Is Linux Capitalist or Communist/Marxist?

Over the past several months I have begun do dabble in the Linux world.  I have installed Fedora, Ubuntu and Mint (my favorite) on an old laptop which really brought it back from the dead.  I have set up my desktop to dual-boot Windows Vista and Ubuntu which, besides being a fun learning experience, has opened the door to a wide variety of applications while still allowing me to seamlessly sync my Zune (Yes, I actually have one of those).  As with most things in my life, once I become interested in it, I start listening to podcasts about it so that I can then become completely obsessed with it.  One of my favorite podcasts on the subject recently held an open ballot on the question, "Is Linux Marxist or Capitalist?"

Most responses were of the inane line of thought describing it as some sort of mix between the two.  Some seemed to think it was an ultra-groovy, though imperfect form or example of communism, while a few less muddle-headed listeners realized that the operating system and the community that surrounds it were not inconsistent with capitalism.  This last perspective lights upon the first relevant insight on the subject - that the question is slightly ill posed.  An operating system and it's supporting community cannot very well be said to conform to a particular ideology.  We will instead attempt to answer whether Linux is consistent with a capitalist society or a communist one.

As anyone who has written about the subject of capitalism vs. communism has doubtless learned, it is impossible to unwrap the various definitions everyone has in their minds of these two political systems.  Thus, while I know that I will be scolded for it later on, I choose to provide my own simple, rule-based definition of the two.  I define capitalism as a social system in which all individuals are free to own property.  Similarly, I define communism as a social system in which individuals are excluded from owning property by the state.  The characteristics that emerge in societies based on these respective rules such as wage labor, capital accumulation, competitive markets, profits, class structure and lack thereof are irrelevant and tend to distract from the core principle and nature of each system.  

The relevant question then becomes, "Is Linux owned by any state which in turn claims to confer communal ownership to each of its subjects?"  Clearly this is not that the case.  Linux, in all of its manifestations, was freely given by all of its many contributors who had the choice along the way to either not participate or to keep their contributions proprietary.  This is not inconsistent with a social system of people free to own property and is thus not inconsistent with capitalism.  Capitalism does not require all facets of human life to be driven by the profit motive.  Giving money to the Salvation Army, birthday socks to your nephew, hugs to your children and sensual massages to your significant other(s) are not acts of communist revolution.  Neither is contributing your time and expertise to a free software community.

A better analogy to communism would be forcefully nationalizing Microsoft and Dell, distributing their products for free, and "'lawfully" eliminating all competition.  This is because the defining characteristic of communism is force.  Contrary to the Utopian ramblings of Marxists everywhere, communism is not about giving; it is about taking!



6 comments:

  1. Linux is Free software, free not being only no charge, but free as in freedom also. There is no coercion to use or contribute to Linux, so properly, Linux would be an example of Volunteerism.

    The accumulation of Capital, or restriction thereof proposed by the Marxists, is really hard to apply to Linux since once a piece of software enters the Free Software world, being merely bits of data that can be infinitely copied, it becomes an abundant resource, much like air in the real world...The real question is would we even have the kind of computing power at our desktops at such a low cost if it weren't for capitalism...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that Linux is an example of Volunteerism, which I don't think is inconsistent with capitalism if it is defined the way I would like people to think of it. I know this is a tall order and that there are alot of muddled definitions out there for it. I also agree that the computer industry wouldn't exist without capitalistic markets. In fact, I contend that no industries would exist without them.

      Thanks for contributing your thoughts.

      Delete
  2. It is very rare these days to find blogs that provide information someone is looking for. I am glad to see that your blog share valued information that can help to many readers. Thanks and keep writing!
    oklahoma city roofing

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would go on to argue that patents and copyrights are incompatible with capitalism, because it requires the state to back a ban on voluntary distribution of non-rival information. Therefore Linux and free software in principle agree more with the principles of individual freedom and self determination that capitalism purportedly supports.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I apologize for the terrible redaction. I didn't read before sending.

      Delete
    2. I agree completely. I don't think there is room in my conception of "capitalism" for state-issue monopolies of any sort.

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...