How could you tell? For me only the things I found fishy were the pace of commits and the constant useless comments but it cannot always be a 100%.

Also there is a ton of red flags : private company using .org, blusky/Twitter/discord, bloated home page, rust 🙂…

sounds like a repeat of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment

Wait, I was hinting at this because I was hoping to get noticed as the creator of the most popular style for this site 🥲 : https://userstyles.world/style/933/lwn-dark-breeze-enhanced

but I just realized I don’t have the extension on mobile yet the theme is dark. What’s going on? they did update the website and you still have light theme?

do you know the stylus extension?

Other systems such as feudalism share aspects with capitalism.

I think you misread, this was just an illustration of the “taking power”, “One system evolved out of the other” does not answer, nor contradict my point, I know and agree with the evolution of societies from slavery to feudalism to capitalism to communism.

Meanwhile, arguing that these points will somehow be co-opted by the right-wing is a stretch.

I feel like you might be thinking about USA, because some European countries it is not a stretch I don’t want to DOX myself too much but the “antifa is the real fascism” is a thing. I don’t mind you arguing about that because this is not even a debate in those places. I guess the USA right-wing didn’t use that rhetoric.

I don’t really see anything anti-Marxist in explaining how the fascist narrative work

It is not anti-Marxist to explain how fascist narrative works, “how” it is done here is not following the core principles of the dialectical materialism as I tried to explain with points and sentences. Maybe my English is too broken so I’ll borrow the 2nd sentence of wikipedia “it proposes that the world is material, that all phenomena are the result of matter in motion” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism), this is just an introduction but the “motion” part was not a detail but fundamental.

This video reminds me of the points of Umberto Eco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism) and from where I come from there may be still some debates but most of the Marxists wouldn’t use that definition. I think this 1995 publication didn’t help, quiet the opposite, and we are getting out of it.

Yes and no, I said “devs” and you come saying “actually […]” but really people “integrating” software “usually” are developpers. If you want to start a web server you will have to deal with systemd. If you want to check logs, you will also. If you need to debug an application that crashed (in C at least) in a production/test environment (not in “my machine”) you might want to get into core dumps.

They are choosing to do that because it helps them

Really? In what universe are you living? Any piece of software I built, professionally or not, had to run on debian-based or arch-based linux hence systemd. Did I choose or any fellow developers of my time? No, maybe people 20 years ago, maybe… That really reminds me of conservative views on “social contract” like we all chose the society we are living in.

Fascism is what happens when the mask of liberalism drops and the ruling capitalist class has to resort to naked repression to keep their power.

This I can agree with, and the whole mask exists because the ruling class doesn’t have all the power and the “has to resort” is also an other part of the fact that it (ruling class) is taking more power than before. So the ruling class do not need all the power all the time, hence it likes to bring a mask of “democracy” by giving some to the proletariat. Like the justice system is not run by the bourgeois directly, much like proletariat aristocracy (aka bosses, managers, etc) and if/when the system is not acting as they should it takes back this power.

You can see such power dynamic before, during feudalism, where not everything was centralized but it “eventually” went there (at different places at different time).

And other bad consequences of this very specific 10-points analysis is that many are highly subjective and are used from right-wing to attack socialism so…

All of this is still very anti-marxist in essence to me, not that is is made from bad faith, but it is not made from the analysis for the systems in motion, the power dynamics nor grounded in science. If sociologist would step up and make scientific evidence of those points being specific to such concept to define the limit between fascism and anything else (and I don’t mean “1 American study” science but international consensus) I would revise my line, not that this is 100% disconnected from reality, more that it doesn’t describes current phenomena.

Also to push for such an analysis on fascism it would be nice to have other “content” to illustrate how this definition applies correctly, both to describes what is happening now but also how robust it is as it is not describing other political movements.

As a user you probably don’t know, and maybe don’t care.

This is more for developers, technology is not magic, vendor/technology-locking can be problematic. It’s not like systemd was made by bad people with bad intention. You may have heard of X11 too. The list could go on, there is a bag amount of legacy in our technology, some would just keep it that way. But some argue for changes thus discussing (and criticizing) those legacy, why it fails on some points and what to do/build from that.

So right now if you’re a desktop user, I don’t see why you would bother indeed. This discussion are still interesting to some devs, for instance here I learned about dinit, and it’s code is damn small and clean, hence it was informative and I will definitely try it.

I don’t like this definition, have your own, but this feels wrong on multiple points. I didn’t want just to down-vote but explain myself even if I feel this is not “smart” of me.

• I doubt we should define an ideology from the politician(s) claiming it : especially from far-right people, they could use socialism or any other concept for or against (yes I am referring the Nazi being national-socialist too). This is debatable of course but first I wanted to point this.
• Trying to anchor the definition of an idea in a specific era-people is wrong : I don’t mind explaining that “our” concept or racism isn’t the same as 10, 20, 50 or 100 years ago, same should by our concept of fascism. At the time Mussolini coined the term in reference of antique Rome the concept actually pre-existed and was already in full power in the previous century. If we have a word for it now, nice, but its definition shouldn’t be that fixed (and from a right-wing politician) because it will, and I’d argue it already is, disconnected from current reality.
• This last point goes in-hands with my previous one. Materialism should be the analysis of things in their movements not in a perceived static “state” : this was fundamental to Marx and Engels and all the communist movements so far. We should, we have to evolve and adapt our concept to reality, not only “update” to current day but analyze the fascism as a process and not a state.

Lastly because all of this is kind of semantic discourse (talking about word definition), I strongly think that giving a definition alone isn’t that great but we need to see the consequence of the definition of the concept itself in/for our actions (here I am thinking of the concept of dialectic materialsm).

This 10-points definition not only could be attributed to other ideology (not all the points obviously) but misses what to do with that. Let me try to be clear : I’d argue that fascism is the process of the bourgeoisie taking power over societies. From here a lot of western country are fascist countries, with fascist political leaders and fascist constitution. The whole system is made for money/private property to be the real power, the corner-stone of all rights and it seems that what is happening systematically in all of those countries is not a failure but it is done by design. Also that means that we should fight, not only the parties, but the constitutions and rules of anything that “protect” private property and money.

I don’t mind discussing definition, and even not agreeing, I want to argue that we should look at the consequences of any definition, like if you define “fascism” in any way then what/who is fascist and what to do.

I am pretty sure this is from 30th of July 2026 (and not 2025 as the article says, the blog menu seems correct). Did I miss something about it being 4 years old?

Same here, also all embedded system on linux + smartphone. I guess the author meant desktop usage. Still I am very unsure about the world at large. This is north-American take.

I am not the author (I am asking him right now if I should tag him). I didn’t know about dinit but this looks like a nice alternative.

I would have been fine with just systemctl/journalctl , I really dislike the locking of homed, network, etc. This is very much unnecessary and remove any future possibility of improvement/innovation.

I didn’t care about coredumps as it is part of my setup to disable the dumps to avoid unnecessary garbage on my SSD while activating for debugging with gdb (it is kind of awesome to load the program state from core dumps, also coredumpctl felt like magic).

Can I suggest?

• Fix publish date : it is written Jul 30, 2025
• Add prefers-color-scheme
• if you use css variables (cutsom.css -> :root) might as well not hard code background-color and color in body.

Your post was nice and well written, was it shared somewhere?

I long for something different than hacker “fascist” news and their AI-filled website.

Can I say: Karma?

It’s been a while now that the Linux “Foundation” has been big tech lapdog and corrupted, Torvald first. For me the eviction of Russian maintainer for their nationality was the last straw (of course it was initially done in full opacity) and now the AI chill is cherry on top. Under a fake cover of “community-based” FOSS this is consortium and the enshitification is just the logical consequence.

are you trolling?

I checked your history and you seems to genuinely interact but you’re sentence makes no real argument (more like a joke).

But maybe you haven’t read the rest of the conversation so here some points:

• You can and are encourage to download and use free software. Same with comments.
• You are not allowed to monetized free software (hence the GPL v2 vs v3 debate). To be honest also with my comments.
• The term stealing could indeed be confused with the modern usage of fascists who want to fight against piracy but it was used for a good century by communist to talk about capitalists stealing surplus value made by workers.

you talked about labor theft, why do you think the boss should pay you? An I am not saying “should” as society should be like that, I agree with no private property and no money -> should as right now is it OK or not to make money from other people works : this is exploitation.

I argue that the “steal” of today’s LLM is the same exploitation of worker as usually described, here outside the social contract of librism and free software.

Are you saying I am right then? I feel you think of something but it is not clearly getting to me here.

• it's labor theft -> hence the term steal I was using
• copying is irrelevant -> so I was right? the labor theft of big tech in order to sell LLM is wrong on many level and we should fight against it.

Do you at least see that, to me, what you just said is validating my points?

Also if anyone else (not to you @m532): “AI” (in reality chatbot or generative AI) should be made by the people for the people, and FOSS ideology (can we say Librism in English?) have always, and still mostly is, against the closed-source (close dataset to be precise here) nature of current big-tech AI. This was already a problem 8 years ago when the space started to get filled with “scientific” paper that didn’t disclose code/data (sometime just code but still insufficient) hence couldn’t be reproduce while sometimes having wild claims. We shouldn’t give so much credit, attention, money to those fascists in charge of selling as much LLM as possible, whatever human, economic and environment costs.

Actually let me analyze again your comment here: I thought you were right at first but thinking about it not really.

First let me address : I didn’t know about RIAA, this kind of paternalistic way of addressing people is not good in any way. We aren’t all USA-centric (like you?).

Then about the “steal” argument:

• it is a vocabulary used for century by Marxist organizations about the value taken by the bourgeoisie from the proletariat work.
• the argument of “copying is OK” is missing the point : any FOSS dev/organization I know would gladly give their work to you, individual. But not to big tech to commercialize it and make extreme amount of money, as well as steering conversation towards fascism in the process. While also having an amazingly big impact on the environment.
• “both have it afterwards” is also a fallacy : any work done on computer can be seen like this : if your an accountant and you boss copy your accounting sheets and do not pay you, it is not stealing? You both have the file, for you it won’t make you any money, he will. Big tech taking FOSS code for their profit is not piracy as of individual accessing cultural product they cannot afford in the first place. And if you make profit from piracy this is a whole other discussion I would gladly here your thoughts about it.

You’re right, I said “steal” as it was the most common word, the right one was “exploiting”. Fixing it.