Archived thread 1001184 from The Cafe. Markdown source: The_Cafe/thread_1001184_Linux_is_Capitalist.md
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Linux_is_Capitalist
what do you guys think of that story? Its clearly accurate, as capitalism isnt necessarily defined by money making but rather voluntary efforts and property rights(does not apply to intellectual property, as thats not actually property), which is something linux is all about.
Hm... sorry, I do not agree (with the article's explanation, I do agree with some of the thesis though).
Linux is not really capitalism, and it's not really socialism. It's a sort of mix between the two. (Linux is not communism, but if Stalmen has his way, I think it would be).
Capitalism is not just an attempt to reach a goal. That is both socialism and communism as well. Rather, it is the attempt to get something done visa vie competition. Where the other two listed structures attempt to get something done visa vie cooperation.
Now, if FLOSS was done perfectly, it would be socialism. Now, when I say perfectly, that is actually a bad thing. I am simply talking about if the FLOSS philosophy was carried out to the letter of the law. FLOSS wants to do everything with collaboration. But most devs fall in love with their projects, and don't like some 'n00b' telling them what to do. Thus, we get branching, and forking. This is not the most interesting thing, and may be one of the many things that will eventually kill us. What's cool, is when projects come together, and the mesh their ideas, and create something completely new (and full of bugs :) ).
I could write a 4000 word paper on the subject, but I don't have the time. So I must stop here. But if you really are interested in the subject, then watch the first half of the first lecture in this course from MIT, and you will learn a bit about economic structures.
TBOL3 said: completely new (and full of bugs :) )
Kubuntu 8.10?
first, i will admit that my eyes glazed over a touch after the first paragraph, so I didn't completely RTFA.
Linux will take on characteristics of whatever culture implements it. thats kinda the point. on /. today, there was an article about the Chinese govt forcing all Internet cafes to either prove that they have legit licenses for windows, or install a linux distro called 'red flag'. there are also rumors that the govt has tampered with the OS in a non-privacy-friendly fashion. http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/03/2033243
this is obviously not a capitalist usage.
personally I see Linux as an egalitarian thing, which surprisingly, allows it to merge with whatever ethos/econ type it encounters. the only way to control it, is to kill it, so every culture has to meet it on its own terms.
have fun
Is Linux capitalist or is it socialist. Frankly, who cares.
well since the govt does not own the major means of production, I'd say socialist is straight out of the question. theoretically socialist govts are democratic however.
communism is a better fit economically, but communisim is a totalitarian form of govt, so that is also right out.
it also can't be capitalist, because no one is paying me to post this.
I still stand by egalitarian, but it's too large to really fit that one either. we still stratify into control hierarchies (Linus doesn't just accept Everything submitted for the kernel).
so what it linux? a kernel, an OS, and a way of life.
It needs to be kept free from ideological baggage. Dixi.
.
Adam Smith describe Capitalism as a natural process where people contibute to the good of society by simply serving their own interest. IMO Communism instead describes a commune of people striving together for the commune sake. From most cases, certain traits easily confused with communism can be seen in the case of Linux but I think Linux is mostly a Capitalist Organization.
My argument: Everyone is doing it for their own sake. Most codes are contributed for self-serving purpose. Most for fun, pride, ambition, prestige etc. Some for its academic potential (especially true in the early years) and recently for comercial purpose. Even my post here are undeniably self-serving in nature. I definitely had never contributed anything out of the pure heart. That's the reason communism never work. People just simply couldn't go against their own instincts. It's natural. The only reason things appear selfless is because we are all hypocrites.
speedwell68 said: Is Linux capitalist or is it socialist. Frankly, who cares.
If it requires a government bailout, it's Capitalist. If it goes on strike occasionally, it's Socialist.
Linux is Socialist, but that's fine. ;)
Socialism shouldn't be a dirty word. :o
meson2439 said: Adam Smith describe Capitalism as a natural process where people contibute to the good of society by simply serving their own interest. IMO Communism instead describes a commune of people striving together for the commune sake. From most cases, certain traits easily confused with communism can be seen in the case of Linux but I think Linux is mostly a Capitalist Organization.
My argument: Everyone is doing it for their own sake. Most codes are contributed for self-serving purpose. Most for fun, pride, ambition, prestige etc. Some for its academic potential (especially true in the early years) and recently for comercial purpose. Even my post here are undeniably self-serving in nature. I definitely had never contributed anything out of the pure heart. That's the reason communism never work. People just simply couldn't go against their own instincts. It's natural. The only reason things appear selfless is because we are all hypocrites.
that a valid point. my only question is how much of the self interest in modern markets is the "enlightened self interest" that Mr Smith thought of?
Adam Smiths philosophy was intriguing and compelling in many ways, but I think there are several key flaws, including failed assumptions on market transparency, and the myth of infinite growth, which would allow it to be sustainable. theres never been an economy that really followed his ideals.
I dont care what linux is, it beats microsoft and its free.
I must stress, just because someone isnt making money off of linux per se that does not mean its not capitalist. Capitalism simply means one is free to their property, free to trade.
If what you value is putting a smile on someones face for example, that wouldnt be a bad example of free trade. it dosent necessarily have to be money, I mean, we do have charity after all :)
WinterMadness said: Capitalism simply means one is free to their property, free to trade.
That is not a commonly used definition of "capitalism". People are theoretically free to own their own property under socialism. the only things the govt controls are the major means of production (utilities, health care, manufacturing plants, etc).
If you just want to contrast Communism, then your defn fits. otherwise, you've just described almost every form of modern society.
Communism is not about destroying private property, as the article claims. Communism is the common ownership of the means of production, not the produce itself. With open source, anyone can be involved with production of the software, so the production effectively becomes "communally" owned. The production of proprietary software is tightly controlled by the "bourgeoisie" developers.
super breadfish said: The production of proprietary software is tightly controlled by the "bourgeoisie" developers.Kind of. But, unlike communism, anyone has the ability to fork a project and start something new if they don't like what the developers are doing with it.
It seems to me that OSS also has some Anarchism in it as well since there is no real ruler or anyone who can enforce rules.
Eve is to blame, Adman was a free sprite until the promise of better things out weighed his moral compass.
Funny, I just happen to have written a piece on the same topic :p
http://peytz.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/open-source-and-communism-why-it-makes-no-sense/
meson2439 said: certain traits easily confused with communism can be seen in the case of Linux but I think Linux is mostly a Capitalist Organization.
My argument: Everyone is doing it for their own sake. Most codes are contributed for self-serving purpose. Most for fun, pride, ambition, prestige etc. Some for its academic potential (especially true in the early years) and recently for comercial purpose.
pretty accurate, imo.
doas777 said: That is not a commonly used definition of "capitalism". People are theoretically free to own their own property under socialism. the only things the govt controls are the major means of production (utilities, health care, manufacturing plants, etc).
If you just want to contrast Communism, then your defn fits. otherwise, you've just described almost every form of modern society.
not necessarily, in a socialist system they believe in social justice and redistrobution of wealth, which means your property gets given away by the state. Money is property too.
NintendoTogepi said: Linux is Socialist, but that's fine. ;)
Socialism shouldn't be a dirty word. :o
I think its only seen as a dirty word in the USA. Most other countries are pretty cool with it, lol;)
Surely however, there must be an argument in all of this to suggest that Linux may infact be more akin to fascism. Fascism is generally based around the idea of survival-of-the-fittest and self determinism.
In a capitalist society, rules, procedues and structures are put in place to allow the "fair" and orderly transfer and cycle of money to underpin power, and this power then determines who can make the decisions on other matters.
A fascist society is more of a free for all. Money is less important, and personal pride and the survival of ones own beliefs is more often the driving factor behind what people do. In this world, power comes from gathering enough support (either popular support of lesser powers, or minority support of large powers) to take power, and the development of any systems to administer that power tends to appear on a more ad-hoc basis to suit the needs of that administration.
Of course, there usually does have to be one or two longer-term leaders to keep everything together and focussed under one banner. Without this the society could collapse into anarchy.
Thinking as im typing here, i guess fascism is basically anarchy under a common flag? Linux feels very much like that to me.
I guess the big difference here is that real-world fascism could involve very harsh punishments for those who failed the struggle for survival, whereas i doubt anyone would support the execution of a developer for the introduction of a regression into the kernel. lol.
Tatty said:
Thinking as im typing here, ...
Next time, do your thinking before you type.
You clearly have no idea what facism is, or you wouldn't be writing such nonsense (unless you are in fact a facist trying to paint a pretty picture of it). Your understanding of capitalism needs some work, too.
I could elaborate, but that would probably be against forum policy (no politics). I also doubt it's worth the trouble. Do some reading - wikipedia's a good start.
koenn said: Next time, do your thinking before you type.
You clearly have no idea what facism is, or you wouldn't be writing such nonsense (unless you are in fact a facist trying to paint a pretty picture of it). Your understanding of capitalism needs some work, too.
I could elaborate, but that would probably be against forum policy (no politics). I also doubt it's worth the trouble. Do some reading - wikipedia's a good start.
Fascist.
I think the authors of the article are making the same mistake as Ballmer did, namely using a broad label on something very specific.
Communism is many things. One of its main principles is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Linux* happens to follow this idea very strictly, and can thus somewhat rightly be called communist. On the other hand, communism generally relies on central planning, which Linux does not adhere to at all.
The same goes for capitalism. The idea here is darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest, and this is an area in which Linux excels. Thousands of new projects are started every year, but only the best ones survive. Yet, working for free (as most developers do) is not what you'd expect a capitalist to do.
Furthermore, capitalism is an economic system and has little to do with freedom. You can have an oppressive regime which relies on free market economy (like Chile under Pinochet or China today). Neither does communism require state ownership, at least not in theory. The article is pretty clueless on several accounts.
*By Linux I mean the OS and not the kernel. In this context Linux represents the whole free software community.
Thread closed, we don't discuss politics here not directly relating to linux, and this has just gone downhill from post 1.