"A typical example of socialist distribution vs. market distribution is any market where a free society provides many choices but a socialist state makes a singular decision for everyone. Not only does Linux not match this model of socialist centralization, but Microsoft does. Here is the key, by eliminating heavy dependency on proprietary software, you eliminate one centralization of abusable power. Linux ties its user into its knowledge base, but by its license agreement, that ties users into no one in particular, as good ideas can be taken and forked or merged into other projects. It leaves the source code open so anyone who desires can become an expert." (01/17/07)
Socialism masquerades as libertarianism until it has power, and then it drops the niceties used to convince the masses that something positive is happening, when in truth, power was consolidating. I used to be a Libertarian until I realized I was merely a tool in the hands of the socialists, who are a tool in the hands of the secret organizations, who are everywhere and nowhere.
It is nice that a Libertarian newspaper is talking about Linux, and there was one good observation made in the quote above, but they are merely using Linux to advance their own agenda, not for its original purpose, which Linus made clear early on:
Joy.
Linus was having fun, and still is. Libertarians and socialists are grumpy because they have no power in a Republic, and they have axes to grind.
I wholeheartedly agree that Linux is _not_ anarchist, and would have written Jeremy Fowler's argument if he hadn't. Linux is very hierarchical. Thus my concern is not for where it is today, but where it will go after Linus passes away as an old man. The real danger is in something as powerful as Linux being controlled by someone who is as powerful as Linus Torvalds... but has no joy.
The salient point in the article quoted above is that ANYONE can study the code and become an expert in it. This makes it a meritocracy. Meritocracy demands that its ruling class be an expert in something other than ruling, which makes it apolitical in nature. Politicians continually try, but fail, to control it.
Linux is a rigorously structured meritocracy of joy.
-Jared
Jared wrote:
Socialism masquerades as libertarianism until it has power, and then it drops the niceties used to convince the masses that something positive is happening, when in truth, power was consolidating. I used to be a Libertarian until I realized I was merely a tool in the hands of the socialists, who are a tool in the hands of the secret organizations, who are everywhere and nowhere.
Like Jeremy, you are conflating different kinds of socialism. You are thinking about the statist version of socalism, which seeks to take over the state. That variety of socialism is less popular these days. There is also libertarian socialism, which doesn't seek state power and which seeks to empower people to run their own lives without coercion from above, be it an authority or a state.
I wholeheartedly agree that Linux is _not_ anarchist, and would have written Jeremy Fowler's argument if he hadn't. Linux is very hierarchical. Thus my concern is not for where it is today, but where it will go after Linus passes away as an old man. The real danger is in something as powerful as Linux being controlled by someone who is as powerful as Linus Torvalds... but has no joy.
Linux is very much anarchist, like the rest of the free software movement. It does have a bit of hierarchy, which is understandable given that the movement has to interface with a capitalist society. Linus may control Linux, or at least his corner of the movement, but he long displayed an attitude that is anti-authoritarian.
The salient point in the article quoted above is that ANYONE can study the code and become an expert in it. This makes it a meritocracy. Meritocracy demands that its ruling class be an expert in something other than ruling, which makes it apolitical in nature. Politicians continually try, but fail, to control it.
Linux is an example of anarchism in action: open, free, anti-capitalist, egalitarian, anti-hierarchical, anti-propertarian, decentralized, cooperative and so on.
I'll send my article on the anarchist basis of the free software movement when it gets written.
Chuck -------------------------- Bread and Roses Web Design serving small businesses, non-profits, artists and activists http://www.breadandrosesweb.com/
Socialism masquerades as libertarianism until it has power, and then it drops the niceties used to convince the masses that something positive is happening, when in truth, power was consolidating. I used to be a Libertarian until I realized I was merely a tool in the hands of the socialists, who are a tool in the hands of the secret organizations, who are everywhere and nowhere.
Like Jeremy, you are conflating different kinds of socialism.
Yes. It happens as you grow older. It's called wisdom; the ability to see through the superficial differences, and recognize common threads. I have been a socialist. I have been a libertarian. I have been an anarchist. And not just from the armchair. I have been arrested as an anarchist protesting the government. I got the point. I am no longer an anarchist. I have been this and many more, and I am content with the accurate assessment of Linux as a meritocracy, which is able to be used by anarchists to push their agenda.
Linux, like the pen or the paper, is itself outside of anarchism, and yet able to be used by it.
Linux is very much anarchist, like the rest of the free software movement. It does have a bit of hierarchy, which is understandable given that the movement has to interface with a capitalist society. Linus may control Linux, or at least his corner of the movement, but he long displayed an attitude that is anti-authoritarian.
Anti-authoritarian does not anarchism make, and this is your strongest point? Anti-authoritarianism is encouraged in a Republic, inefficient in an Anarchy, and fascinating to behold in a Meritocracy. And we're still just talking politics. In religion, the anti-authoritarians are called prophets, if that gives you a scope on the matter.
Linux is an example of anarchism in action: open, free, anti-capitalist, egalitarian, anti-hierarchical, anti-propertarian, decentralized, cooperative and so on.
Yes, Linux is an example of anarchism. It is also an example of capitalism, it is also an example of inequality, it is also an example of rigid hierarchy, powerful intellectual property rights (witness the battle with SCO), deeply centralized, and so on.
Meritocracies are like that.
I'll send my article on the anarchist basis of the free software movement when it gets written.
Okay. I hope you at least study meritocracy before it is finished.
I look forward to seeing it.
-Jared
On Friday 19 January 2007 13:44, Jared wrote:
Anti-authoritarian does not anarchism make, and this is your strongest point? Anti-authoritarianism is encouraged in a Republic, inefficient in an Anarchy, and fascinating to behold in a Meritocracy. And we're still just talking politics. In religion, the anti-authoritarians are called prophets, if that gives you a scope on the matter.
"authoritarian" has two very different definitions-- I suggest finding another more accurate word.
I have been a socialist. I have been a libertarian. I have been an anarchist. And not just from the armchair. I have been arrested as an anarchist protesting the government.
I think a funny scene in a political comedy -- sort of like the scene in Woody Allen's Zelig where Zelig tries to play cello in a marching band -- would be someone bringing an armchair with them to a rally or protest event, getting arrested along with their armchair, seeing the character in a jail cell with his armchair with him. That would be funny, would it not?
Chuck wrote:
Linux is an example of anarchism in action: open, free, anti-capitalist, egalitarian, anti-hierarchical, anti-propertarian, decentralized, cooperative and so on.
"Linux" is not an example of anarchism, though it is a part of the FOSS community, which may be an example of anarchism.
"Linux" is a trademarked project that is controlled exclusively by Linus Torvalds. Yes, you can provide unofficial patches, or fork your own kernel, but you cannot legally (or ethically) call it Linux.
The FOSS community as a whole could be considered anarchism in action. There is no single authority. All authorities that do exist only carry authority over contributors that choose to submit to the authority, and only while they choose to submit to the authority. Any contributor can choose to stop releasing their own works under a FOSS license at any time. Copies already in circulation at that time are not affected, but the author is not obligated by any authority to continue distributing under a given license.
Just my two cents :)
~Bradley
-
Bradley Hook -
Chuck -
David Nicol -
Jared -
Luke -Jr