digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Is free software “communist”? Maybe yes...

freesoftwaremagazine.com — Some prominent people have called free software “communist” in an attempt to bring Cold War bugaboos to bear against the movement—a kind of “nuclear option” of FUD.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • UrsusMorologus, on 10/12/2007, -23/+56It's not communist, it's philanthropy, a principle which relies heavily on the notion of freedom to create and exercise wealth as you see fit. Want to use your leisure time and capital to write free software, that's cool. Want to use it to work a bread line, that's nice too. Want to give billions to Africa, fantastic.

    On the other hand, communism doesn't have charity. First there is no independent wealth creation, nevermind the exercise thereof. Second, it is a sin against the state for individuals to exercise autonomous action.

    People who try to argue that open source is marxims/communism done right are 99% of the time just looking for justification for ideology that has already failed miserably.

    Buried, with "this is lame"
    • chieffy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24If you RTA, you would know that the author isn't purporting the statement "Free software is communist" to be true. He is saying other people, namely MS, say it. He is just running/playing with the idea to see what can come of it. Hence, the title: "Is free software communist? Maybe yes...". Do you see the question mark and the maybe?

      From what I can gather, he is saying that in many ways free sotfware is like a better communism, because no one loses material possesions and there is no nasty, dominating, inforcing agency at work. OTOH, he says that, at the moment, there are nasty inforcing agencies at work in the rest of the IT world: MS, RIAA, IP lawyers (my examples not necessarily his), etc.

    • SwabTheDeck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I dugg this one because the article is very well written and makes good points, but I think the author chose a poor title for it. I guess it will draw people in because it sounds controversial, but it will turn just as many people off who already know better.
    • i440, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Remember, that in theory, a prosperous communism is /ideal/.

      Historically, however, it always led to dictatorships and oppression.
    • CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Marge, I agree with you in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory.
    • rezophonic, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13The ideology never failed. The implementation of it failed. The people failed.
      Of course, any system can be perfect until you get people involved...
    • nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14No. Communism doesn't work even in theory. It's based on people working unequally for equal results. Humans are by nature competitive and by removing the need for competition, nobody has any incentive to work. So it's not just a failure in implementation, it's a failure of the ideology which wants to turn people into lifeless automatons
    • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Communism has been tried over and over with the same bloody results. The more stringently a regime adheres to Marxist doctrine, the more murderous it is.

      Google for 'Marx "Bourgeois Freedom"'. That is what Marx himself thought of liberty - something to be crushed.
    • Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10It's hilarious watching Americans talk about communism. Please just STFU and talk about something you know about.
    • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Yeah, you're right, we should about freedom... Which is something we have more of than most....
      So, the answer to this is REALLY REALLY REALLY simple. It's "no".
      Communism, requires the FORCE of government. You cannot have communism without people with guns stealing money from people calling it 'taxes' and 'redistrubuting wealth'.
    • Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6"Communism, requires the FORCE of government. You cannot have communism without people with guns stealing money from people calling it 'taxes' and 'redistrubuting wealth"

      Please... just STFU. You have absolutely no clue. You are polluting the informational commons..

      Please register for Libertarians Anonymous.
    • i440, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4“No. Communism doesn't work even in theory.”

      You're not being “in theory” enough. Imagine humans as lifeless theoretical units. Then it would work. But only then.

      Of course, this means that in reality, it is impossible for such a system to get of the ground. That I agree with.
    • noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@nreynolds; thank you for saying that. Whilst I have nothing but contempt for the particular strand in American culture that thinks anything remotely smacking of state control is socialism which is communism (obviously), and dislikes Fidel Castro because he's a communist and not because he suppresses his own people...... the fact remains that communism isn't even a good idea on paper when you think about it because it is reliant on an overidealised and incorrect view of human nature for it to work as intended.

      One could say that anything works "in theory", but in this case it means nothing if the "theory" rests on transparently flawed assumptions. I don't think it works on paper, in practice, and I'm not even sure I agree with the principles.
    • i440, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7“Please... just STFU. You have absolutely no clue. You are polluting the informational commons..

      Please register for Libertarians Anonymous.”

      Libertarianism and communism are unrelated.

      The opposite of communism is a free market. The opposite of libertarianism is fascism.
    • Moggers87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6As far as I know, the point of "communism" was meant to be a middle phase* between the capitalist state and the lack of a state. So could you say OSS is in that final stage - "you can't, like _own_ software".

      So shareware is communist... and it failed :P

      *It's been a while since I did sociology, but I'm pretty sure communism was never meant as a final phase.
    • Asterus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2With all this debate of whether or not communism 'works in theory', I can't help but wonder: by what criteria can the purely theoretical be evaluated as 'working' or 'not working', without reference to practical implementation?
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Remember, that in theory, a prosperous communism is /ideal/.

      Historically, however, it always led to dictatorships and oppression."

      The ideology of communism is NOT ideal. It claims the needs of the collective are more important than the rights of an individual.

      The results, in practice, are not surprising.
    • Drizzit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What's wrong with communism? It's been incorrectly implemented, but the truth of the matter is if regulated properly it can work.

      It can be democratic, would be easily compatible with our constitution with changes to limit or eliminate all together the influence of corporations which the founders of this nation failed to forsee.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's been incorrectly implemented, but the truth of the matter is if regulated properly it can work."

      As evidenced by what? Has anyone been able to "properly regulate" it?
  • UrsusMorologus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6I did RTFA and he seemed to be exercising the bounds of logic by trying to prove the point. But he also missed the immediate and obvious errors which make the article moot.
    • chieffy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Um... You might say you RTFA but you didn't read very carefully then. I will assume you were skimming because...

      You said: "...he seemed to be exercising the bounds of logic by trying to prove the point.", which is what he said he was going to do:

      FTA: "So rather than react as some have done with a knee-jerk “no it’s not!”, I propose to accept the label and see where that insight takes us."

      You also said: "But he also missed the immediate and obvious errors which make the article moot."

      What errors? You are just opening your lips and letting words fall out aren't you?
  • SwabTheDeck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21There's a movie with Eric S. Raymond (the guy who wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", which is probably the most significant publication on the business aspects of open source and why it works) called Revolution OS and an interviewer asks him what he thought about people saying that Open Source is communist. What he said is that it absolutely isn't communism because communism FORCES you to comply to certain ideals, whereas open source is purely voluntary and exists within a capitalistic society and has capitalistic applications, such as selling services around the software, and in many cases, selling the software itself. Only from a very narrow view can open source be considered communism. Linux by itself has created billions of dollars in capitalistic endeavors, and all of the people that started the "Open Source" movement were people that broke away from the Free Software movement (started by Richard Stallman) because they wanted more of a commercial focus for the software, rather than limiting it only to freely distributed applications. I do not disagree with the author, however. The first paragraph of his article explains how he is simply accepting the label of communism as has been handed out by many people in anti-open source movements.
    • Brightside, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3was gonna leave pretty much exactly the same comment. great movie!
    • rezophonic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Communism FORCES you to seek the better good just like most governments FORCE you not to rape, murder, and rob, right? ...Because that's what we'd all be doing without those laws, right? Are we all a bunch of villains who just happen to be very afraid of law enforcement?
      Moreover, such a totalitarian government is not necessarily part of communism, just part of some forms of communism.
    • noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Believe me, given ESR's political views, the fact that he supports free software pretty much confirms that it's not communism.
  • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Free software is about freedom, communism is about taking freedom away from people, if anything they have opposite purposes.

    If you don't understand how communism is against the freedom please watch this: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Articles/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english.swf and then read a book about communism.
    • cwalk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"Free software is about freedom, communism is about taking freedom away"

      I couldn't agree more. There are many companies profiting greatly from “free software”. Free software promotes healthy competition for your dollar, and what could be more capitalistic than that?
    • altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Enjoyed that presentation man. Thanks.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"Free software is about freedom, communism is about taking freedom away"

      I couldn't disagree more. Communism; as defined by Karl Marx, does not require freedom to be taken away. The problem is that noone has been able to successfully implement and sustain a communal system over time without invoking the threat of force. As a strictly voluntary system, Open Source may have better results but it's still too early to pass judgment.

      Communism is a system of perfect logic built on the foundation of a few flaw assumptions. It seems that individuals not being compensated and rewarded in proportion to their contributions runs counter to the basic nature of human beings.
    • Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"Free software is about freedom, communism is about taking freedom away from people, if anything they have opposite purposes."

      And another brainwashed shell of a human being strikes....
    • noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Eh? Communism is about redistribution of wealth, not about "taking freedoms from people".
    • cwalk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Communism is about redistribution of wealth"

      noamsml, that's a nice way of saying communism prevents you from having the freedom to control your own wealth.

      "It seems that individuals not being compensated and rewarded in proportion to their contributions runs counter to the basic nature of human beings."

      JQP123, well put.
    • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Communism; as defined by Karl Marx, does not require freedom to be taken away." -- I don't agree with that, in order for communism to work it has to take freedom from people, being it the freedom to trade, the freedom to dispose of own propriety, freedom to enter into voluntary contracts, etc.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"... being it the freedom to trade, the freedom to dispose of own propriety, freedom to enter into voluntary contracts, etc."

      Once you become a member of a communial system, all property belongs to "the community" so there is nothing to trade for, dispose of or contract for.

      With Open Source, the voluntary contract that developers enter into is the GPL. Once their code is published under the GPL, it effectively becomes the property of "the community".
    • t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Free Software isn't communism. Software patents are.
    • rodan32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The difference being that entering the community of free software is voluntary, whereas under a communist regime you would have no choice. In most cases, you wouldn't even be allowed to leave the country peacefully. Free software !=communism.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"In most cases, you wouldn't even be allowed to leave the country peacefully."

      Communism is a theoretical economic system. You confusing the theory with some of the regimes and practices that have been used to implement it. There is nothing in the economic theory of communism that restricts the physical movement of people.
  • roxlu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0(sorry test)
  • wileybass, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1bury this
    -sorry
    • cybernetic798, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2No, but extremism in open source often has notes of Communism tied in. For example, the FSF's philosophies and Richard Stallman's rules basically say that selling software is bad, or that having closed source software is bad. You can't deny that this is partially Communist.

      The case where open source or free software is not Communist is when it does not require that closed source or proprietary software cease to exist. There is certainly room for both to co-exist and grow together, but many icons in open source make it seem otherwise.
    • slothing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Actually, Stallman's not communist at all. His main point is this: if you buy closed source software, you're not really buying it at all.

      You can't edit it to your needs, you're screwed if they drop support for your chosen OS, and you're at the mercy of whims of the supplier.

      Radical, yes. Commie, no.
  • wharton, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I think free software is communist. But then I would do: I'm a communist.
    • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5You are mistaken, in both respects: your assesment about free software and in your love for communism. But hey, don't let me ruin your dreams....
    • altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Free Software would be Communist if the author was forced to write it against his will, the software were the property of the state, and only authorized people were allowed access to it. This is of course for the good of the people.
    • karmakanic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But - and correct me if I'm wrong - doesn't Stallman posit that intellectual property has no value because it does not exist as a physical object? At least that's how I interpreted some/many of the things he says...
  • slothing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Well said, everyone. Seems like the the title should have been: "Is free software communist? Probably Not..."

    Using Open Source makes you a communist in the same way that using a public library makes you a communist. Or giving to charity makes you a communist. Or breathing 'free air' makes you a commie...

    Or for that matter, supporting your police force makes you a fascist.

    This is a pretty bad analogy.
  • cyberrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4ACTUALLY,

    GPL'd software usually has individual ownership
    and is licensed for free public use.

    Corporation developed software has group ownership (shareholders).
    Any one individual cannot relicense the software without the group's approval.

    Communism is based on group ownership.
    • stoffe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2GPL software is group owned in the sense that the license gives everyone the right to use it, and denies any individual from withholding it from anyone else. Once it's out there it belongs to the community, and noone can take it away from you or stop you from using it. It is only based on copyright, "owned" by someone, because that is the one way to legally enforce this in todays system. It abuses a restrictive system to prohibit restrictions, if you will.
    • cyberrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0GPL code is usually OWNED by the author.

      Violate their license agreement
      and the author can sue you for copyright violation.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Violate their license agreement and the author can sue you for copyright violation."

      And as long as I don't violate the agreement, I can do pretty much whatever I want with the author's property including re-sell it. Copyright law is used to define the rules of "the commune" and to effectively supercede most individual property rights. The only right the individual retains is the right to enforce "the commune" rules. And this is by necessity since our legal system is based on individual (not community) rights.
    • cyberrigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 "Copyright law is used to define the rules of "the commune" and to effectively supercede most individual property rights."


      I think you are confusing ownership with licensing agreements.

      GPL software is copyrighted software just like any pay licensed shrinkwrap software is copyrighted.

      GPL software is licensed for free use with certain restrictions.

      If you fail to meet the licensing condition then you have violated the OWNERS copyright, not some commune or social group.

      With GPL you can not prevent the distriibution of the source code and source code of derivative works, i.e.you can not distribute the binaries without the source code.

      The author of GPL licensed code can dual license their code for combination with pay licensed software.

      Can an employee at Microsoft dual license the code they wrote,
      say they want a different EULA, or do they have to get approval from the group?

      http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html



  • swisstone, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11"Free software is about freedom, communism is about taking freedom away"

    Classic political rubbish from the right wing. Communisim is just an idealistic philosophy which has never been applied correctly.

    • swisstone, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9*I bet not many American citizens can define communism without spouting some ***** they've been fed from an sickeningly patriotic history lesson...
    • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9In fact, it's been tried over and over. With the same bloody results. The purest Marxist regime murdered around 20 percent of the Cambodian population.

      According to Marx, property rights, freedom of speech and worship, etc., are all what he called "Bourgeois Freedom" - something to be destroyed:

      http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/marframe.htm
    • altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Communism has always been applied according to the Communist Manifesto. Well at lest the first few steps have. The problem is that once you find yourself re-educating people and killing those that can't be re-educated you get stuck in an endless loop.

      Marx was seriously flawed in both his metaphysics and in his willingness to use force to bring about what should come naturally. Though in many ways I'm am glad for his influence in history.
    • karmakanic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@swisstone

      You're right, of course. Most people have not read Marx's work, and consequently only know what they've been taught, or what they've seen by watching governments who are labeled "communist". In fact, it's that distinction that makes many of the arguments here moot, since they're based on the popular definition, rather than the more formal definition used by the author.

      My understanding is that the essence of communism is that when peoples' needs and wants are taken care of (presumably by the State), and they're given the opportunity to do something that they feel is fulfilling, then they will produce cool stuff and not feel the need to be compensated. And yes, I agree that it would be nice if we could achieve this - and I believe that someday we will - but it's hard to see how to put it into practice. As has been noted, it's been tried a few times, in various flavors, and usually devolves to a State-imposed, rigidly-controlled economic system. Such a system cannot sustain itself naturally, so the State has to enforce the rules, which at times turns out to be pretty hard to watch.

      Communism: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It's peoples' individual definition of "what I need" that causes all of the trouble, since their definition usually includes "what I want", and that's where all of the trouble comes when putting the nice theory into practice. "Want" is a primary motivator for humans, and it colors "need" pretty heavily. People insist on wanting things that cannot be supplied by ordinary means (e.g., salary or subsidy), so they think that by working harder they should be able get more of the stuff that they want. Unfortunately, that doesn't work because it's not what the ideologues had in mind. Oops.

      When people start doing what comes naturally (wanting stuff) the State has to step in and say, "You are not allowed to Want that", followed shortly by the peasants grabbing pitchforks and torches and trying to burn the King and other rich folks out of their castles. Enter the Police, with their clubs and guns and SWAT teams and tanks, and you there you have to popular understanding of communism.
    • anphanax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2(Satire warning)

      With Communism, the people and the government are one. As we know, there are certain freedoms that are not allowed because they are harmful to both the government (and the people). These include violence and theft. Socially, communism is a realization that religion and "freedom of speech" is harmful. Racists and bigots should not be protected, but instead should be re-educated as revolutionaries (not reactionists). People harmfully indoctrinating their children in the shackles of religion and hate should have their children taken away, and should be sterilized to prevent more problems. Religion should be fought, as it is an enemy of the people (look at the middle east). As with wealth distribution, which will eliminate poverty, property should be distributed as well. The problem with AmeriKKKa and I$rael is that they only live to enjoy themselves, and they're very selfish. They don't care about the people and the government, only about themselves. In communism, people pitch in to help whenever they can, because they realize the government (the people) is more important than the individual. Finally, as with freedom of speech, those critical of the government are therefore critical of the people, and should be treated as imperialist reactionaries. Reactionaries who are not re-educable should be punished and sterilized, just like those with mental disabilities, so that the greater good of the people can be accomplished.

      Long story short, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is a model progressive and communistic society, a true gem in our world of poverty and destruction (with the exception of the fake "South Korea", which was stolen by US imperialists, which also took over Germany in the 1920s and 30s and put Hitler in power).
    • chieffy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1swisstone and karmakanic: I wish I could digg you guys up more than once. You seem to be some of the only intelligent forces working in this forum.

      It is so obvious that very very few of the people crapping on and on about how bad communism is have not RTA. Having RTA I felt the title is using the elipsis to imply that the body of the article will contain the "maybe no". IOW, "Is free software communist? Maybe yes... Maybe no". But the "maybe no" part is in the body of the article, not it the title.

      The idea of the article was to run with the idea of free software being communist in order to see where it would lead. It seemed to lead to the answer being that it isn't.

      But if you mention the word "communism" you seem to illicit hater comments. In fact, I'm noticing more and more haters in digg and I hope it doesn't continue.
  • raseel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I was thinking on the same lines some time ago.
    The important thing to note here is that the OP is talking about the "nobler" communism. Not the "dirty" word.

    The artivle gives a lot of food for thought.
  • altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Excellent and well thought out article.
  • Spanktacular, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9If free software is communist, then so are birthday gifts.
  • nanobug, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2If it's done voluntarily then it *IS* capitalism! For those of you who have no idea about what I am talking about, go grab a copy of "Capitalism: the Unkown Ideal" by Ayn Rand:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451147952/
  • radiofrequency, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5A cornerstone of communism is the lack of a free market, especially a market in which goods are provided by a very few number of vendors. Often, the vendors' markets are geographically dispersed so as to avoid direct competition. That bread, fruits and many other goods were in short supply in the U.S.S.R. was not a result of laziness on the part of the people, but as a result of private (nee "government) control on the production and distribution channel.

    Microsoft is more communistic than Linux ever can be. After all, it is not Linux that is denying consumer the rights to computers with Linux installed but Microsoft and its OEM partners.
    • towner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You are right !
      The existence of a single product in the market, created by an incredibly powerful monopolistic vendor and sold to a population who have practically no choice but to use that product sure does sound like communism.......and Windows (tm)
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"The existence of a single product in the market, created by an incredibly powerful monopolistic vendor and sold to a population who have practically no choice but to use that product sure does sound like communism.......and Windows (tm)"

      If Windows was communism, 500+ Linux distros wouldn't exist.
  • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Under socialism/communism, the means of production are collectively owned, which in practice means they are owned by the State.

    Are the computers used to create free software owned collectively by the State?

    Therein lies your answer.

    • Flooq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly, it's too decentralised and focused on liberty. As the article points out it's neither purely capitalist or communist (although it can work perfectly well within a capitalist system).
      The way free software works doesn't relate to systems of government, the global economy has to deal with resources which are scarce and which can't just be copied whereas digital information can be copied for practically nothing (just the cost of the computer's power).
  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sure it bears some passing resemblance to communism but you could say that of many things including the Internet itself. The analogy totally falls apart when you realize there are companies making money off open source. We should really be comparing Linux to the peer review scientific process that allows the private sector free access to their research.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"We should really be comparing Linux to the peer review scientific process that allows the private sector free access to their research."

      Except software development is not science, it's engineering. Linux does not provide any new knowledge or theory. It's not even an original design, it's a clone of Unix. To equate software cloning to science is an insult to the work of scientists.
  • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1comununism is people working for the same pay but the goverment providing all there needs
    free software involves people working but merely not getting payed or working by donation or support calls
  • nogoodreason, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You know, communism is sharing. It's not evil - people are.
  • toaplan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't want to beat the dead horse here, but doesn't it come down to the type of programming language? In object oriented programming you have the classes which inherits the wealth (of functions and members) from its parent and ancestors, whereas in the 'c', or communist, language you do away with classes. The argument that open source is more or less communist than commercial licensed software is as dumb as the preceding statement.
  • Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The very thing the world needs now: the Digital Red Scare.
  • kurtwoodfin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Perhaps it is capitalism and the free market at its finest.
  • krypnos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have not read the article yet, but I do remember my classes on World Governments. Communism the ideal != Communism in action. From my understanding, communism doesn't work so well in action, but if you really think about the ideal behind it, it's not a bad idea. I'm not a communist, or a communist supporter, and I know the article isn't saying it is (from other comments) but the root word in communism, is commun-, as in community. The community is a big part of the f/oss crowd, and in my opinion, it's strongest benefit. It's like nogoodreason said. You know, communism is sharing. It's not evil - people are. It's a valid point. It's the greed of man that corrupts the equality.
  • bungimail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What does it mean if something works in theory but not in practice? It means the theory is WRONG. It doesn't capture the real world. Therefore Marxism is an incorrect theory. Theories are supposed to conform to the real world. The real world is not supposed to conform to theories. So its not flawed humans who failed to make communism work, rather it is a flawed theory that didn't work for humans.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Communism is a system of perfect logic based on a few flawed assumptions. The primary flaw being an unrealistic assessment of human nature.
  • Toupee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Perhaps in a perfect world, money wouldn't matter and everyone could do the job that brought them the most pleasure - or at least piqued their interest for a while. Doctors were those who had great pride in healing people. Engineers were those who loved designing things. Programmers contribute their time to making kickass software (and what's awesome about open-source is that this is already happening). And so on and so forth. It's like Star Trek. Of course, for that to even begin to happen, technology would have to advance to a point where we had real-life replicators that gave us virtually free food. Food SHOULD be easily available; it's a necessity. With necessities covered, we don't need money to survive - its only use would be to buy bigger and better things.

    Capitalism isn't exactly the perfect society. There's a lot of greed involved. We say competition is good for innovation, but that's not always true. For instance, look at the common battery. It's the same basic thing that we've had for decades. And now with rechargeable batteries beginning to challenge them, they're only becoming ridiculously expensive - not improving. But as long as people want bigger and better things, capitalism is sticking around, because it's the best system for making cash.

    I will admit I'm no expert on this subject, but I think the "perfect" society would be some kind of socialist society where people are free to do with their lives as they please. But it sure ain't communism, and it sure isn't gonna happen any time soon.
  • NapoleonGold, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Communism or at least the original idea of Socialism was to be gained ONLY AFTER a successful industrial/capitalist soceity had been established.

    The cornerstone of a successful Socialist society relied on
    1. build successful infrastructure with a capitalist society behind it
    2. let the workers take over because they know their jobs better then management
    3. Government becomes irrelevant as well as an Upper class and all is for the proletariat.

    Don't know if it would ever work but I do know it was never attempted. i believe Lenin took Marxism and told the people after the Bolshevik revolution that the government would take over step 1. and they would move immediately move to step 2. but the government never got past step 1. so the whole of society was stuck in Socialist Limbo which was renamed Communism after the Party that was government.

    Least that's how I understand it.

    And yes I know there are many spelling errors and missing details and probably some wrong ones as well
  • gravedigga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There is no leader in the free software movement.
    Linus is only Linux's leader because he started it, and because all the other devs trust in him.
    The same goes to all other free software project leaders.
    Nobody is forced to collaborate on free sowftware.
    A project leader doesn't have much power, because the project could be forked anytime.
    Hint: it's called anarchy.
    A truly free system, free of powers, laws, property and discrimination. The interesting part is how well it fits into capifascism *cough* er, capitalism.
    Anyway, I'm proud if Microsoft calls me a commy :)
    • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"A truly free system, free of powers, laws, property and discrimination."

      Since suppressing private property rights in the means of production will require overwhelming violence and terror, you will require a State.

      Pure capitalism is the only form of anarchy.

  • mitrovarr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0You know, I think allegories to communism with regard to software are inapplicable, even if a label can be accurately applied. There is a huge difference between digital products and physical ones; digital products can be infinitely reproduced with no (or next to no) expense. There is no scarcity unless it is deliberately engineered (IP rights, DRM.) This is such a huge departure from traditional economic models that previous models no longer apply.

    There are some ways in which free software is communistic. One is allowed to take whatever one needs (or wants, since no scarcity exists) and encouraged to contribute where one can. This can be likened to an idealistic version of 'to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities' (surely misquoted, but you know what I mean.) Also, the means of production of free software can best be described as the internet, and it is sort of collectively owned.

    However, differences between digital and conventional economic models make this work better than it did when applied to the physical world. Remember, there is no scarcity. Therefore, anyone can have whatever they want, so long as it is available. This means there is no analogous form of corruption, which is one of the things that doomed communism when attempted with a physical economy. Also, since the digital realm is mostly unbounded, anyone can do almost anything they want without wasting limited resources or space. Also, since sufficient volunteers exist, no one wants to force people to contribute. This means there is no need for an oppressive regime to keep people from leeching off the system or interfering with everyone else; it is totally acceptable to take free software and give nothing in return, and one can develop projects freely so long as one respects the work of others. It is questionable whether anyone could really 'control' the internet even if they wanted to, and free software organizations surely could not.

    Note that it is also totally possible for free software and commercial software to exist side by side (as they do today.) It may be possible to get the benefits of multiple economic systems in this way.

    So, basically, the points I intended to make are:

    1. Digital economy is vastly different than physical economy.
    2. Free software may be in some ways communistic.
    3. However, because of #1, conventional economic models cannot be trusted.
    4. Therefore, it must be examined on it's own merits, not judged due to historical successes and failures.
  • maidix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4This is slightly off-topic... but after reading over and over again about how "Communism doesn't work" and invariably has bloody results, I can't help but wonder what it is being compared to. The feudal system? The empire system? The pre-civilization chaos? Or perhaps it is being compared to Almighty Capitalism... the system that feuled two world wars, a paranoid cold war, and a pseudo-messianic superpower's 21st-century tantrum?

    An economic system is not a government is not a civilization.
    • sumadartson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1And Bush* sent 12 million people to Siberia. I mean, guantanamo is obviously on the same scale as the gulags. Any one with some knowledge of history realises that.

      Democracy might be flawed, but it's best the form of government so far. If only because it allows change of government without bloodshed.

      * not a supporter, not even american
    • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Or perhaps it is being compared to Almighty Capitalism... the system that feuled two world wars, a paranoid cold war, and a pseudo-messianic superpower's 21st-century tantrum?"

      Only governments fuel wars. Capitalism fuels trade.
  • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"This is Communist" is a standard FUD technique. Not just for software development. Just for anything that sounds vaguely uncapitalist. :(
  • AllenHSmilden, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I agree with everyone saying communism works on paper, but it seems to never been applied in the right way. A lot of you people are confusing evil dictatorships with communism. What we know as evil communism such as the Soviet Union was all because of the dictator. True communism would pretty much be synonymous with utopia. Everyone living in a society with no needs and no wants.

    Marx assumed that communism would evolve out of capitalist countries. That a country such as the Us would naturally over time evolve from capitalism to communism. He was surprised to see a really poor country such as Russia implement the system, he later rethought about it and though it could work. But unfortunately when you have a dictatorship you have one person deciding what is right for everyone else even if he doesn't know what he should be deciding to make communism work.
    • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It doesn't work even on paper. (actually it's not worth the paper it's writen on).
    • GNUGustav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I really doubt that Marx were surprised by the revolution in Russia since he died 1883, 34 years before the revolution :).

      But it is true that he expected the revolution to start in Germany wich was the country that had the most evolved capitalism at the time.
  • Ibox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Live how you want too, fuc the guidlines we are supposed to follow to be called a commie or capitalist or wut the fuc ever. if you want to use free software use it, if you don't wanna work, dont. ... die anyway.
  • Ciebergasm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I'm a Marxist, so whether or not it is doesn't much matter to me.
    • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Of course it doesn't matter to you.

      Marxism is a religion.
  • NapoleonGold, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Alright I just want to remind all of you that "Communism" was a Party within the now defunct Soviet Union. It like saying that America is a Republican as opposed to a pseudo-democracy.

    Communism is not the base of a philosophy
  • Spanktacular, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know if this has been posted here, but it seems appropriate.
    http://www.techsupportalert.com/best_46_free_utilities.htm
  • robohoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'd rather be communist than fascist
  • Blaxter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1who cares?
  • braindeadin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Going by the same logic, user generated content sites (eg. digg), collaborative web (web 2.0), cognitive radio, barcamps etc. are also communist then. Arent they? After all they are again experiments based on the same philosophy (FOSS).
  • CPops, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Open source software is entirely a product of the free market.

    Individuals voluntarily donate their time to create something they want. Regardless of peoples' motivation for participating, this is the fruit of freedom.

    It is software that is protected by "Intellectual Property Rights" that goes against freedom and property rights. Legitimate advocates of free market, such as the Mises Institute and others, are against so-called "Intellectual Property Rights".

    Here is a great article called "Against Intellectual Property" from Stephan Kinsella that illustrates why libertarians are opposed to IP.

    http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
    • heinousjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Describing an organization that agrees with your opinion as "legitimate" is a good indication that you are arguing from emotion rather than logic. It's a cheap trick, but fortunately, easy to spot.
  • Tsujigiri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've always thought that the early Internet idiom of having everything be free was socialist, socialism usually being in opposition to capitalism, which is where everything has a price. The problem though comes in when the lines between communism and socialism were blurred during the 40ies and 50ies by McCarthyism. I feel that many people of my generation (ages 30-40 roughly) have been raised to think communism and socialism are pretty much the same. The Cold War scare made my generation somewhat xenophobic of non-democracies to a degree; we were raised under a lot of fear.
  • billybeer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2communism will always fail as it goes against human nature. Humans are competitive by nature, natural selection and survival of fitness makes us that way. The only way an economic system that is not based upon competition (on a national scale) will work is by the coercive force of of government which will never work without the loss of freedom and ultimately the failure of the system. Of course there is no provision that says within a free economy you can't have open source or any other volunteerism
    • tybris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2tell that to China :P
    • billybeer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There is not a whole lot of freedom in china. More importantly china is, and I think will continue to move away from a traditional communist economy into somesort of hybrid and maybe eventually to a free economy. Then watch out.
  • spikeb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Of all the articles with stupid comments, this easily tops the list lately - not for the amount of comments, but the sheer stupidity of them.
    com·mu·nism n.
    A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

    The labor of free software is collectivist, and so is the ownership of the code. The answer to the title is yes.
    • billybeer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well technically free code comes in various types of ownership with various types of licensing. Which free code is owned collectively? Either the programmer retains some control or the code is owned by no one. The answer to the title is no.
    • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yep, the code is not owned it's free. Even the "community" can't decide to close it for example.
  • tybris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3To Europeans this phrase is meaningless. To Americans it seems to bring forth hefty emotions. Apparently it was the American government who caused the big scare. I'd fear capitalism if I was you.
    • heinousjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Capitalism is scary. It means you can't rely on the world taking care of you. It means you have to be capable of achieving. Lots of people don't like that.
  • Enigmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"'When you're downloading Mozilla Firefox... You're downloading Communism!" - Bill Gates

    http://www.firefoxwallpapers.com/albums/userpics/10001/wall_ff_203.jpg

    (The above quote may or may not be fictitious)
  • hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Communist? Certainly not. Communist means that economic resources are owned by the State. Free software is owned by the community that uses and makes it; it's socialist. Irregardless, it's not completely socialist in that it does not automatically mean that no economic gain can be realized from it. Rather, the business model is merely changed from one of providing a product to providing a service, particularly support. And having paid hundreds of dollars for Microsoft Office, getting no support, then having to pay for classes on using Word and Excel, I can honestly say that I'd rather spend hundreds for support on a free software solution that is just as good.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Communist means that economic resources are owned by the State."

      Actually "communist" means that all property is owned by the commune or "community" which can be but is not required to be the same as a State.
  • billybeer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It is hard to fear an economic system. It is the government that the system requires that can cause fear. History is pretty clear on this one. Capitalism, because of its basic tenets, has foster the most free societies in the history of man. You may like that or not but that is the simple truth. Communism on the other hand has failed, despite Marx's predictions, has fail completely at producing a free society. It might someday (I doubt it) but it hasn't to date. This history has nothing to do with the American government.
  • kerrytusc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would prefer to call this movement "Libertarian" in that the open nature of these shared projects encourages individuality--nothing like joining the collective. The mega corporation as personified by Bill Gates and the totalitarian state as exemplified by Stalin are really aspects of the same thing--serfdom to society and the loss of unique person-hood.
    Open source projects thrive or die simply because some INDIVIDUALS have each chosen to participate. It is neither left wing nor right wing, but simply freedom.
  • gcacic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The flagships of Capitalistic economical thought, to mention just two Johns - John Meynard Keynes and John Kenneth Galbright, have spent the entire productive lives trying to deny simple Marx`s sentence

    - The human labor and human labor only creates the new value

    Capitalism is all about taking away that new value from it`s rightful owner - the worker.

    It is also mentioned in Marx`s "Das Kapital" that reaching the high level of human thought together with "production forces" (technology!?) is a must to make true Communism viable.

    And the paradox - How on earth could come that initiative comes from the most unexpected place - the ultimate Capitalistic society (please read USA). Maybe Marx`s predecessor Hegel could help

    - Every system caries in it`s essence the seed of it`s own destruction
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.