Unfortunately having access to all the pixels that make up a movie or all the words that make up a book doesn’t make either free, and the same thing applies to code depending on licenses
In addition to the other comment, a lot of companies typically sell support for their software, not the software itself. That counts for a lot in the business world
For example Unreal Engine is source available. Can't redistribute it, can't fork it and make a new version for the public. Still need to pay Epic when you release a game and make revenue over one million.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Marxism, is in fact, GNU/Marxism, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Marxism. Marxism is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Marxism, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Marxism, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Marxism is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Marxism is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Marxism added, or GNU/Marxism. All the so-called Marxism distributions are really distributions of GNU/Marxism!
jokes on you, I also use MUSL/centre-left and BSD/anarchism
EDIT: The BSDs aren't anarchist since someone de facto decides what gets in and what doesn't. The closest "anarchist" software project I can think of is TCC as of recently, they allow contributions like a wiki.
It’s the basic human tendency to take an unbiased ideology, broadcast an unintended interpretation to generate a following, then build a cult that puts them in power.
The oldest trick in the book. And it sadly works, nearly every time.
Given what I know about Marx as a historical figure and what he observe to come to his conclusions but having not read his work (Capital is a literal textbook and the Communist Manifesto is short and dry) I can hazard a guess that Marx would probably be with the punks and what's left of Redneck lefties. Either that or he'd be an autistic online shit poster because I'm pretty damned sure he had the right personality.
It does but it still comes off as pretty dry. 1800s works tend to be that way unless it was written by Mark Twain and even then Tom Sawyer is still pretty close.
Read up on the Hague congress. Although wielding anti-authoritarian rhetoric, Marx de facto was authoritarian in his practice and used bureaucratic maneuvers to exclude the anarchists from the internationale. Punks are generally anarchists and therefore Marx wouldn't be one.
Also read up on lumpenproletariat. Marx was ironically quite bourgeois in his outlook and values, he admired orderly industrial society and had very harsh words towards the underbelly of society — explicitly listing beggars, prostitutes, vagabonds and the like as degenerate and scum. Punks are very much constituted from these strata and therefore would be despised by Marx.
Marx would perhaps be appalled by later authoritarian marxists, but their theory and practice are very much extensions of his own. Depicting Marx as anti-authoritarian and counter-cultural is revisionism.
Was legit unaware of that, though I've only done a surface level look at him due to my greater interest in pre-marxist American socialism and anarchism which in a lot of cases is folk in nature and thusly rarely interacts with more refined models. Thanks for the info and frankly I'm not too surprised, kinda like what happened with the forerunners of the enlightenment often times being of the very aristocracy it would criticize.
42 Comments
ea6927d8@lemmy.ml · 57 pts · 44d
Free [open source] software, you mean.
It's more about software freedom than mere access to the code.
grranibal@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 44d
If you have access to the code, why is it not free?
felsiq@piefed.zip · 34 pts · 44d
Unfortunately having access to all the pixels that make up a movie or all the words that make up a book doesn’t make either free, and the same thing applies to code depending on licenses
grranibal@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 42d
Thank you :)
Pieisawesome@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 44d
Some open source projects sell recompiled and signed copies and if you want it free, you can compile from source.
It’s a convenience thing…
TheImpressiveX@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 44d
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
hayvan@piefed.world · 4 pts · 44d
License. The owner of the source can still limit what you can (legally) do with it.
rustydrd@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 44d
Which raises the question: Is Karl Marx an MIT or a GPL man?
hayvan@piefed.world · 3 pts · 44d
Under Communism, probably public domain. Under Capitalism definitely GPL.
Contramuffin@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 44d
In addition to the other comment, a lot of companies typically sell support for their software, not the software itself. That counts for a lot in the business world
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 43d
For example Unreal Engine is source available. Can't redistribute it, can't fork it and make a new version for the public. Still need to pay Epic when you release a game and make revenue over one million.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 44d
Free doesn't mean free. It means free.
grranibal@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 42d
Yeah yeah I know, I just didn’t remember what free actually meant
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 43d
Open source implies libre. It's arbitrary I know. What you're referring to is "source available". Like TF2, Proton products, etc.
db2@lemmy.world · 51 pts · 44d
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Marxism, is in fact, GNU/Marxism, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Marxism. Marxism is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Marxism, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Marxism, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Marxism is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Marxism is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Marxism added, or GNU/Marxism. All the so-called Marxism distributions are really distributions of GNU/Marxism!
diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de · 7 pts · 44d
jokes on you, I also use MUSL/centre-left and BSD/anarchism
EDIT: The BSDs aren't anarchist since someone de facto decides what gets in and what doesn't. The closest "anarchist" software project I can think of is TCC as of recently, they allow contributions like a wiki.
antrosapien@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 44d
Marxism/Stallmanism Interview with a GNU/Linux user - Partition 1
Smaile@lemmy.ca · 45 pts · 44d
Marx would likely be appalled by most any authoritarian communist regime.
Zorque@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 44d
Almost like they don't actually represent communist ideals at all or something...
voodooattack@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 44d
It’s the basic human tendency to take an unbiased ideology, broadcast an unintended interpretation to generate a following, then build a cult that puts them in power.
The oldest trick in the book. And it sadly works, nearly every time.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 42d
Marx would be amazed how much capitalism built over last century
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 42d
I think you'd be amazed to find that oil built that.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 36 pts · 44d
If Marx were alive today he'd probably hate modern day "marxists" and they'd hate him.
Smaile@lemmy.ca · 25 pts · 44d
say it louder, don't think .ML heard you lul
Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 43d
They hear. .Ml is full of stoop kids. They don't leave their stoop.
SippyCup@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 44d
There's one thing that's always true about leftists.
They only eat other leftists.
glups@piefed.social · 5 pts · 43d
He hated Marxists in his own lifetime
diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 44d
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 18 pts · 44d
If Marx was alive today, maybe he would be a furry femboy in thigh high socks and a hoodie. :3
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 44d
You're projecting again. Doesn't help that I agree with you
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 4 pts · 44d
Running gentoo or nix
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 44d
Given what I know about Marx as a historical figure and what he observe to come to his conclusions but having not read his work (Capital is a literal textbook and the Communist Manifesto is short and dry) I can hazard a guess that Marx would probably be with the punks and what's left of Redneck lefties. Either that or he'd be an autistic online shit poster because I'm pretty damned sure he had the right personality.
eestileib@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 44d
Communist Manifesto has jokes. They are subtle.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 43d
It does but it still comes off as pretty dry. 1800s works tend to be that way unless it was written by Mark Twain and even then Tom Sawyer is still pretty close.
falcunculus@jlai.lu · 4 pts · 42d
Read up on the Hague congress. Although wielding anti-authoritarian rhetoric, Marx de facto was authoritarian in his practice and used bureaucratic maneuvers to exclude the anarchists from the internationale. Punks are generally anarchists and therefore Marx wouldn't be one.
Also read up on lumpenproletariat. Marx was ironically quite bourgeois in his outlook and values, he admired orderly industrial society and had very harsh words towards the underbelly of society — explicitly listing beggars, prostitutes, vagabonds and the like as degenerate and scum. Punks are very much constituted from these strata and therefore would be despised by Marx.
Marx would perhaps be appalled by later authoritarian marxists, but their theory and practice are very much extensions of his own. Depicting Marx as anti-authoritarian and counter-cultural is revisionism.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 42d
Was legit unaware of that, though I've only done a surface level look at him due to my greater interest in pre-marxist American socialism and anarchism which in a lot of cases is folk in nature and thusly rarely interacts with more refined models. Thanks for the info and frankly I'm not too surprised, kinda like what happened with the forerunners of the enlightenment often times being of the very aristocracy it would criticize.
DupaCycki@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 43d
One thing we know for sure is he'd be the biggest shitposter on lemmy.
roserose56@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 43d
If USA user base knew English, they wouldn't brake the rules. But hey, fuck of what the rules say.
I do enjoy reports mate.
sexhaver87@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 43d
It’s ‘break,’ for what it’s worth.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 44d
If Marx were alive today, he'd be whacking with Ben'll Frank you on The Hub.
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 44d
Marx wouldn't be a Maoist?
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 43d
According to the image he would be quite fond of open source software.