• genie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Socialism has to to with collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, not cost to the consumer. Goods and services may typically be free at the time of use (funded by taxes ahead of time) but that does NOT mean free as in without cost.

    Again, like most of the other people in this thread, you’re confusing free as in freedom (software movement), and free as in without cost.

    I agree that socialism is not the scary term that staunch capitalists seem to believe that it is. However, perpetuating misunderstandings about what socialism means will not help find a healthy balance.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Don’t we all collectively own the Linux kernel for all practical purposes, for example? Any of us can just check it out and do with it whatever we want (within the limits of the GPL).

    • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m most definitely not confusing those terms since my native language uses different words for each. Read my other reply, I use the terms free and libre when I think there’s need for clarification. Since socialist policies revolve around collective ownership and public distribution there’s no meaning to saying they are libre, only free as in free beer makes any sense in this context.