Reading about FOSS philosophy, degoogling, becoming against corporations, and now a full-blown woke communist (like Linus Torvalds)

    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      capitalist arguments that profit motive is necessary for innovation and technological advancement

      I don’t know who is arguing this because it’s incredibly stupid. The greatest scientific minds of history, the mathematicians, the physicists, the inventors, were not capitalists, they’re people with passion for their work.

      If we move to a society that guarantees basic human needs and good education, we’re only going to have more scientists and engineers that progress technology even faster.

      • Thorned_Rose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Capitalists argue this because it gives them the appearance of a moral high ground.

        Enshittification shows how untrue this - capitalism by its very nature will always devolve into worse and worse offerings because it’s reliant on squeezing out ever more profit.

        Capitalism will only ever puh out the bare minimum of technological advancement. And keeping people in indentured labour (aka employees) to the capitalist system so that they either have no time to come up with innovations themselves or they own the intellectual property of any indentured workers means that the overwhelming majority of innovation is monopolised by capitalism too. Which also contributes to the appearance of pushing advancement.

    • S_H_K@lemmy.fmhy.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The innovation argument is shaky at best many of the corporations innovations are brought or copied really. Is a story that became pretty common in the latest decades one guy come with a good idea some other mofo takes it and profits with it.

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is so wrong. It’s not volunteers writing this code it is people employed by companies who are paid to write this code. You do know people have to eat.

    • zabadoh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree somewhat.

      A lot of high tech development comes with a greed motive, e.g. IPO, or getting bought out by a large company seeking to enter the space, e.g. Google buying Android, or Facebook buying Instagram and Oculus.

      And conversely, a lot of open source software are copies of commercially successful products, albeit they only become widely adopted after the originals have entered the enshittified phase of their life.

      Is there a Lemmy without Reddit? Is there a Mastodon without Twitter? Is there LibreOffice without Microsoft Office and decades of commercial word processors and spreadsheets before that? Or OpenOffice becoming enshittified for that matter? Is there qBittorrent without uTorrent enshittified? Is there postgreSQL without IBM’s DB2?

      The exception that I can see is social media and networked services that require active network and server resources, like Facebook YouTube, or even Dropbox and Evernote.

      Okay, The WELL is still around and is arguably the granddaddy of all online services, and has avoided enshittification, but it isn’t really open source.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is true to some extent, but the best, most successful open source software is nowadays to a large extent made by for-profit businesses developing it for their own use but sharing it with the world.

      There is a strong correlation between “is this kind of software mainly used by businesses vs. individuals” and “does this kind of software tend to be open source”. Hardly anyone uses proprietary version control or web server software anymore. But (other extreme) in the area of video games, nearly all of them are still proprietary and probably will be for a long time. Software such as web browsers or office suites sits somewhere in between, both kinds exist there.

    • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Linux and open source in general completely blow apart capitalist arguments that profit motive

      Wrong! Linux and open source only shows that the profit motive is not the only motive. One should broaden the definition of profit to encompass value in all its forms. ie A person can gain value from the satisfaction of DIY as it can be self-empowering. One can gain emotional value from sharing. It also invokes the law of reciprocation - value exchange but without a $ sign. The Open source ecosystem is also heavily funded by business who relies on open source components. It is a capital investment.

      • yogo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the profit motive is not the only motive that drives innovation, as you just agreed, then it isn’t necessary, logically. And not sure why you would then go on to expand the definition of profit into meaninglessness after agreeing there are other motives.

        • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What? How the f do you transition from ‘not only’ to ‘isn’t necessary’? That is not logic - that is mental gymnastics with a triple back flip! Profit is the PRIMARY motivator! People wish to move away from discomfort more than anything else. Currency is the best way of alleviating discomfort!

          • yogo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. If X is a necessary motive for Y, then in the absence of X, Y cannot happen.
            2. Innovation can happen in the absence of a profit motive.
            3. Therefore, the profit motive is not necessary for innovation.
            • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              People can grow food in the absence of technology - but subsistence living is a hell of time!

              nb. Marxists still have no answer for the calculation problem.

              • yogo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                So I guess you agree that the profit motive isn’t necessary, because you moved to a completely unrelated point

  • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I was feeling the last part had some more story behind it so I went ahead and found this:

    Seems like I’m a full-blown woke communist too

    • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Doesn’t read like he’s an actual communist, more insulting people (rightly so) that would call liberals communists.

        • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          God I wish that were true but there are a LOT of people (well, conservatives) who are vehemently against wider society allowing cross dressing or medical transition. It’s not 90% :(

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m definitely woke af. And proud of it.

      I have come to think that when profits are at odds with health, happiness, the good of society and humanity, then either a non profit foundation needs to be running it or it needs to be in the hands of the government—but a much less corrupt one. And I believe oligopolies need to be broken up and anti trust laws greatly expanded and enforced. Then we can deal with the oligopoly / plutocracy. We set a maximum wage (including all earnings) and tax 100% above that. Penalties for regulatory breaches include jail time. For corporations. With corporations reigned in, oligopolies and oligarchies crumbled, we can prevent regulatory capture and corruption. Campaign finance is abolished and it is paid for out of public funds. We abolish first past the post voting in favor of scientifically determined better alternatives to ensure voters actually have a variety of choices.

      Idk wtf that makes me except maybe a ranting lunatic lol

      • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        In my mind, “woke” has two meanings that apply to this context:

        • positive: aware of the hardships different groups of people might face
        • negative: overboard political correctness, cancel culture

        It’s entirely possible to be pro-woke and anti-woke at the same time because of this.

    • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I personally think communism especially Marxism sounds really good on paper. The problem is that just about every time it has been attempted things didn’t really seem to work like they are supposed to.

      Its like every state that attempts communism just ends up being a perpetual Vanguard state, and it ends up being authoritarian and terrible.

      I really think there are several good ideas in Marx theories, but the actual implementation of those theories needs some work to figure out how they should be incorporated without being corrupted and overtaken by tyrants.

      • rq0_0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I personally think communism especially Marxism sounds really good on paper. The problem is that just about every time it has been attempted things didn’t really seem to work like they are supposed to.

        Boy, that’s the understatement of the century. Not only did it not work, it often results in mass murder and the ushering in of a totalitarian regime.

      • clover@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Capitalism didn’t appear over night. It took several attempts and iterations to get it anywhere near what it is today. Most modern theories on the implementation of Marxism focus less on centralized government authority and more on democracy in the work place, and eliminating 3rd party shareholders’ control. Much of the struggle with implementation of this, is that the existing financial structures aren’t set up to handle this type of thing well.

        • rq0_0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What we have today isn’t really even capitalism anymore. It is becoming something else. We don’t have free markets, for example, because large corporate players are not allowed to fail. Under a central banking system, the state can simply print money to fund its corporate protectorates while artificially suppressing interest rates to avoid paying any interest on the debt. And then we use tariffs and policy to pick and choose winners, suppressing competition. This is about as far from capitalism as one can imagine.

          • clover@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Can you point me to a time when capitalism did happen? Where governments and outside forces weren’t picking winners and losers in the market? In such a time what was the plight of the common worker? Did we see overwork, workplace safety, and child labor issues?

            Third wave communism doesn’t seek to abandon the “free market” (which is free within bounds), it instead favors democracy in the workplace. Where all members of the organization are employee-owners including ceos and middle management and the “Board” is dissolved into either a representative or direct democracy made up of employee-owners. In this way one increases the incentives for each individual to perform and see the company perform well. This also mitigates much income inequality by allowing the workers a say in the compensation of middle and upper management.

    • nxfsi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Guy’s Finnish. The chances of him being actually communist are pretty much zero.

  • Chemical Wonka@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This meme shows completely my journey. I became a FOSS advocate in 2020 after realized that all sites that I visited wanted my “cookies”. I started to questioning myself about and after some research I became a disciple of Richard Stallman and a Marxist-Leninist.

  • xarexyouxmadx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    In my experience I’ve noticed Linux tends to (disproportionately) attract both libertarians and socialists/communists. I feel like I run into more of both within the Linux community than I do in other communities.

    I started using Linux because I couldn’t force myself to use Windows 8. Up to that point I used whatever version of Windows came right before the graphical interface but 8 was too awful so I started playing with mint and never went back…

    I got off the capitalism train in the middle of that but that was only because I decided to major in business and when I saw how the sausage was made I jumped ship but I didn’t know anything about socialism or communism or marxism or whatever you want to call it. I was so not into politics or economics that I literally had to search the Internet and ask people on social media what was an alternative to the crap I was reading for my classes… And then I went down that rabbit hole. If was enlightening. I learned a lot.

    Also… for people who think college is Marxist indoctrination…Marx was brought up for one paragraph in one book at the very very end of my 4 years. But by that point I already knew who he was just from the rabbit hole I went down when I was curious for some alternative to what I was being taught.

  • ConfusedLlama@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    rant:

    I have been using Linux since 2006, a lefty and against the super-rich and big corporations since I remember (to the point of avoiding their products like the plague), also never having understood or accepted gender roles and other stupid traditional concepts, yet never turned into a communist 🤷

    It baffles me that so many people think that respecting gender equality, understanding the evil in big corporations and avoiding them, valuing community and being tolerant (except for intolerance) and against discrimination somehow equals communism… I say this because I’ve been called a communist by many people who know me, while I have always rejected it explicitly!

    /rant

    • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Id recommend you reading “socialism: utopian and scientific” by Engels. Because to me you sound exactly like the utopian socialist of the past.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sounds a lot like me. That’s not communism, that’s just being a decent person. One that respects others and just wants everyone to live a good life without being the target of hate and harassment.

  • dayna@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think there is something fundamental about the pull of investigating, understanding, and reading that leads to so much crossover between the two.

  • naeap@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Just wait for the next stage as a libertarian socialist, without a leading communist party, because we can take care of us ourselves - it’s usually called anarchy (which doesn’t mean no social norms, just self-organisation without leadership)