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

  • PropaGandalf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    75
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hah what? So you are running from bad corporations to daddy government? Somwhere I took another turn because this journey turned me into a libertarian.

    • elint@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Libertarian? Im not American, so im unfamiliar – isn't that one just the Republican party with extra pedophilia?

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As an American in order to understand our libertarians you must first understand the gilded age of American capitalism. It was an era of extreme wealth disparity, zero regulations, and everything was disgusting and dangerous. Libertarians dislike everything that ended that.

      • ConfusedLlama@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, libertarian doesn't necessarily mean someone in line with the Libertarian Party of the US. If we want to consider the meanings of these terms by referring to how they are understood to in the US, we would be all very confused, since everything in the US seems to have a twisted meaning.

        See for example, their Fascist party is called the "Republican Party"… Their Right-center oriented party is often referred to as a "left-leaning" party… and finally there's another right-wing party with slightly different positions than the fascist party, calling themselves the "Libertarian Party", because why not! 🤷

    • irmoz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why do so many people think left vs right is government vs no government? It's fucking baffling. You think leftists just love the government? Just… why?? Who told you that? Why do you believe them?

      "So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state."

      So much love for state, here…

      I'll tell you something that might shock you. I'm pretty much a communist. I also hate the state. Does that confuse you? It shouldn't!

      • Petter1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Funny is that the same thinking apply to som left groups as well. (like anarchism)

        • irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Please tell me I misunderstood, and that you aren't implying anarchists love the state?

          • Petter1@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The initial answer to first comment stated that right side don’t want more laws vs left side wants more laws Then I thought, it is kinda the other way with my anarchist friends

            • irmoz@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              In essence, kinda. The extreme left advocates for statelessness (among other things of course), but the extreme right is all for absolutism. You have libertarians and an-caps, but they're honestly misinformed.

      • PropaGandalf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I'm sorry I assumed Marxism-Leninism instead of libertarian socialism because of the predominant tankie culture here on lemmy.

      • ConfusedLlama@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That's assuming that all workers have good intentions and consider the good of all humans before power.

        Well, surprise! Workers are humans. And we have seen many times what happens when uncontrolled power has been given to any human group or individual humans.

        There should be no power to the government. Only management positions. And those management positions need to be open to all people with abilities regarding those management positions.

        Of course this discussion in this form is an oversimplification (e.g. no mention of whether/how to run a police force, a judiciary, or a military), but the point is that not only a "government being run by workers" wouldn't solve any problem, it would introduce even more, in my opinion. It's just as bad as effectively letting the corporations or rich people run the government. Looks at the US

        • irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There should be no power to the government. Only management positions. And those management positions need to be open to all people with abilities regarding those management positions.

          Yo. You just described a worker run government.

      • Uncle_Iroh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        In theory it's great, but have you seen the complete fucking braindead idiots we share this world with?

        • imAadesh@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In India we have a corporation named AMUL. It is collectively run by 3.6 Million farmers. It has wide variety of dairy products such as milk, yoghurt, ice cream, chocolates etc. If farmers can… Then what's wrong in believing we can.

          Edit, its not 5000, it is 3.6 Million milk producers

          • ConfusedLlama@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No problem with that! That's actually a great thing, in my opinion. The problem, however would be a government run by any specific group of people with any specific properties other than their abilities. Because otherwise it would inevitably lead to dictatorship, as it has been tried many times throughout the history.

            In short:
            corporations run by workers -> Good!
            governments run specifically by workers/corporations/religious institutions/rich people/etc -> No, please no!

            Everyone should be able to participate in running and managing our society.

            • irmoz@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              "Worker" isn't a specific group

              It's everyone. We are all workers

              Workers controlling the state means absolute democracy for all.

              • ConfusedLlama@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ok, fair enough. So, everyone should be allowed, regardless of their way of thinking, to participate in managing the society. Right?
                (right?)

                (Also, in general, regardless of who governs, the government still should not, under any circumstances, limit individual liberties and human rights, free access to information, etc, since these are very basic stuff and should not be overridden by any socio-economic system.)

        • Prunebutt@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You do realize that some of these idiots have way more power (money) than they should have any right to? Elon Musk, Bobby Kotick, …

        • Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is: intelligence doesn’t help either. Sure, it lets you grasp problems pretty fast, makes you a good learner but do you have any ideas how many psychopaths are actually gifted?

          As an autistic individual, I‘d say the autistic way would be pretty awesome as a government. You have to tell the truth and are not allowed to care how anyone receives it (what could go wrong, right?). I‘m obviously joking, mostly. I‘d explore it though.

          I think the current way is the worst (turning more populist every day) because the majority of people is rather unintelligent and does not have a logical concept on life (from an autistic standpoint).

          • rephlekt2718@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Say more about how the majority of people don’t have a logical concept of life from an autistic standpoint, I’m curious!

            • Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you start reading about autistic people, you will most likely hear a couple things very often. It’s not a law as every autistic person is different but three common things I hear and read often are:

              • thruthful to a the point of rudeness
              • often use logic where most people would use gut feeling or intuition
              • have a particular knack for justice, often in a binary sense

              Obviously, there are a lot of other things that can identify or sum up autistic people but these fit the situation I‘m talking about. One more may be useful: we don’t suffer from the so called „framing effect“ where neurotypical people would make two different decisions on the same question according to the situation they’re in. Most autistic dont do this. We look at a problem without considering our current situation. Some say thats why we are less likely to become corrupt. We couldn’t care less if our friend really likes to work in our company. If someone else is better suited, he gets hired, for example.

              • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is a very poor understanding of autism. You've taken such a small sliver that this comparison is going to not only offend a lot of people but also confuse a lot of people. The given properties you're invoking are such a small subset of autism and not even that widespread and hell, it ignores the core reasoning behind some. Brutal honesty is often tied with inability to be empathetic. You're doing yourself a disservice using autism as your "model" here.

                • Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Thanks for your thoughts. I simply disagree. Being autistic means something else for every person who fits the description and for me it is this.

                  Attacking my personal understanding and using the wording you do is overreaching and mean. Instead of telling me to not say something, you could ask what I meant or how I arrived to this conclusion. But you chose not to.

                  If you are either a psychologist or an autistic person, you may speak about your own ideas. If not, I ask you to leave autistic people talking about the experience of being autistic be.

                  • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You literally just defeated your own argument. You just made the claim its your own personal definition and therefore would need to be described every single time you use it otherwise you would have a failure of communication.

                    Autism is different for everyone and that's why it's terrible to use it to describe the details of something.

                    And you aren't describing your own experience. You are describing a government system. If you are admitting it's extremely defined and only works in your head and not whoever you're talking to, you will have a failure to communicate.

                    Edit: actually, that folks disagreed with you enough to comment is more a sign of that failure than any explanation I can provide. And you still provided it as a way to describe other autistics despite claiming otherwise.

    • enkers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If there's one form of social structure that has a worse track with fewer successful examples than communism, it's libertarianism. Hope you like bears.

    • Prunebutt@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You know that Rothbard stole that term from anarcho-communists (libertarian socialists), right?

      Edit: Thought you meant right-wing libertarianism. Was confused, since IMHO Marx (without Lenin/Mao/etc.) is actually quite compatible with left-wing libertarianism. Even if he had a personal feud with Bakunin.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Libertarian cannot work without socialism essentially. You cannot have a free market where the worker doesn't own the means of production. Power will always pool to select individuals and those who have collected power have shown no remotely reliable track record to serve humanity's best interest over their own. In fact, it's regularly shown the exact opposite. Libertarianism is just an excuse to act against the good of society for your own benefit and fuck anyone you step on along the way. I've never heard a defense of libertarianism that is actually good for society. It's basically just dressing up the belief you can't be forced to do good, so you can't get in trouble if you do bad.

      • ConfusedLlama@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you're describing right libertarianism (which is what is known as libertarianism in the US, I think), which is influenced mainly by the ideas of Ayn Rand.

        But there is also left libertarianism, which is not based on "free market" as per those libertarians. Examples of people on this spectrum I think would be Noam Chomsky (US), Bernie Sanders (US), Jeremy Corbyn (UK)… and historically: Nestor Makhno (Ukraine), National confederation of labor (Spain, fighting against Franco), Iberian Anarchist Federation (Same), and effectively any other left-leaning Anarchism-oriented person, movement or party.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Looking into it, I can see some issues with the idea (I don't understand how it wouldn't fall pretty to the tragedy of the commons), plus I definitely don't think Sanders would fit into there. I don't see any of his proclaimed positions fitting into any definition of left-libertarian. Plus I don't see how left-libertarian wouldn't fall prey to the same problem we have with capitalism now, despite being an anti-capitalist notion. It's strong sense of individual ownership of anything other than natural resources seems at odds with a lot of other socialist concepts. I will caveat all of this with saying I have a very limited understanding of left-libertarianism, but just reading any given definition just seems to give rise to very clear contradictions. I feel like either it is problematic or no one is really sharing good definitions of it.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            (I don't understand how it wouldn't fall pretty to the tragedy of the commons)

            Because it's a fallacy and doesn't actually describe a commons