Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest joehill

One Linux Over All? NO!!!!!

Recommended Posts

Guest joehill
And considering communism isn't really all that viable (to similair to capitalism ie one person/group of people hold the highest level of power.) why not give people the oppourtunity?

 

actually, communism, as Marx saw it, would be anarchist (this is one of the raging debates in Political Science, but you have to look at Marx's intentions, not his occasional rants). Originally, the "Soviets" that were set up after the Revolution were localized groups of autonomous "unions", but the British and White Russians put a stop to that, ensured Lenin assumed absolute power, assassinated Trotsky, and you had the Leninist form of Communism which I am sure everyone agrees was a complete disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl Marx viewed people in two paradoxical ways: always achieving more toward self awareness, i.e., the material improving itself, and alienated broken material.

 

People do not in fact always strive for improvement, but rather toward personal greed. "Government" is necessary in order to keep the "strong", i.e., Sadahm Hussein, from destroying the "weak", i.e., anyone not in his tribe. Of course, alienated people, those whose power of material production is turned against themselves, are best murdered, which is exactly what every communist regime has done.

 

Marx never classified whether he himself was enlightened material, or alienated material. I suspect that the ones who devise such social ideologies are never in their own schemes. They are outside, elite, some kind of religious holiness!!

 

All of this is what Marx intended.

 

All modern socialist ideology is based on these fundamental Marxist concepts.

 

I'm afraid that anarchy always leads to some form of totalitarienism, because someone will try to rule!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest joehill
Karl Marx viewed people in two paradoxical ways: always achieving more toward self awareness, i.e., the material improving itself, and alienated broken material.

 

please explain this.

 

People do not in fact always strive for improvement, but rather toward personal greed.

 

really? all historical evidence and anthropological data suggest quite the opposite. You've been reading too much Hobbes!

 

"Government" is necessary in order to keep the "strong", i.e., Sadahm Hussein, from destroying the "weak", i.e., anyone not in his tribe.

 

LOL, the government IS the strong who abuse the weak. The government plays golf with CEOs while people starve or are murdered on the street. LOL

 

Of course, alienated people, those whose power of material production is turned against themselves, are best murdered, which is exactly what every communist regime has done.

 

so far, you're right, which is why communism is always a poor alternative to anarchism (or as bvc would call it "libertarianism").

 

 

Marx never classified whether he himself was enlightened material, or alienated material. I suspect that the ones who devise such social ideologies are never in their own schemes. They are outside, elite, some kind of religious holiness!!

 

Marx was quite active in workers movements and spent much time travelling and speaking. He put himself at risk several times of being imprisoned the same as the people he defended, the workers.

 

I'm afraid that anarchy always leads to some form of totalitarienism, because someone will try to rule!!

 

Ok, Bill Buckley. Anarchism leads to totalitarianism. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting where we go sometimes :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest joehill

how did this start again?

 

well, the thread is about open-source, and open-source software has reopened the debate about decentralized forms of government, ie. less government.

 

I can see from history why Communism is such a sensitive topic. However, not all communism is Communism, knowhatimean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anarchy is not possible. Watch SLC Punk, you'll understand what I mean.

 

I can't seem to find the quote I want from that movie in it's entirity, but I'll try to give you the overall idea. Humans always form some sort of order, by nature. As anarchy is the absence of order, you can't have it. Again, if you watch SLC Punk, you'll get a better understanding of what I mean. Don't make me break out my philosophy books on this one....

 

heh heh, i just didn't want to be the 1st one to say it, but ya, anarchism is the only truly viable political sysyem.

anarchism is the absence of a political system, so you just contradicted yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest joehill
Anarchy is not possible.  Watch SLC Punk, you'll understand what I mean.

 

see, now I said to do some reading first. not watching movies. :lol:

 

 

Humans always form some sort of order, by nature.

 

Yes!! You've got that bit absolutely right, mein freunde. It has been documented many many many times that when government and "authorities" butt the hell out, people do just fine. They form their own fire brigades, they form their own democratic intstitutions. Don't believe Lord of the Flies, it is a work of fantasy written by someone who had a nasty chip on his shoulder.

 

As anarchy is the absence of order, you can't have it.

 

bwaaaaaaaaaaaa! wrong, this is where the reading comes in. Anarchism is the absence of institutions of order and authority. The anarchist philosophy is based on the idea you hit on above. Government is nothing but organized crime with a fake legal justification, going all the way back to the Babylonian Temple priests who said: "You must do as we say or else the Gods will smite you." Now it's "you better do as we say or else Saddam is going to come marching into Smallsville, or worse, we'll sick the IRS on you."

 

Don't make me break out my philosophy books on this one....

 

but see, you really need to read some Bakunin or even just start with someone fun like Robert Anton Wilson, to know what anarchism is.

 

anarchism is the absence of a political system, so you just contradicted yourself.

 

Noooope. Back to the reading again. Anarchism is a political system, you are assuming political system means the Department of Motor Vehicles, a political system is your mom and dad and you, a political system is the local meals on wheels, political systems are how we negotiate our daily lives.

 

Everything is a system. It depends on where the input and output come from, how it's directed, and how balanced the input is with the output and how it is related (relevance). This is where the open source comm has demonstrated quite well that they can achieve order and balance without authority. As long as input and output are balanced and relevant...but then yer getting into cybernetics and Chomsky...it's late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open source is a viable alternate for software.

 

Anarchy is not a viable alternative to government. :wink:

 

Before I drag the thread off again, perhaps a discussion in off topic about Karl Marx and his philosophy of social construction might answer questions about what I have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

better late than never..

 

here is one of the local linux mailing lists oldbies' take on the article which im going to quote anyways as lurker (the archiving tool) is getting fritzy at the moment.

 

[Crosspost snipped.]

 

Quoting Federico Sevilla III (jijo@free.net.ph):

 

> Andreiana starts with a very powerful paragraph, to wit:

 

This is one of the time-honoured genre that I call "If I were king" essays.

He's chock-full of suggestions about what _other_ people (e.g., developers)

should do with their time, instead of what they _want_ to do. Because,

of course, he knows better what's good for them.

 

I am shocked, shocked, to see Andreiana omit the obvious offer to put

all those developers on his payroll. I'm sure he'll fix that Real Soon Now.

 

> A worthy read, IMHO.

 

If you have a taste for ranters too clueless to even know what wxWindows

is, doesn't understand Qt licensing, doesn't know about Krec and Xsox,

and thinks KDE and GNOME can be merged, sure. His basic message is that

he's confused by too much variety, doesn't like some of what's out

there, doesn't understand some of it at all, wants other software he

thinks doesn't exist, and thinks he can fix all this by standing on a

soapbox and trying to order volunteer programmers to stop in their

tracks and work on what _he_ wants, only.

 

On the other hand, the piece was worthwhile for the comments, where

various readers gently but firmly set him straight.

 

ciao!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest joehill

Thank you for putting us back on topic, specially since it was me that put it off!

 

good read, indeed.

 

I hate pundits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was meaning to post it earlier but my connection at home is on the fritz (as usual) and i dare not login after a 3 day hiatus or else i will lose all those wonderful posts (531 to be exact when i logged in this morning).

 

anyway, i didnt read much of the *offtopic* contents of this thread. big words hurt my tiny brain. :? :P :#:

 

ciao!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ndeb
Capitalism does not tend toward monopoly. Capitalism, by nature, assures quality and variety by virtue of competition.
There is always a massive difference between what should happen and what actually happens. Capitalism cannot guarantee much quality if the US justice department kisses the ass of Billy boy. Just remember that the judicial system runs very differently from a corporate entity. Its job is to ensure justice for all (not maximize profit by hook or crook). When that goal takes a back seat, thugs will rule. Replacing capitalism with some other "ism" will change nothing. The new power structure will subvert the judiciary (or I should say, the judiciary will kiss the new asses) and that will be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest joehill
Capitalism does not tend toward monopoly. Capitalism, by nature, assures quality and variety by virtue of competition.

 

Oh, god, you're killing me, :lol:

 

That's why we're still using the internal combustion engine, a technology that's been obsolete for 50 years. That's why the number of corporations merging to form anti-competitive cartels has surged since the 80's when Reagan returned the states to the "laissez faire" capitalism of the 1850s. That is why we find out CONSTANTLY that corporations are involved in every criminal enterprise imaginable, from fraud, insider trading, income tax evasion, theft, a virtual mafia.

 

That's why we find that if we do not spend every available resource monitoring the activities of capitalist enterprises, they will do whatever they can to minimize quality and maximize sales. Most corporations spend VASTLY more money on advertising and propaganda than they do on research and development, and almost nothing on safety.

 

That's why the stock market can be earning billions for corporations and the rich aristocracy, while unemployment rises. why companies are making billions and laying off workers.

 

Funny, Cuba, a communist country, has a higher rate of education, better health care, and a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S., despite the illegal economic embargo imposed by the U.S. When Cuba was "free" (capitalist) there were children starving in the streets and selling themselves for sex to rich Americans.

 

Ya, capitalism's great, if yer a capitalist. For the other 5.9 billion of us, it sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope God is not killing you, and I certainly have no desire to kill you. Your statements about Cuba are absurd.

 

I was trying to go to off-topic for this sort of discussion, but hey, it's your thread, so I guess it's safe to respond. :wink:

 

Of course the ideal of any ideology works in theory. And, as pointed out, the execution of the ideal is where the trouble begins!! A discussion of the pro's and con's of the ideal might find a course to steer by, but exploring the problems of execution is an inexhaustable stream of point -counter-point. Since no "system" has ever been executed properly, (an argument used by all) then presenting arguments of how the execution goes astray is mute. It does remind me of anarchist thinking, though! :lol:

 

When a ship is guided over water, it is off course more than half the time. The purpose of the course is to "correct" the direction of the ship. I think that the ideological ideals should serve this same purpose.

 

Concerning the judiciary, I find that every ideological flavor in the US objects to some aspect of the judiciary gone awry. For this reason, I must admit that it shows the courts are less affected by popular trends, and are doing a better job of staying on course than the other government branches.

 

Now, if this remark is still about the failure of Al Gore to win the election to the presidency, well, that's sour grapes! :wink:

 

And I still think open source software with lots of selection is the way to go!! (I am trying to stay on topic :mystismiles: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...