Is wikipedia socialist?

[Anonymous]

Is wikipedia socialist. 

1) it has no leaders (or at least few leaders. The content management is done by volunteers.  Leaders only seem to deal with infrastructure and threats to the entire system, they don't manage details of individual entries.)

2) everyone contributes to wikipedia according to their ability.

3) everyone benefits from wikipedia according to their need.

As a secondary question, is all open source development socialist by definition.  

[Anonymous]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Is wikipedia socialist. 1) it has no leaders (or at least few leaders. The content management is done by volunteers.  Leaders only seem to deal with infrastructure and threats to the entire system, they don't manage details of individual entries.)2) everyone contributes to wikipedia according to their ability.3) everyone benefits from wikipedia according to their need.As a secondary question, is all open source development socialist by definition.  

I think you need an immediate crash course on socialism and capitalism In the USA anything is socialism, and anything is liberalism, or big government,  and most peoples who said that, they have not  read the first preface of a  reformist document known as the Communist Manifesto, or they have not read the introduction of the book The wealth of the nations, or do not know about the concept of state capitalismPS. Wikipedia on many concepts  is the blind guiding the blinds

[jondwhite]

Is it democratically controlled and commonly owned?

[Young Master Smeet]

Wikipedia is not a democracy, it works by consensus (which has swings and roundabouts) and Jimmy Wales is the owner/dictator of last resort.  In daily practice, anyone can access wikipedia, there is no charge for its articles, and the articles ae produced by volunteers (as are the adminisrators and moderators.  It's a great example of free association of producers, and decentralised co-operation.There are downsides: there is a particular demographic who get involved (white under forties males, typically, and American), and consensus leads to some odd results: the case of Chelsea Manning, traditional publishers were able to accomodate the name change, where consensus was difficult on Wikipedia.

[Anonymous]

The government of Brazil implemented the use of open source os,( Linux, Mandrake and Conectiva )  it was implemented during the presidency of Lula,  in order to reduce the expenses of the state,  but open source is not a socialist operational system, just because it is freely developed by a groups of developers, the main distinction of socialism is not that everything is free, the main distinction is the common possession of the means of productionsSome developers offer their services for free, and it is done in collaborations with others developers, but many companies such as Rehat, Apple,  and Suse are producing large profits, and their system is used in commercial servers. Apple OS is based on an Open Source known as Unix and BSDNet, and Free BSD  PS Free medical services, free education, and free transportation  provided by the state is not socialism either. Many Cubans doctors provided medical services in different countries, but that is not a socialist services either, it is a medium of propaganda used by the Cuban rulers, and in the case of Venezuela it was used in exchange for the payment of oil and gas provided by PDVSA

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

The government of Brazil implemented the use of open source os,( Linux, Mandrake and Conectiva )  it was implemented during the presidency of Lula,  in order to reduce the expenses of the state,  but open source is not a socialist operational system, just because it is freely developed by a groups of developers, the main distinction of socialism is not that everything is free, the main distinction is the common possession of the means of productionsSome developers offer their services for free, and it is done in collaborations with others developers, but many companies such as Rehat, Apple,  and Suse are producing large profits, and their system is used in commercial servers. Apple OS is based on an Open Source known as Unix and BSDNet, and Free BSD  PS Free medical services, free education, and free transportation  provided by the state is not socialism either. Many Cubans doctors provided medical services in different countries, but that is not a socialist services either, it is a medium of propaganda used by the Cuban rulers, and in the case of Venezuela it was used in exchange for the payment of oil and gas provided by PDVSA

so when I produce a piece of software using open source code that seems to me like the means of production (open source code) is a common possession.  When I produce comments for this article I used wikipedia to find information and that seems like a common possession to me.  The production of words and ideas and comments and arguments using wikipedia capitalism since I didn't pay any money.  It seems like your saying that comunism can only exist on a national scale?  there's no such thing as two people working together under comunism unless the entire nation is completely communist? so free mass transit isn't communism unless it's in a nation using the label of comunism? or are you saying the words communist and capitalism only apply to nations with borders and it makes no sense to call specefic acts or parts of a society communist or capitalst?  I think I hear people talk of capitalism amongst small groups or for specefic tasks, so maybe you're indicating socialism has a problem starting small and will fail if anything else exists?  it only takes two people to start capitalism, but you can't start socialism unless all the people on the planet agree to socialim? That would explain it's past failures, but It seems like a pessismistice and unimaginative understanding of comunism.  According to your argument about BSD being used for profit, then if somoene profited off of communist russia then russia was therefore not communist?  so the existence of a trade treaty with russian and the united states would profit the united states and therefore russia was never communist? p.s. so can you define for me the smallest possible entity that can be called communist and exactly what the external conditions for something to be called communist are?  if you can't then, it seems like you've set the bar so high that communism will never exist and never did exist and never will exist.  It's like the "no true scotsman" dilema or the the perfect circle that only exist in theory but can never be perfect in real life? I guess we all call things circles when they're really just approximations of some platonic idea of a circle.  even the finest pencil will wiggle so no circles (which are defined as the all the points equidistance from the center) have ever been drawn and never will be drawn?  

[Young Master Smeet]

The communistic bar is quite low: it is when people interract and don't hold property barriers in the way, and share their goods.  It's the situation in family life, when you're with your friends: the trick is to turn it into the organising basis of society.  So, for all of us, presently, any activity we do ultimately is dependent on commodity production and the need to sell our ability to work: I can only edit wikipedia articles when I'm not selling that ability (I'd never do it at work, honest).  In our workplaces, though, we co-operate, and don't put commodity barriers in the way of working together: socialism would extend this to cover the whole of society.

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The communistic bar is quite low: it is when people interract and don't hold property barriers in the way, and share their goods.  It's the situation in family life, when you're with your friends: the trick is to turn it into the organising basis of society.  So, for all of us, presently, any activity we do ultimately is dependent on commodity production and the need to sell our ability to work: I can only edit wikipedia articles when I'm not selling that ability (I'd never do it at work, honest).  In our workplaces, though, we co-operate, and don't put commodity barriers in the way of working together: socialism would extend this to cover the whole of society.

So this website is capitalist?  LOL that's funny.  If wikipedia isn't socialist, then I guess worldsocialism.org isn't socialist either by your definition.  Ok, I'll go with that because you can only use the website when your not at work.  It's at least a usable definition.  But what this about "society".  are you talking nation level or state level or family level? can you have a family be communist if they have to leave the house to work in a capitalist job? seems like by your reasoning a family can't be communist either like wikiepdia can't be communist. Can a nation be called communist if can only use the resources within it's own borders when it doesn't need to use those resoruces to buy, barter or trade for resources from other nations?  Does this mean communism requires supremacy to exist and any non-communist rules or requirments immediately destroys comunism is a puff of logic? In your family example does the one kid refusing to share a toy end the role of communism in the family for ever? Or actually, it seems like I'm getting different versions of what communism is from the other discussions and other opinons. Hey, there's another question. If you don't have the ability to edit my posts and comments than that's onother reason why the website is not communist? At least with wikipedia if there was something I wrote that you disagreed with you could edit it and then I could try and edit it back the other way.  Hypothetically speaking if you were living in a communist nation and using wikipedia at work or any other time as you freely chose. . . how would communist decide what gets written in wikipedia? is it just no rules and anyone can write anything?  It seems like that would produce some very unreliable information to me. 

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

Is it democratically controlled and commonly owned?

The information in wikipedia is democratically controlled and commonly owned. Or more precisely the information is consensus controlled and owned as YoungMasterSmeet explained it best.But the hardware for wikipedia and the electricity comes from somewhere else. Donations I think. Someone owns them just like somoene ones the tractor and electricity they use for running a farm in communist russia.  Or maybe not. could I just walk around russia and take any farm equipment I wanted from anyone and then walk into their house and eat their food?  I'm pretty sure I can't just walk into wikipedia and take there servers and use their printers for free. 

[Young Master Smeet]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

So this website is capitalist?  LOL that's funny.  

I think you missed my point: within capitalist society, there are vast swathes of areas, of behaviour, interactions and structures that are 'socialistic', i.e. are not performed on the basis of the exchange of commodities with a view to making a profit.  However, as we are living within a capitalist society, the interests of capitalists predominate, and these behaviours can only exist where they don't conflict with the interest of profit seeking.Wikipedia is a good example of a starting point for how we could co-operate in socialism, without leaders, without masses of bureaucracy, etc. Ultimately, within capitalism, it depends on the Wikimedia Foundation (and donations).This is a website run by socialists within capitalism.

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

 I think you need an immediate crash course on socialism and capitalism In the USA anything is socialism, and anything is liberalism, or big government,  and most peoples who said that, they have not  read the first preface of a  reformist document known as the Communist Manifesto, or they have not read the introduction of the book The wealth of the nations, or do not know about the concept of state capitalismPS. Wikipedia on many concepts  is the blind guiding the blinds

 Wikipedia is not socialism or socialist in the sense that socialism constitutes a distinct system of society.  You could however argue that it is "socialistic" as a compromise term.  That is to say it exhibits certain structural properties that could be said to prefigure  a genuine future socialist society. Not just Wikipedia but a lot of other things too.  The internet, for example, has been likened to a "high tech gift economy".  See here http://innovate.ucsb.edu/796-richard-barbrook-the-hi-tech-gift-economy. The point is that its basic principles of engagement resemble or mimic those that would be found in socialist society.  free access, voluntarism, generalised reciprocity and so on David Graeber has written of the "communism of everyday life" and of how capitalism is just a rather bad way of running a basically communistic society.  Its a bit of poetic licence, I know, but Graeber does  have a point.  The non money sector under capitalism is absolutely huge.  According to UN data it  is actually larger in terms of the expenditure of labour hours than all forms of paid or monetised activities put together. Of course people who grow their own veggies or volunteer their labour to manning the lifeboats are not generally doing so out of some generalised commitment to the ideal of socialist society,  But that is not the point.  The point is that they are motivated by concerns that have nothing to do with making  money and have everything to do with directly helping themselves and other around them.  This should be welcomed and  encouraged by all socialists. As socialists we should not sniff at these countless examples of unmediated activity or airily dismiss them as having little or no relevance ce to the socialist cause.  They are a seedbed in which a genuinely revolutionary outlook can germinate.  They are what routinely  aid socialists in their arguments with others who claim that socialism is somehow against "human nature".  As socialists we all, I am sure, invoke examples of actually existing human behavior drawn from the non money sectofr, to refute such a claim. One final point and to clarify –  I don't think "big government"  or statism constitutes in any way an  example of such "socialistic activity" and any comparison would be invalid.  The state sector relies on tax revenue and the relation of state employees to their employers is essentially no different to that of the private sector

[Anonymous]

The Kibbutz from Israel they are not socialist either, they are run as capitalist enterprises, and all the   Communes that existed in Bolivia are not socialist either, they are run as capitalist enterprises too, as well, the cooperatives in Venezuela, are not socialist eitherIsrael is a capitalist country like any other  capitalist country around world who is divided in two social classes; Capitalists and workers, two parallel systems have never existed in our planet, that was something spread by the Kruschevites during the cold war, and still the leftwingers continue spreading the same wrong conceptionThe best scenario are all the factories taken over by workers in Argentina, the workers were forced to run them as capitalist enterprises, and when they started to produce profits the government passed new laws to take them back again.Some left wingers, specially the Trotskyite were declaring that Communism had arrived to Argentina, and the economical reality showed them that those factories were being run as capitalist enterprises, and now the workers  were laid off, some enterprises went into bankruptcy, and others are being run by capitalists, https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1963/no-710-october-1963/socialist-attitude-kibbutznikhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1216-december-2005/argentinas-worker-run-factories-what-next

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Wikipedia is not socialism or socialist in the sense that socialism constitutes a distinct system of society.  You could however argue that it is "socialistic" as a compromise term.  That is to say it exhibits certain structural properties that could be said to prefigure  a genuine future socialist society. Not just Wikipedia but a lot of other things too.  The internet, for example, has been likened to a "high tech gift economy".  See here http://innovate.ucsb.edu/796-richard-barbrook-the-hi-tech-gift-economy. The point is that its basic principles of engagement resemble or mimic those that would be found in socialist society.  free access, voluntarism, generalised reciprocity and so on David Graeber has written of the "communism of everyday life" and of how capitalism is just a rather bad way of running a basically communistic society.  Its a bit of poetic licence, I know, but Graeber does  have a point.  The non money sector under capitalism is absolutely huge.  According to UN data it  is actually larger in terms of the expenditure of labour hours than all forms of paid or monetised activities put together. Of course people who grow their own veggies or volunteer their labour to manning the lifeboats are not generally doing so out of some generalised commitment to the ideal of socialist society,  But that is not the point.  The point is that they are motivated by concerns that have nothing to do with making  money and have everything to do with directly helping themselves and other around them.  This should be welcomed and  encouraged by all socialists. As socialists we should not sniff at these countless examples of unmediated activity or airily dismiss them as having little or no relevance ce to the socialist cause.  They are a seedbed in which a genuinely revolutionary outlook can germinate.  They are what routinely  aid socialists in their arguments with others who claim that socialism is somehow against "human nature".  As socialists we all, I am sure, invoke examples of actually existing human behavior drawn from the non money sectofr, to refute such a claim. One final point and to clarify –  I don't think "big government"  or statism constitutes in any way an  example of such "socialistic activity" and any comparison would be invalid.  The state sector relies on tax revenue and the relation of state employees to their employers is essentially no different to that of the private sector

@Robbo203,Thanks for contrubiting what I consider the most insightful supporting information. Are their any good reference sources to support a theory about when and why Socialistic forms of exchange will emerge from a capitalist society?  My personal opinion is that capitalism at a society scale will voluntarily cede the power to socialistic forms of exchange more redily (or with less resistance) in sectors of the economy based primarily on these critera. 1) fully non-capital based produciton such as itellectual property like media production, knowledge production, or other products where the reproduction price is negligible are more likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange. 2) Capital based production with a large R&D requirement but low capital resource requirements such as medicine, or technology intensive are more likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange.3) Commodity Capital products with a high markup value will be more likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange than Commodity capital products with low profit margins.  4) Raw materials and low labor products will be least likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange in a capitalist based ecoomy. So if you can point me to to some good writing on that topic, then I'd be much appreciative.  

[Anonymous]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Wikipedia is not socialism or socialist in the sense that socialism constitutes a distinct system of society.  You could however argue that it is "socialistic" as a compromise term.  That is to say it exhibits certain structural properties that could be said to prefigure  a genuine future socialist society. Not just Wikipedia but a lot of other things too.  The internet, for example, has been likened to a "high tech gift economy".  See here http://innovate.ucsb.edu/796-richard-barbrook-the-hi-tech-gift-economy. The point is that its basic principles of engagement resemble or mimic those that would be found in socialist society.  free access, voluntarism, generalised reciprocity and so on David Graeber has written of the "communism of everyday life" and of how capitalism is just a rather bad way of running a basically communistic society.  Its a bit of poetic licence, I know, but Graeber does  have a point.  The non money sector under capitalism is absolutely huge.  According to UN data it  is actually larger in terms of the expenditure of labour hours than all forms of paid or monetised activities put together. Of course people who grow their own veggies or volunteer their labour to manning the lifeboats are not generally doing so out of some generalised commitment to the ideal of socialist society,  But that is not the point.  The point is that they are motivated by concerns that have nothing to do with making  money and have everything to do with directly helping themselves and other around them.  This should be welcomed and  encouraged by all socialists. As socialists we should not sniff at these countless examples of unmediated activity or airily dismiss them as having little or no relevance ce to the socialist cause.  They are a seedbed in which a genuinely revolutionary outlook can germinate.  They are what routinely  aid socialists in their arguments with others who claim that socialism is somehow against "human nature".  As socialists we all, I am sure, invoke examples of actually existing human behavior drawn from the non money sectofr, to refute such a claim. One final point and to clarify –  I don't think "big government"  or statism constitutes in any way an  example of such "socialistic activity" and any comparison would be invalid.  The state sector relies on tax revenue and the relation of state employees to their employers is essentially no different to that of the private sector

@Robbo203,Thanks for contrubiting what I consider the most insightful supporting information. Are their any good reference sources to support a theory about when and why Socialistic forms of exchange will emerge from a capitalist society?  My personal opinion is that capitalism at a society scale will voluntarily cede the power to socialistic forms of exchange more redily (or with less resistance) in sectors of the economy based primarily on these critera. 1) fully non-capital based produciton such as itellectual property like media production, knowledge production, or other products where the reproduction price is negligible are more likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange. 2) Capital based production with a large R&D requirement but low capital resource requirements such as medicine, or technology intensive are more likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange.3) Commodity Capital products with a high markup value will be more likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange than Commodity capital products with low profit margins.  4) Raw materials and low labor products will be least likely to convert to socialistic forms of exchange in a capitalist based ecoomy. So if you can point me to to some good writing on that topic, then I'd be much appreciative.  

Capitalism will not be converted into socialism, it will be  replaced by socialism. Capital, commodity and market will not exist in a world socialist society. There would not be any intellectual property in socialism. As I indicated before, read Adam Buick book: The alternative ( no alternatives ) to capitalism http://www.wspus.org/in-depth/the-alternative-to-capitalism/https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AQ24RHE/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

The Kibbutz from Israel they are not socialist either, they are run as capitalist enterprises, and all the   Communes that existed in Bolivia are not socialist either, they are run as capitalist enterprises too, as well, the cooperatives in Venezuela, are not socialist eitherIsrael is a capitalist country like any other  capitalist country around world who is divided in two social classes; Capitalists and workers, two parallel systems have never existed in our planet, that was something spread by the Kruschevites during the cold war, and still the leftwingers continue spreading the same wrong conceptionThe best scenario are all the factories taken over by workers in Argentina, the workers were forced to run them as capitalist enterprises, and when they started to produce profits the government passed new laws to take them back again.Some left wingers, specially the Trotskyite were declaring that Communism had arrived to Argentina, and the economical reality showed them that those factories were being run as capitalist enterprises, and now the workers  were laid off, some enterprises went into bankruptcy, and others are being run by capitalists, https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1963/no-710-october-1963/socialist-attitude-kibbutznikhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1216-december-2005/argentinas-worker-run-factories-what-next

@mcolome1,thanks, I read the links.  Can you tell me if you think the Argentina example resulted in progress towards true communism, or would you say that it set back the progress towards true communism?  Was it a step in the right direction but not enough to pass a critical tipping point?  or was it a step in the wrong direction?  It occurs to me to question your claim that communism and capitalsim have never existed togetehr on the planet at the same time.  When I read about the gifting economy of pre-currency civililazations I noticed the argument that capitalism seems ot have a corrosive effect on gifting economies.  Also the argument that the Gifting economy has some traits of communism and has lessons for communism to learn from.  When capitalism is introduced to a gifting economy, it seems to start to spread within the gifting economy and weeken the institions of the gifiting economy till the gifting economy fails and is replaced by capitalism. That seems to support your contention that capitalism and socialism can not both exist at the same time, but sadly it suggest that communism going by the name of a gifting economy withers in the presence of capitalism. So by that reasoning everyone started out as communist, and for a brief time during which a few capitalist existed, there were both socialism (as a gifting economy) and capitalism. then capitalism ate most of communism, but still a few tribes exist that are isolated and operate on a gifting economy, so if you consider a gifting economy isolated from capitalism to communism, then they would still both exist on the planet.  But that's nitpicking the definition of both existing onthe plannet at the same time and not really the focus of my interest.  BUT, what does interest me and comes to my mind is that,  I really don't like that conclusion, because it only takes two people to start a capitalist economy that then Grows and spreads and devours the gifting economy.  Meenwhile, communism can only come into existence if a majority of the world seize power and enforce communism on everyone or else a massive majority of the population are somehow (magically?) convinced to all start behaving as communist.  So my reasoning seems to be saying that the result of your definitions of communism is that even a little capitalism will consume socialism (assuming it works like the gifting economy as studied in pre-currency societies).  That's an unpleasant conclusion and one that I hope you can clear up or dispel for me.

[Author]

Posts