this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
1606 points (98.9% liked)
People Twitter
5088 readers
658 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This all relies on a rather restrictive, and, I suspect, personally tailored definition of "ownership". Common ownership simply means anyone can freely use something however they want. That is absolutely true of the vast majority of FOSS. And in this sense, shared rights amounts to the same as shared ownership.
Pointing out that it doesn't allow you to cut off sharing sort of misses the forest for the trees. Of course public ownership demands the continuance of public ownership.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. But the problem is, digital assets are quite different from physical ones, since I can easily modify a digital asset w/o impacting anyone else, whereas I cannot do the same with a physical good. The closest analogy here is a library, where I can take a book and do whatever I want with it. However, I need to return it to the library in a similar condition as I got it or I'd exclude others from using that asset in the same way I was able to use it. If I don't, I'm usually prevented from borrowing other books until I replace the book (or the library waves the infraction). I don't own library books, the library does, but I can freely use the books under the terms provided.
And that's why I think IP is artificial. Copyright is only enforced by a central authority, whereas real property ownership can be enforced by the possessor without a central authority. So ownership of IP doesn't mean the same as ownership of real property. W/o a central authority, nobody really owns IP, which kind of means everyone owns it, since everyone has full rights w/ regards to every work they can access. But with a central authority, ownership is defined by that authority based on whatever its copyright laws state. In the US, there's a single owner for any work (can be a person or an organization), unless it's placed in the public domain. In a socialist country, perhaps there's no concept of IP for citizens of that country.
So the truly "socialist" IP model is public domain, which means everyone has equivalent rights to the work. However, that also means anyone can modify it and claim complete ownership over the modified work, excluding others from those improvements. FOSS works around this by requiring all modification to be licensed such that it preserves the four freedoms (again, focusing on the F part of that acronym), but it doesn't grant actual ownership to others contributions, it merely provides a license to use them. But that isn't communal ownership, it's merely a common agreement among separate owners over a combined work.
That's why I don't see FOSS as socialist, capitalist, or any form of economic model, it's just a way to force future versions of a product to remain under the same terms.
What exactly do you think capitalism and socialism are, dude? You're absolutely twisting yourself in knots trying to describe FOSS as anything but freely sharing public knowledge and resources: the exact motivation behind all leftist thought.
Is FOSS intended to enrich individuals from collective work? No? Then it's not private property, and cannot be used as such, meaning it is not capitalist in any form.
Capitalism and socialism are economic systems.
The motivation behind leftist thought isn't "freely sharing public knowledge and resources," but "fighting injustice" (whatever that means). For some that means what you said, but for others that means increased central control and reliance on "experts" to structure society a certain way (i.e. "the end justifies the means"). It's a broad spectrum of ideas.
FOSS doesn't care whether it's used to enrich individuals or not, it's just a license. Sometimes it's used to enrich individuals, sometimes it's used to give an alternative that doesn't enrich individuals.
Which it is depends on project structure and licenses used. Some projects are designed to socialize costs without socializing ownership (see Mongo DB). Others are designed to also socialize ownership (e.g. Linux). It really comes down to project structure, not the specific license being used.
No further reading necessary.
Educate yourself. Socialism aims to put the means of production in the hands of the public. This is literally the public pooling of resources.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Leftism isn't the same as socialism, socialism is a type of leftism.
The injustice socialists fight is largely economic injustice. And you're right, that's social ownership of the means of production. And no, that doesn't mean "the public" necessarily (there are lots of forms of social), just some group democratically owns the means of production, whether that's a company or an entire country.
Please read the rest of my previous comment. This isn't a discussion on socialism, but FOSS. They're two very different things.
I didn't say leftism is the same as socialism. Socialism, though, is the common factor across leftist thought. And it does entail common ownership of the means of production. Though, to be fair, you're correct that public ownership can take different forms. One form involves the state, which I don't agree with.
A single company being democratically operated is not socialism, it's a co-op. Though it is operating according to socialist principles.
FOSS enables public ownership of the means of software production.
No, there are plenty of leftist ideologies that reject socialism, and instead prefer a system of checked capitalism based on a welfare state. Socialism is extreme leftism, and there's a lot of room between it and the center.
But a co-op is socialist, the workers in that company own the means of production. Socialism scales from the small to the large. It's just a more libertarian form of socialism that's compatible with a broader free market economy.
This wording I can agree with. But that doesn't make it socialist, it just means it can be used to further socialist goals.
But it can also be used to further capitalist goals and only socialize the costs of maintenance without socializing ownership. It really depends on how it's used.
That is not leftist. That is centrist at best. Social democracy is still capitalism, and thus incompatible with leftist philosophy.
I urge you to do more research.
Also, don't play word games. A co-op may be socialist in principle, but that is not socialism. Socialism is specifically something only a whole society can perform.
Yes, capitalism can use things made by socialists. So what?
No, social democracy is absolutely a leftist ideology, it just asserts that socialism can be achieved gradually, using capitalism to improve things in the near-term.
Sure, but a company can represent a "society" in the small. A "society" is just a group of interdependent individuals. I think a company certainly can count.
I don't see that as "word games," it's simply looking at definitions we all use. Unless using dictionaries is somehow "playing word games."
But FOSS was not made by socialists. Stallman was arguably the creator of FOSS (at least copyleft), and AFAICT, he's not a socialist. The core intent was to enable end-users to modify software for products they've bought and to share those modifications with other users, not to democratize the means of production. It has more to do with Right to Repair than social ownership of anything. In fact, it reinforces individual ownership of their IP and empowers them to share certain rights with others. There are a lot of different FOSS licenses for everything from the extremely liberal (MIT and BSD licenses) to very restrictive (AGPL and GPL v3). But none of them grant copyright to any entity other than the original author.
If FOSS was socialist, it would require FOSS projects to be democratically managed. But they explicitly make no statements to how projects should be run. But FOSS licenses absolutely do not do that, the intent has always been on ensuring the code can still be used and modified even if the original creators are no longer interested. That's not socialism, it's just the digital equivalent of laws that exist elsewhere to protect users' rights to tinker with products they've bought. So your right to make parts for your car and share those parts with others doesn't mean car repair is socialist, it just means you aren't prevented from making those changes. The same goes for FOSS, your right to make changes to software you've received and distribute those changes doesn't mean you have ownership of the software itself, it just means you've been granted certain rights.
Again with the incorrect bullshit. That's not social democracy. That's democratic socialism. And even that is yet another misnomer - a red herring of controlled opposition, intended to preserve capitalism by placating the masses with bread and circuses.
Stop using capitalist propaganda to define socialism. You will only continue to embarrass yourself.
Also, pointing out that "socialism" and "socialist" are different words is not rejecting the dictionary. It's sticking to it.
I'm done allowing you to occupy any more of my time.
Read.
No, democratic socialism believes capitalism is incompatible with their core values, so they wouldn't tolerate as much of a gradualist approach. Social democracy is the gradualist approach, though whether that ends up as socialism or stays a some form of welfare state can vary across parties and individuals. So:
Perhaps you should do the same.
I've tried to be very careful with the terminology I've used, and tried to make it very clear where the lines are. Your comments, on the other hand, seem to conflate terminology (leftist and socialist, for example) with no attempt to point me at actual sources to indicate where I was imprecise or wrong.
Regardless, we're going in circles at this point, so I agree, there's not much point to further discussion. I feel I have made my points pretty clearly with examples.
Have a fantastic day. :)
Nope, democratic socialism is trying to vote your way to socialism, somehow reaching socialism through liberal democracy. Alas, socialism is opposed to liberalism. Democratic socialism is a nonsense, fictitious political platform.
Socialism is already inherently democratic - perhaps fanatically democratic. "Socialism plus democracy" is as redundant as "sandwich plus bread".