If Richard Stallman was a socialist , the GNU project would be licensed under AGPL3. As it is, the FSF makes a distinction about who "owns" a computer when it considers whether it is ethical to use proprietary software.
Any socialist would see that it is irrelevant what device a piece of software is running on. Either it is ethical to use proprietary software on any person's computer, or it is unethical to use on every computer.
If GNU was entirely AGPL3, nearly every website in existence would be forced to provide the source code for everything running on the server. This would make Silicon Valley nearly impossible, as they try to keep their AI and datamining etc. secret.
Someone would probably argue that if GNU used AGPL3, it would not have received nearly as many corporate contributions, and they instead would be using proprietary Unix (good for us, because expensive software licenses makes doing business less lucrative) or one of the BSDs.
My compromise is: sell exceptions to the AGPL3 license (like Qt does). This would be extremely lucrative for GNU, and would make it able to hire a huge number of developers to work on the OS, and to pay them better. GNU provides billions of dollars of value to Silicon Valley.
So at the cost of enabling a few large proprietary internet services, we get a dream OS licensed under a radical socialist license, with enough funding to develop free software alternatives to compete with the proprietary platforms.
Just my 2 cents.