Is Linux Anarchist?

Chat about just about anything else
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by Nick_Djinn »

By Anarchist I mean a certain kind of Anarchist.....there are a few working definitions. I dont mean a state of disorder due to the absence or failure of government.....I mean Anarchism in the sense that Proudhon and Malatesta used the term....Basically a voluntary society based on mutual aid and free association, where the means of production are owned by the people who use them but there is not central hierarchy dictating in a top-down fashion, but a participatory democracy that is decentralized and organized from the individual and community on up....So we are not talking about some totally unstructured or disorganized society of choas, and there might even be rules....but due to the participatory nature of the communities you can make your own community and the community makes its own law....so if you find a collective society where they permit drug use then its perfectly legal....if you find a society where they absolutely will not allow you to clear cut the forest...that is the rules of that society, and there is room for all of it under the greater federation.


So I am reading about the intricacies of ANarcho-Syndicalism and the Spanish uprising against the fascist coup and I cant help but notice parallel after parallel between the model of organization advocated by the Anarcho-Syndicalists and the workers unions and farming communes of Barcelona and the Basque region, and what is essentially the organizational structure of linux...I mean, any of us could break away and form our own distro, or our own community within this distro, customizing it to our own needs....this is highly organized and egalitarian, but its voluntary and decentralized.


So I guess there are two strains of Anarchism....those who feel that in a free society people would compete rather than cooperate....the kind of rugged individualism that at one time was popular in the American west before the fed started increasing its power more and more....and then there are those who feel that society would cooperate instead, who feel that groups can act 'as' moral agents even if they are not literally so, who would support some level of organization and structure or even rules but only on the basis of voluntary association and the social contract.




So Im not saying linux users want to overthrow the government necessarily, though Im sure some do, but I do think that linux and its copy-left philosophy does in fact sound very similar to tons of the idea espoused by the left-wing branch of social Anarchism, and specifically the branches like Anarcho-Syndicalism....does anyone agree, or am I just talking out of my ass?
Biker
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 512
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:58 am
Location: Where my hat is

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by Biker »

I think the second option fits. ;) :lol:
Linux User #384279
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by Nick_Djinn »

lol....maybe.

But ideas like copy-left technology and intellectual property pretty much came from the same ideological roots.
Biker
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 512
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:58 am
Location: Where my hat is

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by Biker »

No.. They don't.

Copyright and intellectual property laws are in place for a reason. It protects those who put money into developing the product from those who would prevent them from getting that investment back.
Linux User #384279
User avatar
Superewza
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:44 pm
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, England, Europe, Earth, ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha, Milky Way, Universe, Multiverse

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by Superewza »

You focus on Anarcho-Syndicalism, which is a very specific example of modern Socialism, that essentially concentrates on a worker driven state and that the working man currently has little or no power in today's society. I'd say that yes, it does accurately reflect a lot of socialist ideals but to pin it down to anarchy is a bit untrue.
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by Nick_Djinn »

Biker wrote:No.. They don't.

Copyright and intellectual property laws are in place for a reason. It protects those who put money into developing the product from those who would prevent them from getting that investment back.

I dont see the logic in your argument. It sounds like a red herring. Whether or not copyright laws are in place for a reason, or what that reason is, is totally irrelevant to whether Anarchist or Socialist thinkers have pioneered concepts that may have been the basis for copy-left and open source patents....I mean, it goes back to Proudhon and his essay on property.

Superewza wrote:You focus on Anarcho-Syndicalism, which is a very specific example of modern Socialism, that essentially concentrates on a worker driven state and that the working man currently has little or no power in today's society. I'd say that yes, it does accurately reflect a lot of socialist ideals but to pin it down to anarchy is a bit untrue.

Perhaps my comparison was a little narrow, but I see a lot more similarities to Anarcho-Syndicalism that I do not find when comparing Linux to Marxism or Lenninist/Maoist/Stalinism. Maybe it has slightly more affinity for Trotsky, Council Communism, Autonomous Marxism, Anarcho-Communism or mutualism, but I see a lot less similarity with mainstream Communism or Anarcho-Capitalism or even Democratic Socialism. I will explain why.

Lenninism and the even more authoritarian branches of Maoism and Stalinism do not fit because of the extreme centralization. Maybe Haiku is communist in that its free and open source, but its also highly centralized. If the Soviets or workers unions are each their own 'distro' and the co-ops within the union make up the various sub-projects like Kubuntu....or Maybe the union is the sub-distro and the co-op would be an individual project for a specific app. Anyway.....In the Marxist forms of socialism there is a submission to the party who claims ownership of everything and slowly hands back power once they are certain that groupthink has been achieved and the pattern is self sustainable.....That is precisely what drove a lot of Russian Socialists towards Anarchism or Council Communism....the individual Soviets didnt want to submit to the party....the party often did a lot of things that didnt have popular support, even from the vanguard within the soviets....but if you stepped out of line the party would send their men to black bag you.....In this regard Linux is NOT like Lenninism due to the autonomy and decentralization of the distros. Linux more closely resembles the structure of the Mondragon corporation, only its not for profit.

Perhaps a few radical offshoots of socialism and left-Anarchism also fit, but neither the Authoritarian branches of socialism with direct party control nor the more individualist branches of Anarchism that are any farther right than Tuckers Mutualism really fit the bill.....Maybe Anarcho-Capitalism applies to Red Hat or Palm OS, where they took the foundation of Anarchism/linux but removed some of the copy-left principles.

The SItuationists and Autonomen were socialists who had a structure similar to Linux.....the Vietcong also had a more linux like organizational structure, at least during the civil war if not once the party took over.....alternately the South during the US civil war was decentralized like Linux was, as was the original 13 colonies, though they were in other ways less socialist...but they were giving out free land for a while, so maybe it was like linux where you are free to do what you want with your own labor.

Democratic socialism isnt a fit either, because despite the progressive reforms from Leninist socialism, its still too centralized like Haiku. Native American tribal structure IS like linux though, depending on the tribe....the 5-6 nations of New England is a good example.



Linux is hardly Leninist though. If the distros had to submit directly to whoever makes the kernel...if the kernel writters could come over here and take over the distro if they didnt think you were running it the way linux is supposed to be run, then it would be more like Communism than Syndicalism.....it definitely resembles the more decentralized and federation based forms of Socialism, like Anarcho-Syndicalism or the IWW but NOT Marxist-Leninism.
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by FedoraRefugee »

Sheesh, it is an OS, not a political system! :roll:
User avatar
mick55
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:47 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by mick55 »

FedoraRefugee wrote:Sheesh, it is an OS, not a political system! :roll:
I thought it was a Religion. :mrgreen:
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by FedoraRefugee »

mick55 wrote:
FedoraRefugee wrote:Sheesh, it is an OS, not a political system! :roll:
I thought it was a Religion. :mrgreen:
In the name of the Gnome, the Gimp, and the GNU Kernel...Amen... :?
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by Nick_Djinn »

Its just a comparison of organizational structures. Obviously its not a government over anything other than the OS itself.
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by Nick_Djinn »

Apparently I am not just coming out of left field with this. Other people have suggested the same thing....Though I take it you are a right-libertarian. Nothing wrong with that. Much better than being a neo-conservative.


http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/11/ ... ng-system/

http://darkforces.powbangzap.com/blog/2 ... hists.html

http://liberator.blogspot.com/2007/01/l ... ts-os.html

This one is more silly
http://fans.askaninja.com/group/globala ... -anarchist

http://www.answerbag.com/article/Linux: ... 97a5/linux
User avatar
DrHu
Level 17
Level 17
Posts: 7522
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:20 pm

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by DrHu »

Nick_Djinn wrote:.I mean, any of us could break away and form our own distro, or our own community within this distro, customizing it to our own needs....this is highly organized and egalitarian, but its voluntary and decentralized.
Yes, Linux is decentralized
The Internet is/was decentralized, but maybe not any more or for much longer as a power structure

I don't know that I would call any socialist style anarchist, lets just say socialist or collectivist
--out of that comes a discussion of private vs public good: the value of community vs the value of the one rich dude(s) or the richest, usually not in the interest of the collective will of a society or the common good

And of course, Linux is an OS, not a religion or even a business organization, although it could be considered a political organization of the not for profit variety, even though many companies do make money/profit by using Linux for their computer IT projects or businesses

Waiting for the Empire strikes back
  • Or maybe convert to the Jedi religion: now that is an anarchist
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by FedoraRefugee »

Nick_Djinn wrote:Apparently I am not just coming out of left field with this. Other people have suggested the same thing....Though I take it you are a right-libertarian. Nothing wrong with that. Much better than being a neo-conservative.
Lol, you sure do throw them political tags around! You must be a poli-sci major! :lol:

I do not like to pidgin-hole people OR countries. Take the term "socialist" for instance. I can find at least 5 distinct and diverse definitions of that single label. People cannot agree what a socialist even is! When you talk about right and left do you mean US right and left, or European? US libertarian or European? Even when we can agree on a political label, is it really fair to classify a whole country under a single belief system?

Anyway, since you asked, what am I? :D I would first and foremost classify myself as a Christian fundamentalist! Naturally, this puts me pretty far on the right. :wink: I would also consider myself to be a Reagan conservative. I am Libertarian in principle, but I understand that reality is a whole 'nother ballgame. People are just not responsible enough for a pure Libertarian or socialist system, so neither of these would ever work. Business does need regulated and we do need a social safety net for things like unemployment, health care, food stamps...The question is, how far do we want government to go? I argue with my friend DrHu about this a bit, I think we simply have a different perspective as I am American. We simply have different base assumptions, though I do not think we differ too much on what we would like to see. We just go about it in different ways. I believe in small central government, stronger state rights, more personal freedom, and much less entitlement. I think raising taxes puts a burden on the economy and only results in more government spending. I think the solution is to cut bureaucracy. I think the government needs to regulate wallstreet, but it does not need to own or control it! I think our current president is a socialist nightmare, but the preceding one was an irresponsible progressive who was not much better. I think this country is fast on the heels of Greece and that if congress doesn't change hands in November we are through! I don't much care if the next president is republican or democrat, they had best be a patriot that is willing to make some drastic changes or we are headed down the drain. Lastly, I fully support the American tea parties and I think it is a beautiful thing to see the American people waking up and understanding that we are heading 100MPH for a block wall! We elected Obama under hope for change but his kind of change is not what this country wants. I think the silent majority is going to start fighting back and start getting back to what the founding fathers have envisioned for this country. I doubt we will ever get all the way back, but I think we can right this boat before it is too late. If not...I am a citizen of a better world, in the end things of this world matter little... :D

What kind of government does Linux represent? None. Linux is Linux. If you want it to be socialist it will be. If you want it to be capitalistic then it can.

Someone used to joke about a new communist distribution, chebuntu. If you do not like it the lead developer will blow your brains out.
User avatar
markfiend
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Leeds, UK

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by markfiend »

:lol: As a good old-fashioned English Lefty, I actually think there is a great deal of similarity between the structure of GNU/Linux and that of anarcho-syndicalism... not least the incessant splitting of groups and infighting :wink:
FedoraRefugee wrote:People are just not responsible enough for a pure Libertarian or socialist system, so neither of these would ever work. Business does need regulated and we do need a social safety net for things like unemployment, health care, food stamps...The question is, how far do we want government to go?
It's funny, I come to similar conclusions as FedoraRefugee here even though we start at opposite ends.

And if Linux is the CNT, who are Franco and the Fascists? Bill Gates and Microsoft? :lol:
Omnia mutantur, nihil interit.
mercier
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by mercier »

i lived in a "socialist" country for many years, so i can tell you from a personal experience that linux is nothing like a socialism/anarchism...

linux actually WORKS. :D
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by Nick_Djinn »

FedoraRefugee wrote:Anyway, since you asked, what am I? :D I would first and foremost classify myself as a Christian fundamentalist! Naturally, this puts me pretty far on the right.
Sort of...At one point, the vast majority of Christians and not just Catholics had swung to the Democrats for the better part of the previous century. They felt that the New Deal (Created by a Republican, but many modern Republicans have called him a socialist) was the approach most consistent with Christian values. Christians were not in favor of cutting welfare and increasing military spending....but a series of factors turned the tide, most notably the abortion issue....and the parties went through a major rearrangement and adopted the conservative platform.....but they were not as fiscally conservative, so the Republicans gained tolerence for a limited safety net...and Reagan attempted to further solidify the union after Nixon.....and a lot of people imagine that Nixon was the anti-christ, but I almost think his foreign policy was less hawkish than Kennedy's up until the end when he seems to have had a change of heart before getting shot.

FedoraRefugee wrote:I believe in small central government, stronger state rights, more personal freedom, and much less entitlement.
I agree with everything but the last part. Much poorer nations than ours are able to see that everyone is fed and has a home and has medical care....the absolute basics...not plasma flatscreens or a jaguar in the driveway, but everyone gets the bare minimum....and there is still an upper class who can afford private jets...it doesnt require us all to be impoverished workers like in the Stalinist/Maoist countries.

FedoraRefugee wrote: I think raising taxes puts a burden on the economy and only results in more government spending. I think the solution is to cut bureaucracy. I think the government needs to regulate wallstreet, but it does not need to own or control it!
I can agree with most of that....But think about it...If you want to increase spending, and therefor tax revenue and GNP while still increasing Quality of life...who is going to spend their money more likely?

There is an interesting thing that a lot of economists have realized....Poor people spend everything they get. I dont necessarily believe thats why they are poor, except in some instances of excessive spending, but the poor are more likely to take everything you give them and put it right back into the economy, which helps the rich....Is the opposite true? Does giving money to big business make its way back down to the poor and other workers? Trickle down your leg economics? I am not convinced that increasing corporate profits necessarily increases jobs (unless the company is on the verge of collapse, which is an exceptional circumstance). Corporations do not increase paychecks just because they make more money...its not a charity. They still want to get the best deal they can, the better side of the bargain from their workers. Increasing corporate profits offers no protection from outsourcing to China, and nor does it raise the minimum wage or even keep costs down necessarily.....Oil profits hit record levels, and yet there was talk of INCREASING their subsidies to keep prices down supposedly, but even as demand fell the prices kept going up....thats because OEPEC artificially controls "supply"...and its not even supply. Its more like price fixing. Price fixing is a felony in any other sector, but somehow we allow it exclusively in oil and banking....How did that happen!? Seriously, you would go to JAIL if that kind of price fixing happened in textiles or food products or cars....but in banking and oil thats just standard. How do they get away with it!?!

Anyway, when you give hand outs to the already rich, they keep it. When you give it to the poor they spend it, and the rich get it anyway....but at least you let people get some things that they needed first. Thats the problem with trickle down your leg economics.
FedoraRefugee wrote:] I think this country is fast on the heels of Greece and that if congress doesn't change hands in November we are through!
Maybe we will follow Greece. Thats a possibility....but not specifically because of far left policies. All the European democratic socialist countries have a higher average quality of life than we do....Maybe in the 50s, post WW2 we had the highest standard, but only because our infrastructure didnt face the brunt of war. Today, as a country we have the most money still, but the average quality of life has fallen behind these countries that are way farther to the left than Obama....So if you think that far left politics automatically equals economic collapse, I would argue that the evidence does not support that theory. Japan and Singapore are also way more technologically advanced than us, at least in the day to day public sector....Singapore has 3d public airwave television and have for years. We might have the edge on military and certain other technologies, but our technology doesnt permeate our infrastructure like in the wealthier asian countries....we dont even have a high speed rail system yet!!! We fell behind in education a long time ago. The deficit was HUGE under reagan, because despite cutting aid to the poor, he spent more than he collected with a hawkish foreign policy (big government of the world) while he cut taxes for the biggest earners.

FedoraRefugee wrote: What kind of government does Linux represent? None. Linux is Linux. If you want it to be socialist it will be. If you want it to be capitalistic then it can.
[/quote][/quote]

You can certainly make a for profit distro of linux, but the concept of copy-left is most definitely a collectivist idea rather than an individualist one. Its not Communist, but it is some kind of collectivist. Linux is the commons. An extreme fiscal conservative, to the right of Ron Paul, would not support any kind of commons arguing that everything should be individually and privately owned. I think it would take a lot more rationalizing to convince yourself that linux was individualist in that sense....now it is individualist in the sense of personal freedom and autonomy....you could compare that to states rights. It has some socially libertarian qualities and it supports a kind of federalism between the distros...in that sense, its more 'Republican' than Communist....But all those similarities also apply to mutaulism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, perhaps even better than they do to states rights.....The workers unions within a syndicalist federation have MORE autonomy than the states do in a Republic, and the Anarcho-Syndicalists support the free market in a sense....but a free market without usury where possession is defined by use rather than ownership, and you are paid for the product of your labor rather than entitlements for assets. In some ways they are arch conservatives but in others they are free market socialists.

But you are right....Linux is a computer OS, not a state government....Still, I think its entirely possible to draw a parallels.
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by FedoraRefugee »

Nick_Djinn wrote:Sort of...At one point, the vast majority of Christians and not just Catholics had swung to the Democrats for the better part of the previous century. They felt that the New Deal (Created by a Republican, but many modern Republicans have called him a socialist) was the approach most consistent with Christian values. Christians were not in favor of cutting welfare and increasing military spending....but a series of factors turned the tide, most notably the abortion issue....and the parties went through a major rearrangement and adopted the conservative platform.....but they were not as fiscally conservative, so the Republicans gained tolerence for a limited safety net...and Reagan attempted to further solidify the union after Nixon.....and a lot of people imagine that Nixon was the anti-christ, but I almost think his foreign policy was less hawkish than Kennedy's up until the end when he seems to have had a change of heart before getting shot.
Your writings tend to be much too simplified, almost like you are being fed this through a modern college course. I would suggest that things are not always as easy, or clear cut as they are presented by your (usually) liberal professors.

I think in this country Christians have been split between the two major parties. Region tends to be the big deciding factor, even today. Catholics actually seem to fall on the Democratic side with the exception of the abortion issue. However, fundamental Christians are protestant based and tend more towards socially conservative values. The ironic Christian group are the blacks, who tend to be even more fundamental than the fundamentalists and hold almost pure republican (by today's standards) values in everything except entitlements yet they are almost overwhelmingly Democrat! I am sensing the beginning of a shift here though, how big a shift will have to be seen.

Anywho...Christian fundamentalists are now driving the far right due to the separation of church and state issues and the prevalence of revisionist history, which you seem to be fully versed in.
I agree with everything but the last part. Much poorer nations than ours are able to see that everyone is fed and has a home and has medical care....the absolute basics...not plasma flatscreens or a jaguar in the driveway, but everyone gets the bare minimum....and there is still an upper class who can afford private jets...it doesnt require us all to be impoverished workers like in the Stalinist/Maoist countries.
I would suggest that we already have this, actually for the last 50 years now. In fact, it is going too far. I wish I had the exact statistics at hand but something like 95% of people living in poverty have a color television. 80 some percent have cable. An overwhelming percent have cellular phones. Only the lowest of the homeless on the streets lack these things, and the cold fact is these people are where they are by choice! No one starves in this country except by choice! There are shelters and kitchens in every town. Any church would see that anyone is directed to the right place for food and shelter.

The other side of the coin are people who live off the government. People who squirt out kids as fast as possible to get the extra allowances. Food stamps are like an underground currency, they can be traded for anything from gas to drugs. Whole generations of literal welfare dynasties leeching off of everyone else because they get more money for sitting on their butts then they could at a menial job. All the furtherance of entitlement programs do is create a whole class of dependents who will be sure to vote for those who continually hand them free money from hard working Americans.

Yes, we need to look out for those who lost their jobs or have disabilities or cannot make enough to support their families. I agree with that. But we need to seriously fix the system. It is broke, and giving people more obama money is no solution. It is EXACTLY what happened to Greece.
I can agree with most of that....But think about it...If you want to increase spending, and therefor tax revenue and GNP while still increasing Quality of life...who is going to spend their money more likely?

There is an interesting thing that a lot of economists have realized....Poor people spend everything they get. I dont necessarily believe thats why they are poor, except in some instances of excessive spending, but the poor are more likely to take everything you give them and put it right back into the economy, which helps the rich....Is the opposite true? Does giving money to big business make its way back down to the poor and other workers? Trickle down your leg economics? I am not convinced that increasing corporate profits necessarily increases jobs (unless the company is on the verge of collapse, which is an exceptional circumstance). Corporations do not increase paychecks just because they make more money...its not a charity. They still want to get the best deal they can, the better side of the bargain from their workers. Increasing corporate profits offers no protection from outsourcing to China, and nor does it raise the minimum wage or even keep costs down necessarily.....Oil profits hit record levels, and yet there was talk of INCREASING their subsidies to keep prices down supposedly, but even as demand fell the prices kept going up....thats because OEPEC artificially controls "supply"...and its not even supply. Its more like price fixing. Price fixing is a felony in any other sector, but somehow we allow it exclusively in oil and banking....How did that happen!? Seriously, you would go to JAIL if that kind of price fixing happened in textiles or food products or cars....but in banking and oil thats just standard. How do they get away with it!?!
Yeah, yeah...the evil corporation...The fact is that most of the rich give back far more voluntarily then you will force out of them! As a whole the American upper class are very philanthropic. Not to mention that they are the ones who pay all the taxes in this country. Your premise is ludicrous that the poor put money back in the system to benefit the rich. There is not a limited supply of money, money makes money. You do not make money by hording your cash, you make more by letting what you have work. Trickle down is the ONLY way it will work. To try and take from the rich to bring the poor up to their level will only cause the rich to quit earning. They will throw up their hands and everyone will fall to the lowest class. Except for the power hungry politicians who will suck everyone dry. Think I am wrong? Look at California, New York, New Jersey...The rich are saying screw this! They are moving to states like Texas where they can actually make a living. If the Federal government keeps it up they will drive the money offshore.

I am not saying big corporations are all good. There does need to be limits on what they are doing, just as there needed to be limits on the barons of the late 19th century. But vilifying business is silly, it is business that drives the economy.
Anyway, when you give hand outs to the already rich, they keep it. When you give it to the poor they spend it, and the rich get it anyway....but at least you let people get some things that they needed first. Thats the problem with trickle down your leg economics.
The rich do not get handouts! They earn their money, the same way everyone should! Do not give a big corporation a bailout! Let them fail! They earned the right to fail!
Maybe we will follow Greece. Thats a possibility....but not specifically because of far left policies. All the European democratic socialist countries have a higher average quality of life than we do....Maybe in the 50s, post WW2 we had the highest standard, but only because our infrastructure didnt face the brunt of war. Today, as a country we have the most money still, but the average quality of life has fallen behind these countries that are way farther to the left than Obama....So if you think that far left politics automatically equals economic collapse, I would argue that the evidence does not support that theory. Japan and Singapore are also way more technologically advanced than us, at least in the day to day public sector....Singapore has 3d public airwave television and have for years. We might have the edge on military and certain other technologies, but our technology doesnt permeate our infrastructure like in the wealthier asian countries....we dont even have a high speed rail system yet!!! We fell behind in education a long time ago. The deficit was HUGE under reagan, because despite cutting aid to the poor, he spent more than he collected with a hawkish foreign policy (big government of the world) while he cut taxes for the biggest earners.
Higher quality of life than we do? Lol, where did you get that? You are simply wrong. I am not going to get into a link war pissing contest with you here, I am sure you can find data to back this up. Just like the research that found America's health care system ranked 20 something in the world. It is screwed up, slanted, and skewed data. Per capita our people are much richer than anyone else. Just the way it is. Education wise we are slipping...badly. We are also starting to lose it economically unless we can bring production back to this country. Blame the unions for that. But as we speak our quality of life is second to none. The poorest of our poor live better than 3/4 of the world.

The Euro is in danger as I write this. France and Germany are the only countries holding the EU together. It is all about to fall like dominoes. Bailing out Greece is one of the stupidest things this administration has yet done.

Liberals always try to skew the data on the deficits and recessions, but you cannot hide actuality. Carter dug us one of the deepest holes we have ever been in, even worse than what Bush did! Reagan pulled us out of that and the 1980's was one of the most prosperous decades in our history. GW spent like it was going out of style, but Obama has put him to shame. Obama spent more money in a single year than the last century of presidents did! And blames Bush for everything. Well yeah, Bush should take some of the blame. But instead of fixing things Obama is stepping on the pedal, headed for the wall. The only possible answer is he is trying to collapse the system. Cloward and Piven. But we won't go there. No matter what Obama tries his time is extremely limited. We will recover.
You can certainly make a for profit distro of linux, but the concept of copy-left is most definitely a collectivist idea rather than an individualist one. Its not Communist, but it is some kind of collectivist. Linux is the commons. An extreme fiscal conservative, to the right of Ron Paul, would not support any kind of commons arguing that everything should be individually and privately owned. I think it would take a lot more rationalizing to convince yourself that linux was individualist in that sense....now it is individualist in the sense of personal freedom and autonomy....you could compare that to states rights. It has some socially libertarian qualities and it supports a kind of federalism between the distros...in that sense, its more 'Republican' than Communist....But all those similarities also apply to mutaulism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, perhaps even better than they do to states rights.....The workers unions within a syndicalist federation have MORE autonomy than the states do in a Republic, and the Anarcho-Syndicalists support the free market in a sense....but a free market without usury where possession is defined by use rather than ownership, and you are paid for the product of your labor rather than entitlements for assets. In some ways they are arch conservatives but in others they are free market socialists.

But you are right....Linux is a computer OS, not a state government....Still, I think its entirely possible to draw a parallels.
Sure. I draw parallels of Linux to automobiles all the time. If you want to look at it as an eco/political system than I will not stop you. I do agree that it has elements of anarchism in it. But it is just an OS.
User avatar
mick55
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:47 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by mick55 »

Nick_Djinn wrote:the New Deal (Created by a Republican, but many modern Republicans have called him a socialist)
Did I miss something?

The New Deal was created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat.

The Republicans in general, opposed the New Deal.
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)
User avatar
mintnoob
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:46 pm
Location: USA

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by mintnoob »

I'd characterize Linux as free market.
Chakra Linux
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Re: Is Linux Anarchist?

Post by Nick_Djinn »

Sorry, my mistake. I think I got my Roosevelt confused.
mintnoob wrote:I'd characterize Linux as free market.

The Anarcho-Syndicalists were advocates of a free market rather than a planned economy....and by "Anarchist", to the Anarcho-Synidcaliasts that does not mean no rules or organization.....it means that egalitarian class structure replaces the more traditional top-down organizational structure....they offer a highly democratic and participatory form of federalism.


As for being simplistic....My posts are already long enough. Im not going to write a novel.



Anyway, I can respect people who I disagree with as long as they keep it civil.



I would like to add that religion shouldnt have anything to do with right or left politics, unless your religion says give to the poor. Republicanism probably shouldnt frame itself as being the party for Christians. That seems to go against the separation of church and state.

In my opinion, politics will corrupt religion every bit as much as religion will corrupt politics. They seem to bring out the worst in each other rather than the best.
Post Reply

Return to “Open chat”