Re:Definition of Communism (& Libertarianism) (Score 2)

There are a lot of problems with the discussion of "Communism" taking place here, a major one is that the participants have only very sketchy knowledge of what Communism is (a trait they share with the author of the Salon article). I'd like to commend you for at least attempting to introduce definitions. However, the dictionary definitions are inadequate. Communism has actually been quite diverse, especially considering attempts by totalitarian leaders to enforce absolute ideological control. Communism in Hungary, Tito's Yugoslavia, and Hoxha's Albania were all quite different, and the philosophies and policies were definitely far removed from those of Communist political leaders in Western countries (where these parties still endure, and can sometimes have decisive influence over coalition governments, such as in Italy). In the past Communism was even adopted philosophically by some late 19th and early 20th-century Anarchists. So, at one time at least there was a strain of Communist thought that did not depend on central, dictatorial control. As far as Marx goes, I see aspects of his analysis which are quite interesting to apply to the Open Source movement (esp. regarding the nature of production and exchange). But that doesn't make Open Source "Communist". And just because it is not "Communist" does not mean that it is "Capitalist" either. It does function within a so-called "free market" system, but so do chess tournaments, squaredances and addiction support groups. Are they Capitalist? Libertarian? And the trait of self-reliance ("we code for ourselves") is not necessarily inherently Libertarian either. Self-reliance is a personality trait.