Linux Is Capitalist! - Manuel Lora

[cousinlucky]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lora/m.lora22.html

[Muser]

Lies!! Bananas!! Linux is Bananas!!

Seriously, does it really need to be labeled like this?

[Kojak]

Thank god that the article is not a stupid flaming thing... Although I don't agree with everything said there, one thing is definitely okay.

... Thus, when Ballmer exclaimed that Linux had the characteristics of communism, he completely erred.

Linux is not socialist. The organization and development process of free software is nothing but people acting freely to satisfy their intellectual needs.

[CodeRoot]

Charitable activities imply people freely giving their money, time and skills towards a cause that they think benefit others. It does not matter one whit whether the final product (an operating system kernel, a house, a dollar, an ounce of gold, a meal) is free. Presence of coercion over the means of production is what determines if a particular exchange really is free or not.

(Emphasis mine.)

This is a key point!

Let it be heard loudly that Linux, and indeed every voluntary transaction, belongs to the realm of the peaceful and non-coercive free market.

AMEN!

EDIT: I am not saying that I am "all for" or "in support of" the people/etc. behind this article -- I know nothing about them -- but, I can agree with a lot of what the article is saying...

[nikolaos]

Communism means complete state ownership of every resource within its reach and thus the impossibility of human action without the authorization of the Central Planning Board; it means the absolute lack of private property, including body ownership and labor.

This is more like fascism, communism is much more complicated than that.
I would say communism is more like in the middle of socialism and anarchism.
That said, i think that linux is kind of communistic compared with other software made for money under the free (that is ofcourse a lie) market (therefore capitalist) rules.

free market rules?(sick)

[CodeRoot]

That said, i think that linux is kind of communistic compared with other software made for money under the free (that is ofcourse a lie) market (therefore capitalist) rules.

free market rules?(sick)

Please elaborate...

[redbeard]

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

I've often thought the characterization of linux as communist was incompatible with the simple statement above from Marx. Linux is really more "From each according to their desire and ability to contribute"... I'm not sure how to finish the second part though. Perhaps "To each according to their broadband connection"?

However, I believe Marx also theorized that eventually under Marxism people would reach a state where they worked simply because they enjoyed a particular activity, not because they were compelled to do so or expecting something in return. Ironically, while this never has occurred under communism, it has largely happened with linux (under capitalism).

[nikolaos]

Please elaborate...

well....when you(Linux) don't follow the rules of modern economy(exploiting workers, raising prices, securing patents, cuting services and manipulating goverments in the name of efficiency) and on the other hand exposing those that follow those rules by being more efficient than them, then you ARE being the rebel of the system, the one that counters the present capitalist world order.Counters it with a more humanistic one, a more socialistic one.

I repeat that communism under Stalin was not comunism, it was fascism. Marx and Lenin had different ideas (Ok, maybe Lenin's ideas didn't have big differences).
I agree with redbeards very accurate conclusion.

However, I believe Marx also theorized that eventually under Marxism people would reach a state where they worked simply because they enjoyed a particular activity, not because they were compelled to do so or expecting something in return. Ironically, while this never has occurred under communism, it has largely happened with linux (under capitalism).

[CodeRoot]

It might can be said that Linux is not even capitalism - but in a separate class/system of its own -- depending on how you define capitalism --- if one believes the exchange of some form of money is required for something to be considered capitalism, then Linux is not capitalism. The author of the article is saying (my interpretation) that Linux is capitalism -- and -- capitalism does not define any requirement of/for the exchange of any form of money.

nikolaos:
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or you don't believe in capitalism (I am guessing sarcastic) - but, IMO, there are two basic/major definitions of capitalism in use today -- one ("pure" capitalism) operates on the principle of "freedom" and the other ("world" capitalism) operates on the principle of "money" -- the difference between the two is mainly a matter of priority of the [greater] importance/significance of people or money --- the former is about the freedom of people (individuals) to have a "free market" (based on "fair trade"), and the latter is about [corporate "entities"] having the "right" to make money and control market interests -- the former designates by rule and definition that the market should be driven strictly by individual interest, and the latter actually strives to market individuals as well as products and services ----- [my interpretation of] what the article is saying - and based on these "definitions" of capitalism - is - Linux is "pure" capitalism, and the present capitalist world order (as you put it) is "money" capitalism.

If you place people at the center, you have one thing. If you place money at the center, then you have another thing entirely...

[nikolaos]

I am being sarcastic towards capitalism (and not towards linux) because i think that the only capitalistic form we see is the "world" capitalism that you described, "pure" capitalism is just theory (at list until now).
I like the fact that linux exist under a totaly different-not greedy-system.
Greed that is growing accordingly to the growth of capitalism.
I am not saying that "pure" capitalism is not feasible, it is just that whenever humans touch something they spoil it. That is what happend with communism that is what is happening with capitalism.
My opinion is that Linux has nothing to do with the only form of capitalism active today ("world" capitalism) therefore is not capitalist.

p.s. free market and fair trade are totaly different concepts, i don't think they can coexist.