Reading about FOSS philosophy, degoogling, becoming against corporations, and now a full-blown woke communist (like Linus Torvalds)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
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.
Libertarian? Im not American, so im unfamiliar -- isn't that one just the Republican party with extra pedophilia?
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.
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! 🤷
I'm not American either so idk
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!
Because all they know of history is the soviet union
Because they confuse the history of the soviet union with the propaganda they've been fed about it.
fixed that for you
I'm sorry I assumed Marxism-Leninism instead of libertarian socialism because of the predominant tankie culture here on lemmy.
Don't let the tankies steal the term "communism".
I even don't want to give up Marx.
I never knew what a tankie was until I came to Lemmy... now I see it everywhere. It's gross...
Funny is that the same thinking apply to som left groups as well. (like anarchism)
Please tell me I misunderstood, and that you aren't implying anarchists love the state?
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
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.
If workers run the government, then sure.
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
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.
"Worker" isn't a specific group
It's everyone. We are all workers
Workers controlling the state means absolute democracy for all.
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.)
You do realize that some of these idiots have way more power (money) than they should have any right to? Elon Musk, Bobby Kotick, ...
I've actually never seen any reason to believe that he has any engineering chops.
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).
Say more about how the majority of people don’t have a logical concept of life from an autistic standpoint, I’m curious!
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for using less violent speech this time. I still don’t understand why you feel like you need to correct my opinion here. Again, if you‘re on the spectrum or an expert, feel free to identify yourself. Otherwise I will stay by my opinion. Have a good one.
Fuck that. No one should have to share their anything even remotely shared to their mental health for some sort of odd gatekeeping purposes.
I gave my opinion. You are a terrible communicator and using a condition in a way that is offensive and then trying to force people to put themselves when they may not want to. So fuck that even more. That's shameful behavior. If you want to be offensive and communicate poorly, so be it. That's my opinion. And so be it. If you can justify forcing people to do things and if you can justify using derogatory statements to describe other people, which you literally did, that's on you. We're done here.
You realize that you are using abusive language while accusing me of being a terrible communicator? That is absolutely ironic.
Secondly, I solely reserved myself from being violently corrected in my opinion/experience by a person who does not show any credentials to do so and uses abusive speech. It’s a security function, nothing else.
You can try and turn this around all you want. It’s like telling a person of color that their account or opinion about people of color is shit while not at all having a say in that matter.
Gatekeeping, in opposition to your opinion, is keeping someone from a community, denying them rights or identity. Source: urban dictionary. You are trying to force your opinion on someone who is telling you that they are not accepting that unless you show that you have reason for this behavior.
I would not accept your opinion solely based on your way of communicating it but I would consider trying to to look past that if you had shown anything resembling experience.
I‘m sorry if this is not understandable for you. I really tried. Have a good one.
You realize you are also being abusive with your terminology and spreading of really poor stereotypes? You've also been condescending. You also tried to say explicitly something was only about you while trying to use that to describe literally other people? You also then continued to say your definition is yours alone but then tried to use it as a way to convey meaning to a general audience?
Abusive language isn't necessarily poor communication. There is nothing ironic there. It doesn't fit the definition of the word at all.
You've been both offensive and poor at communicating though.
If I need to say it, yes, I am, and you're a shitty person for even asking.
I'm done. And you're terrible and should be ashamed.
Seeing you frothing at the mouth does give me some satisfaction, not gonna lie.
You‘re still oblivious to the fact that we may very well have misunderstood each other in the beginning and could have very well just discussed this in a meaningful way. You chose violence instead and I chose to let you hit a wall with me.
I suggest you think long and hard about the way you approach people. Just because someone is wrong does not mean you have the right to condescend on them and neither do you have the right to fault them for it. You started this by not being able to discuss in a healthy matter. This is on you and you alone.
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
Yo. You just described a worker run government.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because it's a fallacy and doesn't actually describe a commons
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.
I ran from bad corporations to workplace democracy where does that place me?
Full democracy? If so then rather something liberal.