5 ms·
To me this is the most amazing thing people that would turn themselves inside out against communism/socialism because of the lies they have been told. When it a
by xbmcuser 9mo ago
To me this is the most amazing thing people that would turn themselves inside out against communism/socialism because of the lies they have been told. When it actually comes down to it are all for communism ie open source
- plastic-enjoyer 9mo agoOpen source = communism is the dumbest take I've read on HN lmao
- madspindel 9mo agoI would argue open source is decentralization and proprietary is centralization. In other words, open source is libertarianism and proprietary is communism. And this move is to move from Big Tech/"Big State" to smaller alternatives.
- watwut 9mo ago> proprietary is communism. Maybe we should not twist ourselves to logical pretzels to redefine terms like that.
- ngruhn 9mo agoJust because it's free? Let's talk again when all open source projects are funded and controlled by the state with zero competition between them and no consumer choice. Only one Linux distro, only one database, only one web framework, etc. And it's decided top-down from the state what to work on. I doubt though that these projects would have started in the first place in a communist setting.
- ben_w 9mo ago"The" state, with no competition, like there's only one state? Belgium isn't big enough to realistically have its own linux, but France and Germany are.
- pepa65 9mo agoOf course it's big enough. Why would it not be big enough??
- ben_w 9mo agoAll the usual reasons for comparative advantage, plus have you seen the size of OS codebases these days?
- integralid 9mo agoNorth Korea has its own Linux. Google has its own Linux. There are Linux distributions maintained by a single person. Belgium will do fine.
- ben_w 9mo agoMaintained, with heavy leaning on other people having actually written all the stuff, enabled by an open market. The hypothetical specifically precludes that.
- lompad 9mo agoThere is no reason such a state would have to set things up this way. As an example: you probably know that germany has socialized healthcare. It is, however, not implemented as a single-payer model. Instead there are tons of different insurances competing with each other, while having a highly regulated floor of what they MUST offer. Is the model perfect? Hell no, it has tons of issues - though overall it's pretty solid. My point is just that social policies and "no internal competition ever" does absolutely not have to go hand in hand. There is a massive middle ground. See: social democracy as a concept and in its current implementation.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- keybored 9mo agoAnd social democracy forked from the socialist tradition over half a century ago (GGP[1] said socialism/communism). So both you and GP are wrong. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46551378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46551378
- lompad 9mo agoProblem here being that those terms aren't used as defined in regular discourse. Language changes and casual use differs from academic use. When on an american-centric board anybody writes about "communism", I assume they refer to anything from marxism to stalinism to socialism to democratic socialism to social democracy up to anything non-hyper-capitalist. Not great, but sadly something to be taken into consideration. Especially when looked at in context - parent was criticizing the EU initiative by essentially claiming something like that leads to a kind of monoculture like in a planned economy reminiscent of "communism", here probably meaning stalinism, from what I assume is a radical libertarian position. Which tells me the person is likely american, implying a rather ... minimal awareness of the nuance here. Please, look at the actual comment chain and it should be rather trivial to make out what everybody is talking about. Does your comment really add value here?
- 9mo ago
- xbmcuser 9mo agoYours and others knee jerk reaction proves my point you are conflating autocracy with communism/socialism.
- keybored 9mo agoThis is as usual confused. People keep discussing communism as if they were (via analogy) talking about capitalism being about men in suites with fake smiles, green paper, bank vaults, and powerpoint presentations. Every time people have to respond with paragraphs upon paragraphs just unrolling all that nonsense. Try to update your knowledge on the subject instead of talking like an alien in Trafalgar Square.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- Hamuko 9mo agoOpen source is not communism. Communism would entail that we collectively own Linux, which we don't. It's private property, and if we want to use the code, we need to abide by its licensing terms. Licensing terms that are built upon the existence of copyright, a concept that allows for private ownership of intellectual property.
- Kim_Bruning 9mo agoThe licensing terms exist as a patch on copyright. If copyright law were fixed, we wouldn't need those terms at all.
- andsoitis 9mo ago> If copyright law were fixed, we wouldn't need those terms at all. Why do you think so?
- Kim_Bruning 9mo agoBecause > 'The licensing terms exist as a patch on copyright.' Upstreaming a patch implies you no longer need to maintain it. Law doesn't quite work the same as software, but in this case the metaphor holds.
- salvozappa 9mo agoThis is so reductive. Open source has nothing to do with communism.
- saubeidl 9mo agoAs a socialist, I would disagree. Communism is about a would-be utopia after the workers own the means of production. For us tech workers, it could be argued that the means of production are source code. Thus, there is a socialist aspect to open source - but that's a good thing!
- eudamoniac 9mo agoThe means of production are computers, no?