Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Mar 2006 16:34 UTC, submitted by Linuxfanboy
Microsoft "This time it's patents that will ensure the downfall of GNU/Linux and with it, the entire world of open source. But before hanging up your certified geek propeller-hat and retraining as a dental hygienist, you might want to consider the following brief history of Microsoft's use of fear, uncertainty, and doubt as a weapon against GNU/Linux." Hopelessly pro-everything-that-is-Linux, but an interesting overview of Microsoft's approach to Linux over the years nonetheless. Elsewhere, the Guardian looks at the challanges Microsoft is currently facing.
Thread beginning with comment 109966
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Communism
by gustl on Fri 31st Mar 2006 12:06 UTC in reply to "Communism"
Member since:

You US-Americans have a distorted picture in your minds about what communism is.

What you meant to say is: "Fortunately, I've never lived under anything like DICTATORSHIP"

Communism in it's true meaning is just how most families are structured. The families have common goods they use, like a house or flat, they eat from the same table. That is communism.

The question if communism can work or not, is related to the scale of the community.

Communism will not work where millions, thousands or hundreds of people are in the society, China, North Korea and USSR have proven that every communist country will transform into a bad dictatorship.

Some communities in Israel who have structures resembling communism have close to 100 members, and they manage to live quite good lifes. It seems that this is the upper border for a communistic society which actually works. In families communism is usual, not the exception.

The fathers of communism (Marx, Lenin) thought that a system like in a usual family should be expanded to the whole country. It was a failure, the ones who were the most reckless won the run to the top job and communism itself has no correction implemented if the wrong person comes to power. Democracy has such a correction implemented, that is the reason why it works (more or less ;) ).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Communism
by dylansmrjones on Fri 31st Mar 2006 17:23 in reply to "RE: Communism"
dylansmrjones Member since:

Communism is not at all like a family.

Communism is the biggest marketing lie ever in history.
You have to look at Communism and the slogans of Communism the same way Gimli looked at Sarumans words.

When a Communist says Peace, it actually means war.
When he says Freedom, it actually means Dictaturship.
And so on.

Communism is a dictaturship of the Proletarians and as such it is evil as all forms of dictaturship.

Consider it the opposite of Anarchism.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Communism
by samad on Sat 1st Apr 2006 15:37 in reply to "RE: Communism"
samad Member since:

According to so-called Marxists, capitalism has contempt for the average man. That is, you have a corporate autocracy that tells workers what to do. And their power is not morally and, more interestingly, not economically justified. Now that's not just Marxists. Many other shades of political thought outside of Marxism also accept that belief: that the average man shouldn't be marched around, and a more just society is where each individual controls his or her fate. The entire philosophy of liberal society is based on that idea. That's why individual rights is the basis for the legal system. Of course, going back to Lenin, he too had contempt for the average man. The purpose of Leninism is to create some kind of political entity that orders around the working class to a revolution. Now this political entity is supposed to be so benign as to eventually hand power over to the working class. Of course history tells us another story. We don't need to talk about Stalin since I'm sure everyone here knows about the purges and the gulags. I don't think Leninist-style government has failed because the idea of sharing doesn't work. It failed because it was also supposed to be a benign power system, and it definitely wasn't. You mention the kibbutzim, but you also forgot native Indians where many tribes lived in communal societies for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years. These societies are far greater in size than the average kibbutz.

Reply Parent Score: 1