443
TIL that operating system Linux is an example of anarcho-communism
(en.wikipedia.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
443 points (83.4% liked)
Linux
48182 readers
1666 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
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.
I'm pretty sure the economy is less worker-owned in socialism than in communism.
Depends on what exactly you mean by Socialism, but by the definitions of Socialists, no not really. Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, plain and simple. Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, post-Socialist. Marxist-Leninists occasionally call the transition to Communism Socialism, and as such an overall Socialist system could have Capitalism within using those terms, but other forms of Socialism such as Anarcho-Syndicalism have full worker ownership of the Means of Production without being Communist.
You'd have to define what you mean by Socialism, because I disagree, a fully Socialist economy is just as worker owned as a fully Communist economy.
I've never seen any kind of authoritative definition between little s and big S socialism, so if you are intending to draw a distinction based on capitalization alone, I consider that to be a semantic game. I believe there is no such distinction. I understand socialism to involve public (i.e. government) control of production, and inherently more authoritarian than true communism. In that sense, I see 20th century communist nations as more socialistic in implementation because of their emphasis on state control.
In short, socialism is just a kind of authoritarianism that pretends to be beneficent, while communism is more of a person-to-person, bottom-up ideology. On the topic of this thread, I can see how Linux and more broadly the FLOSS movement are communistic, but I see them as only marginally socialistic, at most.
I'm not making any distinction. Socialism is socialism, capitalization or not, and the common definition is plainly Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. Whether done a la Market Socialism, where worker Co-ops form the economy, or democratic Socialism where there is liberal democracy that owns industry, or Marxism, Syndicalism, etc, this doesn't change.
What is causing you to believe Socialism is authoritarian? If production is owned collectively, rather than by mini-dictators a la Capitalism, how is this more authoritarian?
As for 20th century Socialist countries controlled by Communist parties, such as the USSR or Maoist China, no leftist believes them to have been Communism, even themselves. They were Marxist-Leninist states attempting to build Communism via Socialism, in their own words. Some leftists call them red-fascist, or State Capitalist, but every leftist agrees that they had not achieved Communism.
Following the previous discussion, FLOSS is both Communist and Socialist. All Communism is Socialist, as all Communism is focused on Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, however not all Socialism is Communist.
Makes sense?
I can't think of a government that would truly treat the industries it controls as "worker owned". The workers would merely be employees of the government.
Either way, you're entitled to your beliefs.
I'm pretty sure there has never been an instance of socialism or communism in which the economy was even a teeny tiny bit worker-owned.
I already conceded hours ago that tankie was absolutely the incorrect term. You are absolutely correct it's an entirely incorrect characterization.