Linux is capitalist!

[Victor Odhner]

Vaughn Treude wrote:

>For those who may not have seen this:
>http://www.lewrockwell.com/lora/m.lora22.html
>Enjoy!
>  
>
The author does not describe communism accurately.
Soviet Russia had something they called "state socialism",
which they claimed was necessary until the evils of
capitalism would be vanquished.  Then the state would
"wither away", leaving nothing but The People, generously
sharing their resources and productivity, from each
according to his ability, to each according to his need . . .
Thus pure communism does not involve state control.
Free Software is the closest thing I've seen to this ideal.
So I don't think Ballmer's comment was that far off
base, because he was talking about "the characteristics
of communism that people love ..." .

<ramble>

Free Software does indeed have some strong resemblances
to classic Marxism.  What makes this possible, in the field of
software, is that a knowledge resource can be replicated
indefinitely, so we can share something and still have it.
Not so with physical resources:  it's always a trade-off.

In the Marxist definition, Capitalism is also a central control
of the means of production, only it's for the sake of the Bad
Guys, while State Socialism is for the sake of the Good
Guys.  As Orwell said, all animals are equal, only some
animals are more equal than others.  Owning things (or
managing them) gives us control, and people tend to like
being "more equal than others".  But some concentration
of power can lead to efficiencies ... within reason.
An "owner" can be like Linus, or like Bill.

We are now seeing excessive concentration of power in
the hands of corporations, which lots of people see as OK
because they are providing us with bread and circuses.
But the downside is getting more obvious, so I'm confident
the pendulum will swing, and Free Software is part of that.

Constructive, generous, altruistic motives are a good thing.
Selfish motives get a lot of stuff done too.  It's all about
balance.

</ramble>

Vic