extension language, a kind of glue that can be used to extend and connect different programs. That vision is not yet fully implemented but Guix gets a lot of the way there. This fundamental soundness of architecture allows the relatively small core of volunteers around the FSF to produce pieces of software that are not just state of the art but getting better all the time while software dwarfing them in terms of resources is starting to degenerate. It also reduces the amount of learning that has to be done to get to a point where one can develop software for everyday use [X].

Despite this, it does take some time to really get these systems. The hours, hours, days, weeks and months I spent attaining proficiency can be reduced, and probably by a lot with some tutelage, but they cannot be eliminated. So those that want to learn, particularly those that might become experts a socialist movement will rely upon, should start training themselves. 

5. Conclusion 

Software is about a hundred years old at this point and in its lifespan it has recapitulated the development of capitalism in a microcosm. Because the capitalist profit motive is patently absurd for something that is essentially infinitely duplicatable, it has to impose artificial restrictions on its users, mystifying it completely and turning it into yet another tool for capitalist domination. But it also needed some very smart minds who could estimate the developing unfreedom early on and set a counterpoint against it. This created an alternative locus around which development could crystallize, and which through decades of labor could become a system that is not just the best in terms of productivity, not just the most free but also usable by a lot of people who don’t have initial technical understanding with relatively little oversight by a few with such understanding. This is a great chance for socialists. Don’t waste it. 

Endnotes

[I]: As I am typing this, my system is making hourly snapshots of its state, which take very little space because they are copy-on-write and exclude the unimportant parts of the system — a feature surely appreciated by everyone who ever accidentally deleted or corrupted important data. 

[II]: This does not mean that no open-source software can be used, of course, and one of the ironies of the exclusion of Russian programmers is that Russian citizens cannot participate in the development of Linux but the Russian state can freely use it.

[III]: Of course, many individuals affiliated with the FSF would be sympathetic with a socialist movement and might devote some time to it. 

[IV]: Although “tool” should be in quotation marks because it is also the process of internal mastery. 

[V]: With some notable exceptions, such as KDE and Hyprland. 

[VI]: This is why LLMs exhibit an inherent drive towards list creation. 

[VII]: This could be very useful for tracking the state of documents. Like it or not (and it is a good thing in principle), the era of the permanent article is over: articles are being constantly revised, added to, updated and so on, because now they can be. Using version control this would not be a problem: in case of disputes any older version could be recalled for checking. 

[VIII]: Of course, a talented huckster can create the same impression without the skill — that’s why they are parlor tricks. 

[IX]: That software is the nexus of innovation can readily be seen by the fact that almost all innovation nowadays is done through software. The deeper reason for this is a long-term movement of spirit towards increasing independence from its substrate. This movement started with the invention of language, continued with writing, then print and switched to software once sufficient hardware became available. Though fantasies such as uploading your brain to a computer are laughably simplistic in some aspects they do grasp this moment. 

[X]: It should be noted here that I am not a programmer (though I am a mathematician). Yet I use Lisp on a daily basis, mainly to write more efficiently. I also managed to create the best writing system in the world despite having fairly little programming experience beforehand and that is mostly due to the strong fundamentals that were already set up.