What really gets me is how all the people who use linux are unaware of the millions of people who were killed by communism. Why would they endorse this action?
Linux isn't communism. On the contrary it's almost anarchy. At most it's a weak confederacy (if you are going to compare it to forms government.) And everyone who contributes does so on their own free will. Communism is forced sharing.
@BigBobsh2o False. Capitalism is forced privatisation of nature and its goods (resources, factories). Communism says that nature and its good should belong to all humans, without holding it back (property). When you own something, you actually steal it from nature and humanity.
So yea Linux is actually communism!
True communism (not socialism!) = No money, no government, no ownership
Open Source = No money, no governement, no ownership
I have to disagree. There is money in open source (Red Hat is a good example). There is leadership in Linux because there is a linux foundation that works on the Linux kernel plus there are companies that sponser and lead the different distros such as Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuse, etc. Although it's relatively loose leadership. I guess you may have a point about the ownership part.
@BigBobsh2o well, a loose leadership is inevitable, otherwise it would be anarchy. But the Linux Foundation doesn't tell people what to do or what not to do. And that's the point. But I guess your right with the money...
Matt Asay, chief operating officer at Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, the software you portray as communistic, entitled an article he published on the Open Road - cnet:
"Open source: It's about capitalism, not freebies..."
Open Source is a rejection of Communism. The open source community's strength is derived from it's basis in a meritocratic free-market. Copyrights can only exist when a government intervenes in the economy. Capitalism, not the Keynesian rubbish like they have in the US, but free-market capitalism, rejects copyrights and patents as a nothing, but a claim to the value of a non-scarce resource based on a monopoly granted by the state.
Copyrights are fundamentally interventionist and simply can not exist in a Laissez-faire system. Intellectual property can only ever exist in pure communist, or else 'mixed' (essentially fascist), economies.
@JamesManes none of the states which capitalists relate with communism are true communists. they have communist ideology but operate more like national socialists.
@JamesManes Yeah but the same is true for capitalism. Or any other ism. You'll always have corrupt corporations and governments working against the free market, backroom deals, cartels, nepotism. That's why capitalism is failing now as well. Well that and free markets wouldn't be a panacea even if they did work.
@megamarsvin Yes that is true but in capitalism people have enough freedoms and power to overthrow a corrupt government if needed. In communism (such as china) people are kept so far down in the dark there is no way they could come back. They even filter out most of the internet for god sakes.
@JamesManes I wouldn't say that's communism vs capitalism but democracy vs authoritarianism. And I agree there, of course, democracy beats dictatorship any day.
The confusion arises because historically all major self-styled "communist" regimes have been authoritarian, but that doesn't mean it's inherent in the system. For example, there's a state in India (Kerala) that's ruled by a democratically elected communist/Marxist party which does very well.
What really gets me is how all the people who use linux are unaware of the millions of people who were killed by communism. Why would they endorse this action?
catbuffalo 2 months ago
One of the most stupid videos on youtube.
Abbakus79 7 months ago
what information do you base your accusation on?
you can't be serious, but you are ignorant
graasroots 11 months ago
Linux isn't communism. On the contrary it's almost anarchy. At most it's a weak confederacy (if you are going to compare it to forms government.) And everyone who contributes does so on their own free will. Communism is forced sharing.
BigBobsh2o 1 year ago
@BigBobsh2o False. Capitalism is forced privatisation of nature and its goods (resources, factories). Communism says that nature and its good should belong to all humans, without holding it back (property). When you own something, you actually steal it from nature and humanity.
So yea Linux is actually communism!
True communism (not socialism!) = No money, no government, no ownership
Open Source = No money, no governement, no ownership
Read "Das Kapital", dude...
Cryptnox 4 months ago
@Cryptnox
I have to disagree. There is money in open source (Red Hat is a good example). There is leadership in Linux because there is a linux foundation that works on the Linux kernel plus there are companies that sponser and lead the different distros such as Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuse, etc. Although it's relatively loose leadership. I guess you may have a point about the ownership part.
BigBobsh2o 4 months ago
@BigBobsh2o well, a loose leadership is inevitable, otherwise it would be anarchy. But the Linux Foundation doesn't tell people what to do or what not to do. And that's the point. But I guess your right with the money...
Cryptnox 4 months ago
Matt Asay, chief operating officer at Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, the software you portray as communistic, entitled an article he published on the Open Road - cnet:
"Open source: It's about capitalism, not freebies..."
Google his article, he's not exactly a red.
carljosephyounger 1 year ago
Open Source is a rejection of Communism. The open source community's strength is derived from it's basis in a meritocratic free-market. Copyrights can only exist when a government intervenes in the economy. Capitalism, not the Keynesian rubbish like they have in the US, but free-market capitalism, rejects copyrights and patents as a nothing, but a claim to the value of a non-scarce resource based on a monopoly granted by the state.
carljosephyounger 1 year ago 4
Copyrights are fundamentally interventionist and simply can not exist in a Laissez-faire system. Intellectual property can only ever exist in pure communist, or else 'mixed' (essentially fascist), economies.
carljosephyounger 1 year ago
Too bad communism fails.
JamesManes 2 years ago
@JamesManes communism is the future.
ilkkavu 1 year ago
@JamesManes none of the states which capitalists relate with communism are true communists. they have communist ideology but operate more like national socialists.
stupidtrooper501 1 year ago
@stupidtrooper501
True communism cannot be achieved. Greed and corruption will always ruin the ideology.
JamesManes 1 year ago
@JamesManes Yeah but the same is true for capitalism. Or any other ism. You'll always have corrupt corporations and governments working against the free market, backroom deals, cartels, nepotism. That's why capitalism is failing now as well. Well that and free markets wouldn't be a panacea even if they did work.
megamarsvin 1 year ago
@megamarsvin Yes that is true but in capitalism people have enough freedoms and power to overthrow a corrupt government if needed. In communism (such as china) people are kept so far down in the dark there is no way they could come back. They even filter out most of the internet for god sakes.
JamesManes 1 year ago
@JamesManes I wouldn't say that's communism vs capitalism but democracy vs authoritarianism. And I agree there, of course, democracy beats dictatorship any day.
The confusion arises because historically all major self-styled "communist" regimes have been authoritarian, but that doesn't mean it's inherent in the system. For example, there's a state in India (Kerala) that's ruled by a democratically elected communist/Marxist party which does very well.
megamarsvin 1 year ago