So I did miss that Linus is in the article, but the reference to him says he was awarded the title, which makes it sound like an honour rather than a hierarchical system. I don’t believe that he’s ever been anything other than the projects owner/founder but I’m happy to learn if I’m wrong.
Yes, that’s just how open source works. Of course they always serve at the pleasure of the community, otherwise forks would happen. Nobody said otherwise. As the “Usage” section of that article implies, the “benevolent” bit comes from the feedback loop of a happy community supporting their dictator-for-life.
I mean how the community refers to him. I’ve never read a thread where someone called Linus a BDFL, I have with python. If they do, they do. Just haven’t seen it myself.
Free software doesn’t have owners. If someone else did a better job of being the “benevolent dictator” of a fork of Linux, everyone would start using that fork. Arguably this is a more free-market system than non-free software.
You can fork it, sure Linus is very respected and his decisions are considered very important but you can fork it and change however you want so it’s still compatible with Anarchism.
Linus’ power doesn’t come from Ownership, but respect. Anyone can fork it and do what they want, but because Linus is respected, everyone else follows suit.
Anarchism would function in a similar manner, it wouldn’t be a bunch of opinionated people doing whatever they want, but people generally listening to experts who don’t actually hold systemic power.
Many times what? Most forks die within a few months. Especially for big and well known projects. For example, io.js was a fork of NodeJs. Didn’t last long and was killed by NodeJs. All the Firefox forks are pretty much dead as well. Linux also had plenty of forks by people who disagreed with Linus and where are they now? I bet you don’t even remember their names.
Forks don’t work unless the original project is dead.
So mass adoption is your answer, and I’d say you’re misguided. The purpose of FOSS isn’t to make a profit, but to satisfy uses and needs. If a few people have a need for a fork and use it, then it’s a success.
You’re judging FOSS software by popularity, rather than use, as though it’s for profit.
Most new businesses fail as well. Maybe we shouldn’t be starting new businesses either? Or perhaps this more about people being unprepared and out of their depth whether it’s starting a new business or forking a code base. And not the individual actions themselves.
This is incorrect. It’s true that most (in fact, I would say almost all) forks go nowhere but that doesn’t mean forking isn’t incredibly valuable. Even the example you cite, “original project is dead” isn’t just incidentally useful, it’s critical to open source. Other examples include:
project’s core team is part of a for profit org that is moving the project in a bad, profit motivated direction:
project’s leader suddenly and dramatically loses respect (maybe he killed his wife or something);
project’s leader dies without leaving a digital will regarding who controls the core repo;
project continues to direct effort into features while falling to address major security concerns;
project is healthy and useful in every way but there is an important use case not being addressed, and the fork would address it.
Even if 99% of forks fail, that’s irrelevant because 99% of original projects fail in the same ways. Forks are critical to open source.
I would say we should just let unjust societies fail so just ones can take their place, but that seems to be the natural course. We’re seeing that right now.
Nextcloud is a FOSS fork of OwnCloud. Both projects are great in their own way, hugely successful and serve a lot of people very well. They just moved in different directions.
This is just one example of many. Ability to fork is super important to ensure that projects stay open source, like in this example.
I would disagree and say it’s more akin to a philosopher king hence less anarchy and more monarchy. It’s all good until the king dies and let’s see who succeeds them.
I meant that as a reply to the second paragraph which generalised anarchism; including the non-Linux world.
I also disagree that this isn’t an issue in the broader Linux community however. See for example the loud minority with an irrational hate against quite obviously good software projects like systemd who got those ideas from charlatans or “experts”.
I know, I used Linux as an example. Just like not everyone needs to be a weatherman to trust weatherman that can recognize experts among themselves, so too can engineers recognize experts among themselves, and so forth.
Skilled programmers can see that Linus is an expert. It works in tech. It probably works in any professional environment - anywhere where skilled people are picking someone highly skilled.
For the average person, we have clearly seen average people suck at picking expert leaders, though it works fine in small groups
There’s a word for this, the promotion of leaders based on merit instead of popularity - Technocracy. And it’s not a distinct ideology but a syncretic one that has been adopted by many groups with differing politics. The most prominent example would be the Technocratic faction of the People’s Republic of China, which was opposed to the Maoists back in the 50s and 60s; they argued for society to be led by experts instead of Democratically with a strong emphasis on Peasant participation (the standpoint of the Maoists). China today follows a moderate path taking from both factions.
In the West, however, Technocracy is mostly associated with Liberals; however, I would argue that the modern Liberal view of Technocracy is fundamentally flawed, since it relies on Capitalism distributing wealth meritocratically (which Socialists understand is not the case).
Case in point. You think quoting an argument and sneering is a counterargument. Obviously, because you don’t know the first thing about labor theory of value.
Someone asked if you think capitalists or engineers did the engineering, and you revealed you don’t understand the question.
You are once again building a flawed model of the dynamic at play here in an attempt to ease the discomfort you feel from encountering something that doesn’t make sense to you (why did I choose to join this community?). I’m not even attempting to build any counterarguments because the responses I’ve gotten don’t even attempt to understand what I’ve said in the beginning. To be utterly frank I just lack respect for people who think of themselves as any flavour of anarchist while still dreaming of a system as thoroughly rigid as the artificially created Internet. You pretend to hate the system while desperately trying to invent excuses for continuing to make yourself at home within it.
No dude, you demonstrably said ‘I’m going to repeat your argument so you can think about it.’ Projecting some emotional state onto me is not gonna change how you fucked this up.
This is mockery. I am calling you ignorant.
I am trying to highlight how you joined an explicitly leftist server, whilst remaining aggressively unaware of… genuinely the first things people learn about leftism. So when you try smugly posturing your way out of a pointed question, you’re just revealing you know less than nothing.
To be utterly frank I just lack respect for people who think of themselves as any flavour of anarchist while still dreaming of a system as thoroughly rigid as the artificially created Internet.
Anarchists being naked hippies, of course, not organized laborers. The internet was mostly designed and operated by academics. It runs on half a century of “does this sound right?” collaborative standards. Whatever browser you’re reading this in has its origins in anti-monopolist diehards building better software out of spite.
None of which is even addressing the initial failure. Capital didn’t design your computer. Intel’s founders definitely did, but only because they were workers dissatisfied under Fairchild, who were in turn workers dissatisfied under Shockley. The early history of silicon valley is halfway to semiconductor co-ops.
Well you solved that conundrum rightly. Now let’s go linch those dirty Apple and John Deere engineers. Since they’ve designed those machines, they must be the only responsible parties for designing them with their extreme anti-consumer and anti-repair policies. They must get commissions on every licensed repair or something, it’s definitely got nothing to do with capitalists putting restrictions on the design team in order to increase profits, nope…
You’re completely off on what I’m getting at. The idea of “Capitalist” hardware, as though the Capitalist did the labor, is wrong. Engineers are paid for their labor power, they don’t typically get royalties or anything of the sort, just like any other laborer.
Someone saying that FOSS software relies on Capitalist hardware is putting the Capitalist over the Engineer, as though the Capitalist created the hardware, and not the labor of the miners, assemblers, designers, engineers, and so forth, regardless of who owns the Capital the labor is done by the Workers. FOSS is agnostic to whoever owned the Means of Proruction of the hardware using or producing it.
Amazing how every single part of your comment is so wrong.
It’s actually a really good analogy,
Not an analogy, an example. Those two are different things.
because it can only run on
No, it can run on many things, including open source collaborative hardware that exists.
fully-capitalist hardware.
What the hell even is that? Fun fact: until very recently most of the computer hardware was made in communist China. I know, scary. And now that a lot of effort is being made to get that production out of there, those efforts are being sponsored by public money to an incredible degree. Billions of dollars of taxes (you know, community resources) are being poured into that because big corporations are the biggest lovers of government handouts.
And the FOSS system seems to be collapsing right now for the same reason that anarcho-communism only works short-term until someone sees commercial value in it and abuses the system to the limit.
Big corporations initially providing exceptional services based on FOSS and after a while use their market share to excert undue control about the system (see e.g. RedHat, Ubuntu, Chrome, Android, …)
Big corporations taking FLOSS, rebranding it and hiding it below their frontend, so that nobody can interact with or directly use the FLOSS part (e.g. iOS, any car manufacturer, …)
Big and small companies just using GPL (or similar) software and not sharing their modifications when asked (e.g. basically any embedded systems, many Android manufacturers, RedHat, …)
Big corporations using infrastructure FOSS without giving anything back (e.g. OpenSSL, which before Heartbleed was developed and maintained by a single guy with barely enough funding to stay alive, while it was used by millions of projects with a combined user base of billions of users)
The old embrace-extend-extinguish playbook is everywhere.
And so it’s no surprise that many well-known FOSS developers are advocating for some kind of post-FOSS system that forces commercial users to pay for their usage of the software.
Considering how borderline impossible it is for some software developer to successfully sue a company to comply with GPL, I can’t really see such a post-FOSS system work well.
The expansion of the Internet has witnessed a resurgence of the gift economy, especially in the technology sector. Engineers, scientists, and software developers create open-source software projects. The Linux kernel and the GNU operating system are prototypical examples of the gift economy’s prominence in the technology sector and its active role in using permissive free software and copyleft licenses, which allow free reuse of software and knowledge.
Essentially the line of thought is that open source software is an example of mutual aid and the gift economy.
I just got rid of my last Windows installation, and I got rid of all my Apple devices a couple years ago. The Linux life is so nice!
On the other hand, I just setup a Windows gaming machine for a friend (I would have pushed Linux, but I live far away and can’t commit to being tech support). There were so many hoops to jump through to cut through all the crap:
I had to set the region to somewhere in the EU so that my friend can uninstall Edge sometime in March, 2024 without breaking other functionality
I had to run a hidden script at a specific point during the install to allow me to not have to use a Microsoft account
I had to disconnect the non-boot drive and reinstall because the Windows installer uses motherboard drive ordering instead of UUID to decide which drive to put the boot partition on.
I had to run Win Debloat Tools to get rid of all the crap Microsoft adds to their OS
I had to find a 3rd party driver update tool because the motherboard manufacturer’s software is terrible and installs a bunch of extra crap.
I had to install a 3rd party Nvidia driver update tool because their official one requires making an account and gives a bunch of unwanted ads as notifications.
It’s seriously bonkers. It makes you really appreciate Linux as a whole and package managers in particular.
Whenever people talk about how difficult Linux is to install i ask them if they’ve installed Windows lately. They all say “yes”. I do not believe a word of it, though. If they had done so–or more likely, tried to do so–there’s no way they’d have that opinion. I’m sure they’ve gone into their OEM’s recovery menu and hit “reinstall” or whatever, but that’s a very different process.
It’s funny because I’ve built like six Windows machines and the install process is always a snap. You just select what drive to install to, what telemetry options you want on/off, and then press start.
You don’t even have to have an Internet connection/Microsoft account if you don’t want to, you can just create a local one.
I don’t understand how you guys have such a hard time with it. Certain distros of Linux are pretty easy to get going, but Windows is only hard if you refuse to leave your Linux knowledge bubble, ever.
Sure we can talk about how you have to go in and do X and Y in order to get it configured how YOU want, but that shit applies in Linux too.
I don’t know when the last time you tried to install Windows was, but when I installed Windows 11 Pro yesterday, there was no obvious option to install without an internet connection and a Microsoft account. To make that option appear, I had to hit shift+f10 at the country selection screen to open a command prompt and run the script located at “oobe\bypassrno.cmd” to have the option “I don’t have an internet connection” to pop up and allow me to bypass needing a Microsoft account.
That’s fine, and people said the same thing about Windows 10, and Windows 7, and Windows XP, and…
If you control for bloat, tracking, and ads, the install process for Windows versions has gotten steadily more difficult as time goes on. Installing Windows 11 is a snap, too, … if you don’t care about all the crap they added.
The thing us Linux users are complaining about is not how easy it is to install if you accept the enshittification that Microsoft forces, but how difficult it is to install without it.
It’s “hard” to us because we actually uncheck the telemetry settings and care about not having a Microsoft account on, including the additional debloating afterwards. For the average user, clicking next every step, ignoring the data harvesting effort and creating / using a Microsoft account is part of the experience and “normal” to them.
I’ve tried switching to Linux exclusively multiple times, and I always end up falling back to Windows on my desktop. I have multiple Linux servers and VMs, but there are two main barriers. First is gaming. Last time I tried, I couldn’t get RTX working in some titles, EA launcher was broken, and it was generally just buggy. The second reason is for coding. I’ve been coding for Windows for almost 20 years, and I am hugely reliant on Visual Studio. I just can’t find a comparable alternative for Linux.
I’d ditch Windows in a second if I could make Linux work for me, but so far I haven’t had much luck.
I have a friend that does .NET development on Linux. So I guess that’s possible. I know he uses JetBrains Rider as an IDE instead of visual studio. I’m sure there are some other hoops he jumps through, as well, but I never really dove into it with him. I always used Visual Studio in Uni, myself. I also have a Windows partition for gaming and music production.
.NET is infuriating enough on Windows. Any time I have to work with a .NET library, I always write a wrapper with a C or C++ interface first. Your friend who does .NET development on Linux has far more patience than I can ever hope to have.
I had similar issues. My Nvidia GPU was the main thing hold me back for so long. I finally upgraded to an AMD RX 7900 XTX and cycled my Nvidia GPU to my home server for transcoding, gpu compute, and KasmVNC GPU acceleration.
I also decided that ray tracing, HDR, and games that don’t support Linux just aren’t important to me, but it took me a long time to become okay with that.
For development, I guess I’ve been lucky in the type of work that I do in that Linux is a perfect fit. I find Windows to be far more of a hassle than it’s worth, but if you do game development or Windows-specific development, I can see that being a barrier.
RTX is one of those things that just isn’t optional for me. I may be in the minority, but I am far more concerned with how games look than how they run. As long as my FPS is above 30 or so, I’m generally okay with performance. I feel like Windows will always support those “extra features” like RTX before Linux, unfortunately. I really comes down to market share, I think; the developers at Nvidia and AMD are going to target Windows first, and the people who maintain Proton are stuck in second place. You’ll have to pry Windows 10 out of my cold dead hands, though; I liked Vista better than Windows 11.
For development, I’m locked into Windows at work, but my job isn’t specifically software development; it just happens to be a useful skill to have in my career. I do far more coding at home, and I certainly have the option of switching to Linux. I think I’ve just been spoiled by Visual Studio’s all-in-one approach for so long. My #1 concern is debugging. I haven’t seen an Linux IDE that allows for stepping back through the call stack and checking variable states inside the IDE quite like VS does it.
To be clear, I’m not bashing Linux at all. I’ve been a homelabber for longer than I can remember, and I have a total of 3 physical machines and VMs that run Windows compared to a total of probably 20 that run Linux, FreeBSD, or some other POSIX variant. I have so few Windows machines that I actually own legal licenses for all of them. I do feel like the people who say “Just run Linux on your desktop PC; it can do everything Windows can” are looking at the operating system through rose-colored glasses. Linux will always be the best choice for anything that doesn’t require having a monitor attached, but otherwise, it feels like it’s playing catch-up to Windows.
For sure, there are compromises no matter what you pick. I just hit the point where Linux checked enough boxes for me to ditch Windows. I hope that it gets to that point for you eventually!
Hey, why get rid of valueable computing devices 😃 there is nothing more fun than a rolling distro like arch pr openSuse tumbleweed on old apple hardware
😁 i live a free computing live where I collect trash (mostly from my father and thus apple devices) and install Linux on them to make them treasures
Linux desktop users might be the most delusional bunch in all of tech. Statements like this are why Linux is never going to be as easy to use as osx/Windows.
Bro it’s cool if your needs are best served by Windows or OS X but please don’t lump me along with childish ideologues like OP. I’ve switched to Linux on my work Desktop about seven years ago, yet that didn’t make me feel the need to go full-communist about it, nor do I hold it up as some kind of free market success story.
Damn, still hovering around negative two thousand? You can do it! Don’t let people get you down by ignoring your trolls. You are a troll, you are beautiful, and your contrarianism is annoying af! Don’t ever let anyone tell you different. I’m sorry people aren’t downvoting you at a rate high enough to smash that goal. You will get there.
Omg you did it! Bi-millenial troll-fuckery award goes to LemmyIsFantasticForBeingAnnoying!!! -2000 karma and counting! Imagine all the people having a good day when they scrolled down and saw some stupid shit take you wrote! So much fun!!!
And before you say anything, the tag only exists to identify a commenter who shouldn’t be taken seriously, which is absolutely well earned on your part. Side benefit is mild return trolling. You gotta admit -2000 karma is a ridiculous milestone, intentional or otherwise
Windows 11 Pro is $200. There are ways to get it cheaper, but that is what Microsoft charges for it…and they still collect a bunch of data and serve you a bunch of ads.
Even if you pirate it, you still pay with the immense amount of data they take, even if you opt out of a bunch of it (which you can only do temporarily anyway).
Its perfectly okay to have both Linux and Windows, and keep Windows for 5-10% use cases, excluding work/school needs. Always remember Pareto’s principle, and never try to force through things where unnecessary friction hinders you for benefits that are nothing more than ideological masturbation.
I have some newfound respect for the man, it seems. Not that I didn’t respect him earlier, just thought that his toxicity was the defining trait of his temper. I find these takes somehow mellow the image in my mind.
The man is a swedish speaking Finn originally, it kinda comes with the territory. We might technically be a minority but we’re still as Finnish as the rest of them (to a certain degree at least).
Linus isn’t a tankie, and Socialism/Communism isn’t giving away money. It’s a dramatic restructuring of the economy into a Worker owned and operated one.
That’s fair, but the result seems to be the same; he’s nowhere near as caustic when interacting with people as he used to be. I had quite a lot of sympathy with the message in most of his technical rants, but the delivery was counterproductive. If he’s changed that I think he’s done well.
The idea of free software is extremely socialist/communist. People working together to create something that anyone can use for free, with profit being a non-existent or at least minor motivator.
It’s a real shame that generally lefties don’t really care about or ‘get’ software freedom. You should be pushing for free software on all levels. In your personal life and in government. It’s crazy how much power a company like Apple, Microsoft or Google has over everyone.
It’s pretty hard to fight hegemony when your salary is just built on donations. A lot of important tech is also paid for via government grants then the private sector gets to use it and erect the walled gardens when it should be in the commons.
It’s mutual. I don’t necessarily extend my expectations of a machine doing what I tell it to, out into geopolitics.
There’s a lot of overlap in useful terminology and philosophy. There’s a bit of overlap in organizational problem-solving (and problem-having). But you can be aggressively capitalist, and still recognize the benefits of stone-soup development. Even in hardware - RISC-V is going to undercut low-end ARM in embedded applications, and hard-drive manufacturers are not exactly Spanish republicans.
The hippies were always capitalist adjacent. Many of them became the Jesus freaks and yuppies.
There were actual leftist movements happening at the time, but those were more of minorities beginning the discussions on how to actively demand power. Black power, gay liberation, women’s liberation, and American communism. Some of this did coincide with the tech hippies.
As a linux leftie, I fully agree. It’s hard to convince people though. Also, I don’t necessarily think it’s the best intro to leftism for layfolk. It’s a great into to leftism for tech nerds and a great intro to tech for left nerds, but the punk who just uses the library computer doesn’t care. Unions are often the easiest intro to leftism for people and not many union folks are interested in learning free software.
I was out drinking the other day and an IBCW friend introduced me to a union brother of his and they’re smart guys who believe in the power of labor, hell they even excitedly showed me that there’s a professionals union in the AFL-CIO, but if I tried to explain a terminal to them they’d look at me like I grew several heads at once.
Free software is great praxis, but it often suffers by the fact that it isn’t what people are used to. That there are intro free softwares like GIMP, libreoffice, and basically anything where FOSS is the default. We can do this, but I think it’s definitely going to not be the easiest sell.
I was leftie before I was techie. If you don’t know anything around tech and computers you wouldn’t know what to do. Even as a fairly tech-adjacent professional it took me quite a while.
Then again, I only became a real leftie again after kicking all the corpos out of my computer.
Tech used to be (and still is) obscured by heavy gatekeeping. We who understand a little more like to joke about those who don’t, and I guess we’ll have to stop that if we really want to unite the left. Don’t ridicule, explain. The person might never have had a chance to learn the concept.
Yeah, if a stereotypical construction union rep feels judged by the FOSS world why would they try.
My local bike coop apparently used to run mint on their computer, but when the person who set it up left town it was too much for the bike nerds who weren’t mad engineers (this person also built an electrolysis tub, that had to be gotten rid of when they left Idk if they were actually an engineer by profession, but my dumb engineer ass keeps hearing they did shit I want to do). They’d go back if it was the same, but windows just works for them and linux needed someone to make it work.
I explained to finance why we had to purchase licenses for for a UI library. To justify the costs, they asked what the alternative was. I told them we don’t have the talent or resources to develop our own UI library… But I offered up free open source alternatives.
Unfortunately the FOSS stuff never gets approved by IT due to vulnerability / threats.
Depends, sometimes not always. Having source available makes it easy for hackers to find exploit but also makes it easier for community to identify and address exploits.
So… For a large active community project, it’s likely fairly secure but for smaller projects with 1 or just a few developers it might be vulnerable.
There’s definitely a gatekeeping issue, but free software doesn’t automatically mean ‘force people to use Linux’, there’s stuff like Firefox, Libreoffice, Nextcloud, etc.
It’s things like councils working together on common software platforms instead of going with commercial vendors, supported by local companies instead of shoveling billions to Google and Microsoft that gets sent overseas immediately. It’s federal governments hiring developers directly to work on software instead of using commercial vendors.
Well, there is also a more right leaning take. You take care of your self and scratch your own itch, and you should not be a liability to the society, but make your self useful and contribute back. And I think this is kind of the reason FLOSS works well, it can be aligned with many philosophies.
That phrase that you said has absolutely nothing to do with the Linux/Libre philosophy.
You take care of your self and scratch your own itch
While I understand that you meant to make an analogy with people creating the projects they want to use, the vast majority of people don’t create their projects, and instead contribute to others, and they contribute with existing issues not necessarily things that they want or need. Alternatively you can see that a lot of issues are fixed by people who are not affected by it, it’s very common for issues to ask people to test specific changes to see if they solved the issue they were facing.
and you should not be a liability to the society
The vast majority of people just use the software that the community maintains, and when they need a feature they open a PR and let the community implement it. So the vast majority of people are a liability to the community, even if you contribute to one project actively you use several others that you’ve never contributed to.
but make your self useful and contribute back.
This has nothing to do with right-wing philosophy, in fact most right wing people are against any form of contribution,
And I think this is kind of the reason FLOSS works well, it can be aligned with many philosophies.
You might not like it, but FLOSS is extremely aligned with left wing ideology, where people contribute to the community because they want to and the community provides back without asking anything in return.
Any society that is not communism is not free. If your continued existence is dependant on you working for a wage you are not free. Being “free” to sign a contract that removes your rights so you can work and thus eat is not freedom.
A free society does not need to coerce you into doing things that are good for society. You do them because they are fun or fulfilling. In other words, the same reason people work on open source software.
Country is a little vague so I’ll supliment state in it’s place. I’d argue there are communist societies but no communist states. “communist states” may be an oxymoron.
A useful way to think about self described communist states is that they are attempting to build communism. Whether or not their strategies are effective is up for rigorous debate of course.
Communist societies on the other hand have existed since the dawn of humanity. I read an interesting book titled The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow. They cover a variety of indigenous groups’ economies and social structures. Some could be described as communism, others were as exploitative or worse than our current society. The San tribes are a modern example of an egalitarian society or maybe more accurately a group of egalitarian societies. I’m also interested in the Zapatistas and what the folks in Northern Syria are doing but I doubt they constitue communism.
Anyway I’m no authority on these things but I hope you found the perspective interesting. The audiobook for the Dawn of Everything is fastinating and a local library might have a copy if you want to check it out.
There are no communist countries. Only Communist countries. Communism is an authoritarian state economic system that is nominally left leaning. Whereas communism is largely against states and state power, and very libertarian in the original sense.
So the answer to your question is that technically all communist countries are free. You just don’t know the difference.
No, the actual problem is that you aren’t learning. Nor are you trying to. I literally just explained to you that there is a difference between Communism and communism. And what that difference was. Your only response. Sadly to cling to the same propaganda canard.
There are no communist countries. Therefore, technically all of them are free and technically all of them are not free. Because they don’t exist. Communist countries on the other hand are socially very unfree.
I truly hope you are not a programmer despite posting from a programming themed instance. If on accident you are, my sympathies to whoever hires you. Because you show the inability to differentiate between a variable name and a variable type.
No. Literally now you are projecting. I know the reason why. And I can state it clearly. And I’ve already stated it to you. The reason is that communists don’t want a state. Therefore, the idea of a state being communist is an oxymoron. Communists on the other hand, reject parts of communism wholesale. The USSR, PRC and DKPR call/called themselves Communist. Yet they all had more in common with dictatorial juntas and fascism than they did with communism.
At this point, you are basically asserting that a string named int is nothing but an integer.
Technical correction for historical accuracy: the USSR, PRC, etc. never called their countries Communist, but were led by Communist parties that, by their own words, were attempting to build Communism. Marxism-Leninism posits the strategy of building up the productive forces via a transitional Socialist stage before reaching Communism.
I’m not an ML myself, but it’s important to understand the distinction. That’s why the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not the Union of Communist Republics, because even by their own admission they were far away from Communism. This is completely separate from how effective or ineffective we may analyze them to have been at achieving this stated goal, that’s an entirely separate conversation that again, I’m not an ML and am not interested in arguing.
I agree with all that. That’s all fine for a nuanced discussion between those that understand it. This wasn’t that conversation.
I’m not ML either. Staunchly anti ML generally. Because of how much they malign and damage the concept for those of us that are evolutionary and not revolutionary. That and the generally deadly outcomes they bring about as well as the childish behavior. 30 years ago, I would not have understood the distinction between the name applied to them and the concept the name was derived from either. Let alone the marginally good intentions, their roads to social oppression were paved with.
Speaking as a non-ML, reform is more useful as a means of preventing fascism than achieving systemic change. Building up parallel structures from the bottom-up, such as mass Unionization, is revolutionary and achieves more meaningful results locally than electoralism typically does. Electoralism has value, but cannot do much without grassroots organization.
Again, I agree. Though I think it’s important to acknowledge a difference between social revolutions such as unionization where workers organize to have their voice represented against much bigger powers. And Marshall revolution. Of course, when peaceful protests becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable. Which is what happened initially with many of the ML experiments. Russia overthrowing the tzar China overthrowing the emperor etc. the problem is, when the external threat was gone. They turned on themselves.
The problem is, especially where Marxist leninists are concerned. And can be readily viewed through the lens of their use of Engles “on authority” as a crutch. They were ultimately intellectually, morally bereft. Becoming the monsters they said they’d eliminate. Forcefully annexing millions without their consent. And killing many more millions simply for their dissent. Something we must acknowledge if we’re to un-hypocritically call out capitalism and capitalists.
When it comes to winning people over. We should be able to do it with words, not weapons as a rule. If you can’t, either they’re paid not to understand. Or your ideas are lacking.
Alright, now that you’ve elaborated more I’m more inclined to agree.
My policy is more anti-tendency, I simply advocate for people to read as much as possible, touch as much grass as possible, try to organize and contribute to leftist organizational structures, and continue to fight for improving material conditions.
I dont think so, that isn’t necessarily the case. I think people in capitalist economies can also contribute out of their own free will, because they have fun with the project. To put it so that they only do it not to starve is, in my opinion, too harsh. I do lots of things in this economy because I have fun with them, not because I dont want to starve. However, I think that of course the aspect “I need food” is always a factor and an influence. Just very often not the only one.
Yeah, what I said is an exaggeration. A tiny portion of the population will never have to do a day of work in their lives because they’re bankrolled by daddy. Other people will have free time because of the efforts of the labor movement. Some people are lucky to have jobs they like. But, unless you’re super rich, the threat is always there. Capitalists are working hard to roll back labor rights. You could lose your job. You’re always a few bad days away from needing to take a shit job so you can eat.
Of course capitalism operates in a lot of gray areas, it’s how it seems freer than it actually is. “I need food” isn’t always a problem, but it is one often enough to be systemically problematic. Abandoning one’s hopes and dreams because one must be “realistic” is the norm.
Well the argument “People in capitalist economies do not contribute out of free will” is something you just pull out of your ass, to define your side as the ones that will “contribute out of free will” (hence, the good side). This is the same logic you see in religious cults, where they define that themselves are moral and right, and the outside immoral. It really doesn’t deserve any serous response since there is no response that will be able to penetrate that kind of brainwash.
You’re the one applying morals where there is none.
Communism is not about morality and we doesn’t have a moral judgment of the world. It’s simply looking at the material reality of things and them formulating ideas from that, the exact opposite of idealism (religion is a form of idealism).
What that user said is an exageration, sure, but they are not far off. Your only options under capitalism are work and pray to earn enough to pay for rent, or live in the streets. There’s no choice here, you have no safety nets, no certainty.
The reality is that the biggest FOSS projects are usually bankrolled by companies that need them, not because of some moral good, but because it makes more monetary sense to do it that way.
Now for the other side, projects with no money incentive involved, where people contribute because they want too, usually are slow or in need of more contributors, precisely because, under capitalism, they don’t have enough free time, they need to worry about their full time job and all the other priorities in their lives before they can sit down and contribute some code.
Again, there no moral judgement here, it’s simply a description of the material reality.
I’m sorry, it’s just that I can’t imagine you live in the same world I do. Maybe it’s different for you, I saw you said you live in a socialist country so you may not be aware that in capitalist countries most people hate their jobs. It’s so woven into the fabric of our society I’m shocked someone wouldn’t know that. It’s the subject of jokes:
Oh, you hate your job? Why didn’t you say so? There’s a support group for that. It’s called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar.
– Drew Carey
Monday, the start of the work week, is generally loathed. There’s an acronym: TGIF, thank god it’s friday, the end of the workweek. Polls show 40% of people think their jobs make no meaningful contribution to society:
YouGov, a data-analytics firm, polled British people, in 2015, about whether they thought that their jobs made a meaningful contribution to the world. Thirty-seven per cent said no, and thirteen per cent were unsure—a high proportion, but one that was echoed elsewhere. (In the functional and well-adjusted Netherlands, forty per cent of respondents believed their jobs had no reason to exist.)
Anyway, I guess I’ll go back to my “religious cult,” where we separate people into good and bad categories. For instance, one way we could do that is to say that other people are in a religious cult because they separate people into good and bad categories, hence they are bad people.
Yes it is, but not in the way you hope. I live in a socialist country, but I’m still stunned about the level of the communist delusions people seems to have here.
Anyways it’s just good to know that FOSS is built upon anarchist principles (of course, this doesn’t mean every FOSS project is anarchist) and is a great example of free association in practice. It helps demystify anarchism and communism.
Also what “delusions” are you talking about? Marxist-leninist ones?
The desillusions people seems to have here is the same kind you have for religious people and moral, where the religious people claim that religion is what provides moral, and hence non-religious people cannot know right from wrong. It seems that in the same way, people in this discussion have defined that communism is the mechanism for being generous and being willing to contribute to society. Hence, all non-communist societies cannot exists, since nobody will build it. Basically, it is a very brainwashed take on communism, not based on anything existing but on some fantasy, especially since all practical attempts at communism seems to requires to strip people of all their freedoms.
When you talk about communism, are you talking about marxist-leninist / socialist states, or communism the idea(l) itself? Also how familiar are you with anarchism?
It seems that in the same way, people in this discussion have defined that communism is the mechanism for being generous and being willing to contribute to society.
You’re not far off, but yes that is more or less all that “communism” is:
a classless, stateless, humane society based on common ownership, follows the maxim “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
There is no prescription for how this may be achieved or how it might operate. Marxist-leninists want to reach it with a vanguard party and a socialist state, and this reflects how they see revolution as an event. Anarcho-communists instead see revolution as a process, and praxis takes the form of grassroots movements, aiming to bring about the necessary social change, building systems of free association from the ground up.
First let’s setup some terminology so we’re not confusing terms.
Free means no money, or monetary value, is needed. i.e As in “free beer”
Free can also mean no obligations or reprehensions, e.g. Free speech.
To avoid confusion let’s refer to the freedom one as Libre, i.e. free beer, libre speech.
Secondly I never said communism, since communism has a hard definition imposed by their creators, I said left-wing, for the purposes of this discussion let’s agree on a middle term of socialism to mean the opposite of capitalism, or if you prefer a type of government associated with left wing parties, which involve social policies and free services.
With those definitions out of the way: Is any free society by definition socialist? It is my opinion that yes, any society that’s past the need for money it’s by definition socialist, whereas any society that uses money (or monetary equivalents) it’s capitalist.
Libre or authoritarian governments can exist on either side of the spectrum of economical policies, so if you meant to ask whether is any libre society by definition socialist? My answer would be no, you can have societies where you have freedom but things cost money. That being said I believe that no society can be truly Libre unless the basic structure and needs are free.
I understand the simplification, but neither post scarcity nor elimination of money is necessary for establishing socialism. There just needs to be a fair and even allocation of it, which mostly necessitates eliminating private ownership of capital.
Eric S Raymond (ESR) is the originator of the philosophy you’re espousing. He’s a Right-Libertarian who has made a lot of contributions to and arguments about FOSS, but in this case i think he’s pretty much wrong. He was a big proponent of the BSD license and opponent of the GPL because, in his view, the GPL interfered with economic activity while BSD was more compatible with it.
ESR’s belief was that open source software was not threatened by capitalism and that it would thrive even if large companies used it, while the other side of the argument was that it would languish if all of the large users were corporations who did not (voluntarily) contribute back. In contrast, with GPL (and similar mandatory open licenses): the corporations would be required to contribute back and thus whether the usage was corporate or not the project would benefit and grow either way.
That was a while ago, though. I think we can see, now, that while the BSDs are great (and have many of their own technological advantages over Linux based OSes) and they are being used by corporations, that has not resulted in the kind of explosive growth we’ve seen with GPL software. Gross tech bros love to use both BSD-style and GPL-style code, but with GPL they’re required to contribute back. That attracts developers, too, who don’t want to see their work end up as the foundation of some new Apple product with nothing else to show for it.
So we now can pretty much call it, i think, barring new developments: the Communist (and Left-Libertarian and Anarchist) approach “won” and the Right-Libertarian approach didn’t actually pan out. GPLed software is running servers and all kinds of things even though, technically speaking, BSD was probably a better choice up until recently (until modern containerization, probably) and still has a lot going for it. The Right-Libertarian philosophy on this is a dead end.
You didn’t write the kernel, write the libraries, or write the user space applications, did you? No, Linux is the product of a collaborative group of strangers working towards the same goal, a goal that largely doesn’t include any considerations for profit. You haven’t pulled yourself up by your boot straps to make Linux. Hell, even Linus didn’t do that. It’s the product of thousands of people working on it over decades. It’s not capitalist, it’s not individualistic, Linux is communal.
TIL: I must be a communist/socialist/leftist/whatever for supporting FOSS. What’s next? Marxism/Leninism? Or maybe I missed that stop, while riding the communism train. Then again, I’m already on Lemmy, so I must be into ML as well, right?
No one is labeling you. Though you should perhaps reflect on the world around you and maybe see that adhering to an ideology is actually just applying philosophy comprehensively to all layers of society at the same time.
You can support communist/socialist policies without being a tankie. Most rational leftists do. And yeah, if you support FOSS you support a socialist idea. Same if you support public healthcare, public education, or libraries.
Just because an idea is labeled as socialist/capitalist or whatever, doesn’t inherently make it good or bad. People like to label things to simplify complicated topics, but that shortcut isn’t always worth it. Nowadays, I hear a lot of talk about this or that being socialist/communist thing as if that makes it automatically bad. Somehow, I get the feeling that most of those people are Americans. If that’s actually true, it would make a lot of sense.
I don’t think we disagree. Just thought it was interesting how closely FOSS ideas match those of communism and socialism, even though a lot of people probably don’t view it that way.
Yes, that’s the fascinating thing. Using labeling as a mental shortcut for understanding the world is really useful, but it comes with a price tag.
It’s basically the same problem we have when labeling thins as “religion” or “some other stuff”. We might want to call something a religion, but it doesn’t quite match. We might want to label something else a non-religion, but it meets all the criteria. Those labels aren’t neutral either, so using them comes with some baggage.
Same thing with FOSS. If we label it a socialist concept, that label comes with some unfortunate connotations… Well, at least if you’re in a country where socialism is frowned upon.
If you believe, for a particular issue, that people should work together to create something that anyone can use for free, then for that particular issue you do have a socialist ideology. That’s the definition of a socialist policy, other examples of this are public education, public health care, or Universal Basic Income. You might disagree with healthcare being public, but agree that education should be, people are not entirely socialist or capitalist, each issue can have a different answer.
People, especially those in the US and Brazil, need to stop thinking communism/socialism are bad terms and look at them for what they really are and analyse the specific issue at hand.
Universal Basic Income i’ll have to disagree with (not inherently, rather in nearly all proposed implementations), look into Negative Income Tax, which to my knowledge, was purported by Milton Friedman. A notable economist, known for Monetarism, and advising Reagan during his Reaganomics thing.
Socialism has to to with collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, not cost to the consumer. Goods and services may typically be free at the time of use (funded by taxes ahead of time) but that does NOT mean free as in without cost.
Again, like most of the other people in this thread, you’re confusing free as in freedom (software movement), and free as in without cost.
I agree that socialism is not the scary term that staunch capitalists seem to believe that it is. However, perpetuating misunderstandings about what socialism means will not help find a healthy balance.
Don’t we all collectively own the Linux kernel for all practical purposes, for example? Any of us can just check it out and do with it whatever we want (within the limits of the GPL).
I’m most definitely not confusing those terms since my native language uses different words for each. Read my other reply, I use the terms free and libre when I think there’s need for clarification. Since socialist policies revolve around collective ownership and public distribution there’s no meaning to saying they are libre, only free as in free beer makes any sense in this context.
Socialist policies are popular in polling. But as soon as they get called out as socialist, people shut down and revert to their mass produced programming. Capitalism good! Socialism Bad!
You’re missing the entire point of the free software movement. Free as in freedom does NOT intrinsically mean free as in absence of cost. Linux exists because of companies like Cygnus who successfully marketed the Bazaar, as opposed to the Cathedral, to investors.
Stallman and Torvalds themselves have gone on record multiple times stating the utter lack of political motivation in being able to modify the software on your machine.
Add comment