FW: [lug] So now we're a bunch of communists, eh?

[Glenn Ashton]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Franklin R. Jones wrote:

> :) well it *is* communistic, but the "pure form" as Marx envisioned,
> not the dictatorship form that is the thought of when the term is
> used. Russian (didn't), North Korea, and China do not practice
> communism, they have dictatorial governments that use the communistic
> mantra to deceive the people in to thinking it is for their own good.

The "pure form" of communism is to political systems what Windows 2000 is
to operating systems.  It's a marketing ploy to get lots of people to
accept what seems to be a good idea that will meet everyone's needs.  Only
problem is, once it gets installed, it kills all the idealists, and
proceeds to crash continually and reveal all sorts of innovative features 
like wholesale murder and repression in the case of "Marxism" and the
destruction of competition and choice in the case of Windows (obviously
the Marxists were much worse than Bill Gates).
Both are terrible to install once they infect your operating environment
and require frequent "5 year plans" to maintain.

Communism/Marxism/Leninism as an ideology is responsible for more
bloodshed than any other philosophy or religion.  The wonderful legacy of
wholesale slaughter from Russia to China to the Killing Fields of Cambodia
really makes me want the "pure form".  Just like I want the "pure form" of
Windows 2000.

The open source community really is about freedom.  It is more libertarian
than any other community.  Why? Because people participate freely and
without being threatened.  They do so to pursue their own interests, even
if that interest is helping people.

Trying to tag Linux with the term "communist" ought to be as objectionable
as calling us National Socialists.  Mr. Ballmer's comments were not meant
to be complimentary, I can assure you.

Now to change the subject, I think in the community spirit, would anyone
like to join in and do another Mini-expo like we did last year at CU?

-Glenn Ashton