this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
443 points (83.4% liked)
Linux
48220 readers
877 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That phrase that you said has absolutely nothing to do with the Linux/Libre philosophy.
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.
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.
This has nothing to do with right-wing philosophy, in fact most right wing people are against any form of contribution,
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.
So, what you say is that any free society is by definition communism, since society is built on people contributing by free will? Not sure I follow.
People in capitalist economies do not contribute out of free will. They contribute so they won't starve.
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.
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.
I think you raise a good point, I agree. Especially that the problem is very systematic.
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.
Okay, makes sense - I fully agree. Just wanted to clarify :)
Now, you are just making shit up, to fit your own beliefs. Have fun with that mental masturbation.
I have to admit, this reply has dumbfounded me. Well done.
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.
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:
-- 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
"OK" , just remind me, which are the free communist countries again?
They don't exist
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.
Ahhh... the communist countries are where all the unicorn lives... got it!
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.
You have understood that there doesn't exist any country that meets you utopian communist view, yet you have not stopped to think about why that is.
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.
100%. Organization, contribution, and advocacy are vital. Reading is always good. Only second to understanding in all senses.
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.
I hope this is a lightbulb moment for you
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.
Social democracy isn't really socialist...
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?
You're not far off, but yes that is more or less all that "communism" is:
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.