this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
440 points (83.5% liked)

Linux

48310 readers
985 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

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure the economy is less worker-owned in socialism than in communism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] SaltySalamander@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

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.