My communist professor is trying to force me to put non-free software on my gnoodle box...

Free software has been right wing since the past 5-6 years.

>communism
>freedom
I dont think so pal, you get WorkersOS

GPL is freedom, BSD is for cucks, and closed source is slavery

What? You can use that online isn't?

Isn't Prezi that faggy slideshow thing? It has an online platform, no? Why not use libreoffice impress? What did you mean by this? Do you have access to google or do you not want to support the evil corporates?

>A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless, implying the end of the exploitation of labour.

What a laughable claim.

As proven by the Soviets and Chinese in the past, the freest and labor-wise least exploited people in history of humanity.

only because elites have successfully obtained full ideological capture of "left-wing" thought, leaving no outlet for "authentic" leftism, except at the fringes of the right.

>Soviet
>Chinese
Yeah, sure, elitist totalitarian dictatorships are communism because Jow Forums said that.

Communism is anti-state, anti-elitist, pro-intellectual, pro-business economic system. Almost like anarchism, but with elements of neo-tribalism, because communists understand that people have always relied on each other and still do.

Anyway, Stallman and his FSF Foundation are communist, and that's great!

"That wasn't real communism"™

>because Jow Forums said that
I don't visit that cesspool.

>The term "communist society" should be distinguished from the Western concept of the "communist state", the latter referring to a state ruled by a party which professes a variation of Marxism–Leninism.
Or do you suggest that Soviet Union and China schyieved statelessness or really any of the other parts?
Also this might be of interest to this thread
>Many aspects of a communist economy have emerged in recent decades in the form of open-source software and hardware, where source code and thus the means of producing software is held in common and freely accessible to everyone; and to the processes of peer production where collaborative work processes produce freely available software that does not rely on monetary valuation. Michel Bauwens juxtaposes open source and peer production with "market production".
>Ray Kurzweil posits that the goals of communism will be realized by advanced technological developments in the 21st century, where the intersection of low manufacturing costs, material abundance and open-source design philosophies will enable the realization of the maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society

Yes, that wasn't real (or, as I prefer to say, "pure") communism, now what's your point? Sometimes (quite often) people like to label their ideologies and policies with words that have absolutely different meanings from implied.

Tfw /g has unironic commies

mr stallman leans heavily left, eric s raymond, weev, and others lean right,
and the software, and the license, and the production model, remains largely apolitical
if anything, you could say that gpl tends to a night-watchman type libertarianism, whereas bsd, mit, and wtfpl skew towards anarchism (aka corporate fascism, because nature abhors a vacuum).

#yang gang
#neet lyfe

this
stay mad froggy

the free software movement is full of commies, stallman himself is a closet commie

GPL is pretty communistic, libertarianism point works better on BSD, MIT etc where you can take it and use it as you please. Though spirit of libertarianism and capitalism would call for patenting it and making money out of it, rather than just letting everyone use it.

Commietards on damage control.

How come? I'm not sure if they even claimed they had achieved the communist ideal. OTOH they said they were socialist and in ML socialism is a point before achieving the communist society. Though I'm not all that versed in communism and nuances like this so I hope someone with better knowledge can chime in.

>Though spirit of libertarianism and capitalism would call for patenting it and making money out of it, rather than just letting everyone use it.
Ehm, no, you can't patent an idea in a libertarian or ancap society cuz idea is not a physical/material entity. You can't privatize your thought or a concept.

When something fails is not communism, when something succeeds and is considered good it must be related to communism, it works like this right?

>When something fails is not capitalism, when something succeeds and is considered good it must be related to capitalism, it works like this right?

Huh, I did not know that. Though it makes sense.

Well something fails or succeeds and isn't communism, it isn't communism. When something fails or succeeds and is communism, it is communism. The Marxist-Leninist type of socialism they tried in Eastern Europe definitely was a failure though. The model they have in China, which has little to do with either socialism or communism, seems fairly succesful at least in this form where it just seems like authoritarian capitalism. The nationalisation in Venezuela was a failure.

Seems like I hit the mark then, About capitalism, it has proven itself to be the best (didnt say perfect) economic system ever developed, you don't need rationalizations and conspiracy theories to support it.

soviet socialism can be counted a sucess, in its triumph over nazism, its rapid industrialization of the heartland of siberia, and propelling the cccp into an early series of victories in the space race.
similarly, we can see that chinese socialism was moderately successful, and that the more capitalist form it has taken has not uet foundered.
in venezuela, socialism lasted at least a decade, before encountering any serious trouble.
in the us, socialism mitigated the depression, but also prolonged it.
the socialism of nazi germany, also revitalized the wiemar economy, and led it to early war victories.
it seems to be the case, in whatever form it takes, it has upsides as well as downsides, and never lasts for long.

holy shit retards: free != freedom

communism = everyone gets the same setup. Since not everyone has money to buy software, everyone gets the cheapest version, the free version.

>Communism is authoritarian as fuck, the last thing it would allow for is any kind of freedom.
Freedom in the normal sense but I was referring to "free software" aka "freedom" a redefinition of the term freedom to have a alternative meaning.
To over dramatize it, its "free software" new speak. Its just like phrase "free software" in relation to the free software movement, doesn't mean free software but a redefinition with a alternative meaning. I see why people, many in this thread, can easily conflate the two.

Just use LaTeX beamer you fucking zoomer piece of shit

GPL is national socialism at its finest.
Protect your and your people's freedom, and don't let your opponents use it to fuck you over, like "permissive" licenses.

Uhhh, I don't know about that

no one was ever forced to write any free software. if they did it would make it communism.

kek kek another thread killed by Jow Forums.

Attached: woj.jpg (318x158, 7K)

Are you the same tard that was complaining about the professor telling you to use netbeans to lint your shitty html?

>Free software

Attached: 1552437881454.png (888x720, 308K)

American-style liberty is Microsoft's liberty to remote-install software on a user's pc without the user interfering

fpbp

kys op

>its another ameriburger wrongly thinks communism implies authoritarianism and lectures the rest of the world on it episode
love these

thank you
welcome buddy

Use Markdown and pandoc to convert it to a pdf. If your presentation has value you don't need to entertain your audience with smooth transitions.

>Though spirit of libertarianism and capitalism would call for patenting it and making money out of it, rather than just letting everyone use it.
no
Patents and intellectual property are a socialist concept which, in theory, exists to protect the value of labor of artists/creatives.
That does not change just because they're used for corporatist ends in reality.

>Patents and intellectual property are a socialist concept
What a bizarre idea. Patents and intellectual property are a socialist concept despite being ways to award someone private property rights to an invention. And despite actually predating socialism. Where did you even get this idea from?

Information cannot be property, commodities are property.
Learn metaeconomics.

>every communist revolution lead to totalitarianism
>but communism isn't totalitarianism

Attached: 1554634519980.jpg (773x935, 47K)

so its communism cuz there are a lot of jews in the hacker community and jews are historiclaly socialist (think bernie sanders) and socialism is basically communism wrapped in a pink bowtie
is that correct?

Latex.

Prezi is retarded anyway and just PowerPoint with stupider transition animations.

>The Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the British Statute of Anne (1710) are seen as the origins of patent law and copyright respectively, firmly establishing the concept of intellectual property.
uhhuh okay

communism isn't a legitimate ideology, it collapses on purpose
Marx was not an idiot, his rhetoric is completely ignorant of human instinct and biology for a reason.
Communism exists as a means to the end of an authoritarian state.
In many ways it is identical to corporatism.

Just because you call something something doesn't make it so. Especially in law, where you can literally redefine the entire dictionary.
Intellectual property is a misnomer - it is information monopoly.
learn metaeconomics

>Just because you call something something doesn't make it so.
Like when you called patents and intellectual property a "socialist concept"?

Government intervention that restricts the freedom of a market in order to protect the value of labor is socialism, whether you like it or not.

>The term intervention assumes on a philosophical level that the state and economy should be inherently separated from each other; therefore the terminology applies to capitalist market-based economies where government action interrupts the market forces at play through regulations, economic policies or subsidies (state-owned enterprises that operate in the market do not constitute an intervention).
Cool. Also
>all market intervention is socialism
socialismiswhengovernmentdoessomething.jpg

This.

learn metaeconomics

Jow Forums is anti-capitalist board. Capitalists are assfaggots as I like to call them have no place here.

Prezi is like PowerPoint except it sucks and makes no sense and you can't do anything cool with it.

kill yourself

learn metaeconomics

github.com/jroimartin/ssg

have a plaintext presentation generator you fuck