Dan Hunter and Crooked Timber have clarified distinctions between Marxism -- the political philosophy of Karl Marx -- and the extensions to Marxism by others professing and practicing Marxism. The belief that private property must be abolished, and the practice of mandatory collective farms and factories, were follow-ons, not part of Marx' original philosophy.
It wasn't clear that Hunter's article meant "Marxism in Marx' writings" rather than "Marxism in the arguments and practices of Marxists" -- perhaps that is clear in the academic discourse that the paper belongs to.
Going back to Hunter's article, here is the bit that I disagree with most.
They suggest, for example, that property rights do exist here, it’s just that these property rights inhere in the wireless devices that transmit and receive. But these suggestions are, with all due respect, largely illusory, and seem to be advanced so as not to spook the horses of capitalism. A commons of any sort is inherently Marxian, even if other types of private property rights still operate within the commons.
"This makes about as much sense as saying 'transportation of any sort is inherently a Honda," quoting djw in the comments of the Crooked Timber post.
The critics of Red Penguin had much more to say about what Marxism is and isn't, than about Open Source.
The next paths to follow are Benkler's sources, and other writings describing open source more directly.
Posted by alevin at October 3, 2004 12:31 PM | TrackBack