I have some newfound respect for the man, it seems. Not that I didn’t respect him earlier, just thought that his toxicity was the defining trait of his temper. I find these takes somehow mellow the image in my mind.
The man is a swedish speaking Finn originally, it kinda comes with the territory. We might technically be a minority but we’re still as Finnish as the rest of them (to a certain degree at least).
That’s fair, but the result seems to be the same; he’s nowhere near as caustic when interacting with people as he used to be. I had quite a lot of sympathy with the message in most of his technical rants, but the delivery was counterproductive. If he’s changed that I think he’s done well.
Linus isn’t a tankie, and Socialism/Communism isn’t giving away money. It’s a dramatic restructuring of the economy into a Worker owned and operated one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Edit 2: Linus is worth 150M+, not exactly giving that away either.
Given the magnitude of his contribution, he could be a multi-billionaire, calling loudly for cage fights for his wife to beat up Zuckerberg and Musk. Then again, Linux probably wouldn’t have been as successful if he had gone that route.
I think it’s safe to say though that he’s no communist or probably not even center-left in the economic sense. I mean he did deliberately and permanently relocate to USA from Finland in the 90s. Also his father is a Swedish People’s Party politician, and that party is the best kind: classic liberal.
I have some newfound respect for the man, it seems. Not that I didn’t respect him earlier, just thought that his toxicity was the defining trait of his temper. I find these takes somehow mellow the image in my mind.
The man is a swedish speaking Finn originally, it kinda comes with the territory. We might technically be a minority but we’re still as Finnish as the rest of them (to a certain degree at least).
I think even he realized his tocicity was a problem a few years ago, so he took time out to work on that and seems much more balanced now.
It’s unkown whether he improved his temper or whether he just built a very good mail filter for himself though.
That’s fair, but the result seems to be the same; he’s nowhere near as caustic when interacting with people as he used to be. I had quite a lot of sympathy with the message in most of his technical rants, but the delivery was counterproductive. If he’s changed that I think he’s done well.
If you’re a tankie you can be a cunt? What an absurd take.
Edit: tankie is originally too strong for Linus. Still a terrible takeaway.
Edit 2: Linus is worth 150M+, not exactly giving that away either.
Communist != tankie
Tankies are always communists, communists aren’t always tankies
For sure. I backed off a bit a while ago. Tankie is definitely not the right term.
Linus isn’t a tankie, and Socialism/Communism isn’t giving away money. It’s a dramatic restructuring of the economy into a Worker owned and operated one.
I already conceded hours ago that tankie was absolutely the incorrect term. You are absolutely correct it’s an entirely incorrect characterization.
I’m pretty sure the economy is less worker-owned in socialism than in communism.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Not really sure what you mean. Just my personal anecdote, I made no attempt to generalize it or imply objectivity…
Given the magnitude of his contribution, he could be a multi-billionaire, calling loudly for cage fights for his wife to beat up Zuckerberg and Musk. Then again, Linux probably wouldn’t have been as successful if he had gone that route.
I think it’s safe to say though that he’s no communist or probably not even center-left in the economic sense. I mean he did deliberately and permanently relocate to USA from Finland in the 90s. Also his father is a Swedish People’s Party politician, and that party is the best kind: classic liberal.
Isn’t that comment pretty toxic though, even if it’s toxic for the viewpoint that (I suppose) you support?
I mean I agree 100% with what he’s saying too, and also how he’s saying it, but I wouldn’t call this exactly mild.
It’s all relative. With Linus, with what I have been exposed to, this does give a milder impression, can’t really explain why though.