I was just thinking about why many things on Linux are better. Like the install process on Linux is years ahead of windows.
Then it occurred to me that windows only improves things that can make them money. If you need to install windows, then you can deal with the crappy installer.
Linux devs improve the parts they think need to be better. The decisions are not guided by money and can be made without bias.
Try installing debian some time, the installer makes windows' installer feel like its for a piece of software you got of a sketchy site that wants to install 16 other things not even related to it
We must be using different installers then, because between the amount of telemetry you have to turn off, the dark patterns, and the insistence on using a Microsoft account the whole experience reminds me of installing one of those "driver updaters" when I was a kid and before I learned that was a very bad idea
There's that one screen where you disable telemetry, which I've always consider a part of the install process, but is there anything malicious other than that? The process as a whole is quite straightforward in my experience.
Do you think it's a good idea to adapt licenses to be able to disallow training models on the source code? Do you think this could be enforced? If so, how?
With Microsoft, any love shown could well be the Embrace part of the strategy that will lead to Extend and then Extinguish just as soon as they can figure those parts out. They might already have a plan.
The fact they've been able to turn things to their advantage so far does not mean they don't have such a plan. Or won't ever have one.
In the 90s, Microsoft was pure evil. Now they are the “good guys.” Late 90s early 2000s, Google was the good guys, now they are evil. So the pendulum of perception swings.
Funny how all these folks embrace Linux on the cloud side. I don’t think they’ll be able to extinguish that. If they do manage to, they will be shooting them selves in the foot.
Never trust a corporation. It will almost always do whatever makes the most money for C-levels, shareholders and end-of-year profits, and when it doesn't, we should be even more wary of its actions. Occasionally these unspecified actions and choices align with the preferences of people outside the corporation and this makes the corporation "one of the good guys" for a while.
Corporations have no right to complain about being called out on this. In fact, they'd do better to acknowledge it. All it needs is one change of CEO and the whole corporation can change direction in a heartbeat. Twitter is an example of this.
Also see: The fable of the scorp(orat)ion and the frog.
Ah, the late 1900s when you could still pretend that Apple was the choice of the counterculture for no credible reason except for Apple marketing. Slacktivism, my dude. Worthless.
This meme is truly ancient. I bet those little iMacs go for a pretty penny on eBay now after everyone tossed them in the garbage circa 2003.
Those things were so hideous… and I actually thought they were cool at the time… well. Except OS9 sucked balls.
The power mac versions with the pull-to-open side were cooler. Mostly because there was a space above the PSU had just enough space to accommodate a tub of cottage cheese.
Pop it in on a Friday…. You’d be having class…. Elsewhere on Monday…
I think it was created to make fun of the RIAA’s campaign back then, I don’t think they actually did it. Kind of like the “NAPSTER BAD”
Metallica flash animation.
I'm pretty sure if I dug into my backup-of a backup-of a backup-of a backup to get to my old files from the 00s I'd find this there. I might have even ironically had this picture on my Zune.
It's also the worst. It was the backbone of both Nazi Germany, and modern Social Democracies. Capitalism is incredibly broad, both the most evil and most benign states in history have relied on Capitalism.
Socialism similarly is broad, and isn't at all synonymous with Stalinism or Maoism.
To be fair, the political compass is a vast oversimplification itself. For example, there cannot be an Anarchist Capitalism in any fashion, as Capitalism definitionally has a requirement for hierarchy to exist.
It's better to understand values and positions than try to place people on an imaginary grid.
There are a lot of benefits to it, like no real central leadership (more like central steering, not really iron fisted dictators which is what most implementations of it turned out to be), abolishing the monetary system (if implemented all the way), communes decide for themselves, good free healthcare, people are at the center of the system, not money/profit, etc.
Abolishing money is a very gradual process, not an immediate one. In lower stages, Labor Vouchers would be paid, and these represent an hour of labor. The difference is that labor Vouchers are destroyed upon first use.
Secondly, difficult, unpleasant, or otherwise undesirable labor would either be paid at a higher ratio, or require less labor per week to make the same amount of labor Vouchers. Alternatively, these dirty jobs may require rotation, so nobody is stuck working them. There are many ways of handling this, with more proposals than you would expect.
So labor vouchers are money that give special treatment to people who do undesirable tasks? Or are they forced upon people at random, like a temporary forced labor lottery?
That requires a different mindset and (maybe) a different level of eveolution. Food is free, you take what you need. Services are free, if your house needs something fixed, you call the adequate people, they do the job, that's it. Same for healthcare, you just go to the doctor, no bill, you just leave (we used to have that around here). Tech products are free, you take what you need (TV, stereo, phone, PC, etc.). You go to work and do the same as everyone else, do your job and go home.
This is a very simplified version and as I said, it requires a different mindset. We're not used to that right now, it's alien to us.
You have to put someone in charge of distributing the goods and services, set laws to make interactions between parties fair, and divy up resources, and remove/rehabilitate criminals, and that inherently creates a power imbalance. How do you suggest we keep the leaders beholden to the governed in this system so they dont abuse this power?
If you're going to debate a topic - and especially if you're going to make such a bold claim - you have a duty to learn and understand the topic you are debating.
Communism and socialism are primarily social orders, not economic ones. Yes, there must be an economic order in place, but as a derivative of the social order, to serve the social order and make it better, to grow and mature. That is not the case with democracy and capitalism.
Na, humans are just really good at making other living beings suffer, no matter the system. Communism is certainly not a pleasant system to imagine, however it is not inherently worse or better than others that we know.
What, genuinely, is unpleasant to imagine about a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society? I've only ever heard people say that Communism sounds great in theory but for some reason or another can't work in practice, or support for both. I've never once heard that Communism itself is unpleasant in theory.
Not just great, but eventually necessary. Capitalism can't outlast automation, increasingly automated production will eventually result in mass job loss and stagnation unless directed by society as a whole. It's important to ensure this transition goes well and we learn from transitions of the past to not repeat their mistakes.
Capitalism is undeniably declining, though. Production is through the roof, but wages have stagnated with respect to that. Factorization in the sense of industrialization was never seen to go against Capitalism, rather, with the rise of factories came the rise in Capitalism.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, of course.
Additionally, the fact that one prediction was wrong does not necessitate that all predictions are wrong.
Not everywhere, Yugoslavia is a good example of things being implemented the right way. There is always room for improvement of course, things were far from perfect... and perfect is just such a strong word, the idea is not to be perfect, to always improve it.
Yes, there was a war, but there were a lot of factors that contributed to that, including the US medling in internal affairs. In general, up until the death of Tito, everything was pretty much OK. The turmoils began after his death.
Do you know what most of the Communist countries that "invariably went to shit" had in common? One of the most powerful, red fearing countries in the world fucking with them relentlessly, despite the "fact" that "they would have failed if left to their own devices"
That's not the theory, though. The initial claim was that it's unpleasant to think about. Regardless of your claim that it "invariably leads to shit," that doesn't answer the initial question.
If the claim should truly have been that existing attempts at Communism are unpleasant to think about, rather than "Communism itself is unpleasant to think about," then it's just an issue with wording.
Theory is a plan for reality. If you can prove that tools have a mystical property that causes people to turn evil if they share them, be my guest. You can't actually tie that absurd claim to reality though, so you won't.
Personally, I love the idea of decentralization, collaboration, and democratization, which is why I love FOSS and am on Lemmy rather than Reddit.
Optional communalism I say, when you learn to cook, clean, or use a toilet, that's communalism, you didn't teach yourself and you didn't pay by wiping your own arse.
Different kind of bad. Jobs would get angry if you didn't understand his vision, but at least he had a vision. Ballmer's only vision is a pile of money.
But the dude is programming with the Communist devil so he is the one doing the communism!
They need a windows toting jesus to surf in with sunglasses and a guitar or something
There isn't, the message itself is satire. The audience is precisely who the message is for, it's making fun of Microsoft comparing FOSS to Communism, parodying red scare propaganda.
I highly doubt that. They are open-sourcing a small suite because it is economical to do so. Closed source means constantly having to re-train newcomers. Normalizing VsCode and friends will go a long ways. Same thing Google did with their IT certs.
Nah, nobody cares about their monopoly anymore. They got outmaneuvered on mobile, and they're stuck being a desktop OS while the rest of the market moves around them.
Happens a lot with monopolies. IBM was the biggest name in mainframes, but their PC division made a standard that other companies would take and run.
Microsoft wouldn't have put as much effort into WSL if it was just performative.
TCP/IP does not have a concept of Presentation or Session. Everything above it is just "Application", which is more sensible. There isn't much criticism to be had of layer 4 down, but when they got to layer 5 and 6, they were telecom people sticking their nose in software architecture. You can write networked applications with those layers if you like. I've seen it done, and it's fine. There are also plenty of other ways to architect it that also work just fine.
There isn't much criticism to be had of layer 4 down, but when they got to layer 5 and 6, they were telecom people sticking their nose in software architecture.
That is true.
But, you have to understand, back when OSI was made, the only thing which could benefit from it was telecom and banking... there were no PCs as we know them today. It's no surprise that OSI caters mostly to telecom software and needs.
And you could always just use the model up until layer 4, it's pretty good up until layer 4, and just do whatever you like after that... if you're developing your own protocol for something that is.
They recognized that PCs were the next big thing and needed one of their own. Large companies don't move fast, and IBM is certainly no exception, but they had to move fast now. So they took a bunch of off the shelf components that anyone else could have bought and called it their PC.
Everything except the BIOS. It regulated how the OS interacts with the hardware. Almost to the point where you could argue DOS isn't an OS at all, but just a thin command line layer over the BIOS, plus a simple minded file system.
Anyway, some people at Compaq make a cleanroom implementation of the BIOS and release an "IBM PC compatible". This quickly becomes the basis of everything we call a PC today. But IBM doesn't get to profit off it in the long run. They sold off their PC division decades ago.
The show "Halt and Catch Fire" has an excellent fictional example of the reverse engineering process.
Still, everything enterprise related or video/audio revolves around them (and Macs of course). That is one of their biggest assets now, as well as the "a perscription OS" spin they're trying to pull on Windows. Also, their subscription services, people that do all sorts of businesses use them a lot.
Even enterprise stuff has largely moved away from Microsoft. They are still dominant in some areas like the business desktop space/office 365/active directory, but 'enterprise' apps running on Windows Server (and associated stuff like IIS) with tight Microsoft integrations are a thing of the past.
Yeah, that's what I meant by enterprise use, not IIS. And they're still dominant on the audio/video production market. Basically, every aspect that is not just your everyday browsing or small office work.
Microsoft open-sourced all of dotnet core, which is arguably the largest and most well-maintained (with exceptions) collection of tools/platforms for developers that exsists to date. So, I don't really agree that they're just "making face"
This is a photoshop, the original from Modern Humorist said something like “when you download MP3s, you’re downloading communism” and it was attributed to the RIAA instead of Microsoft.
Source: I owned the print of this a couple decades ago, and you can probably find Modern Humorist on archive.org
At 10: This crypto nerd also seems to be using a lot of proprietary software as well as an Invidia GPU. Dave, have you got more information?
-Yes I do actually. Additionally, This Linux noob appears to be using a Chinese smartphone! People like this are certainly a disgrace to the Linux community.
FOSS isn't a political ideology itself, no. That's like saying Mutual Aid or Worker Democracy aren't political ideologies. Technically correct, but that wasn't the point, all of those are leftist structures.
Communism is a political ideology, and I don't think it can be globally considered fringe. Perhaps in the US, but not globally.
Do you consider drastically improving upon previous conditions to be a miserable failure? Ignoring that Communism has never existed, and only specific forms of Marxism-Leninism have existed, and ignoring that MLism is only a fraction of all of Communist ideology, even MLism drastically improved upon previous conditions.
I'm not even close to a tankie, but I'm genuinely curious what you mean by what you've said.
Sure, and capitalism has never existed either, only specific forms of libertarian-constitutionalism 🤷♂️
Now, if you can see how silly what I just typed is, you should be able to see how silly it is to claim communism has never been tried. You say yourself that Marxist-Leninism is a communist ideology, so if it's being attempted, then it's valid to say a form of communism is being attempted.
Do you consider drastically improving upon previous conditions to be a miserable failure?
All of the citation needed. Don't make the mistake of including the goals of outcome as part of the definition, that's just cheating. Op obviously rejects the idea that it makes things better, you can't just assume it a priori.
Socialism has existed, that's what the USSR was. It was an ML Socialist state, but it failed to become a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. In other words, it failed to reach Communism. Communism has been attempted, but never reached. It never reached the Communist stage, so Communism itself hasn't been tried, only the ML form of Socialism.
The Soviet Union doubled life expectancy from the mid 30s to the mid 70s, had constant GDP growth until it liberalized and collapsed, guaranteed free Healthcare and education, and had mass housing initiatives. It had far lower wealth inequality than before or after its existence. This is all freely available information.
Am I a USSR Stan? Fuck no, the Politburo was a corrupt mess and Stalin was a thug. However, you've completely misconstrued my argument.
Joking aside, politics are everywhere, and Lemmy is always going to be more political than reddit, as choosing Lemmy over Reddit is almost purely a choice based on political values.
Socialism means a central bureau decides what is needed and worked on
Meanwhile Capitalism is a System of decentralization
Foss Software isn't being centrally ordered because someone higher up decides it is needed. First the need arises and then the "Market" (The Developers out there) create a Solution to fullfill this need.
This Market, this pool of Developers is decentralized in smaller Groups. And that's good that way. I don't want someone to decide which Software gets developed. Not some CEO and definitely not some Bureaucrat.
I mean, the F in FOSS allows decentralized usage and a lot of People in the FOSS-Community prefer decentralized Solutions
Socialism means workers collectively own the means of production, and it isn't synonymous with central planning. Concepts like ParEcon, Worker Councils, Mutual Aid, and so forth reinforce this decentralized structure.
Capitalism is similarly not a system of decentralization but of many centralized islands. Each individual capitalist entity is very centralized in structure, more so than a system of Socialist entities, such as Syndicalism or Market Socialism.
FOSS itself rejects the profit motive and markets, and therefore is the antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism relies on private ownership, the profit motive, and IP protections, all of which FOSS abolishes.
Truthfully, the fact that you don't want some CEO or bureaucrat deciding what gets produced unilaterally is precisely why your views are actually that of a leftist. You desire more democratization of production, a Socialist ideal to the core!
The fact that FOSS is based on non-profit decentralization is the very reason FOSS communities are dominated by leftists.
Socialism means workers collectively own the means of production, and it isn't synonymous with central planning.
This can only be true if you stop thinking at the end of the sentence, without reading into any of the implications, or any circumstantial cause and effect.
If the workers collectively own everything, then that means that every worker has just as much right as anyone else to make decisions on how the process plays out. This means that the group has to come up with a way to make decisions. Since the group has to make a decision, and everybody has a right to make decisions, the group is effectively making decisions on behalf of those in the group.
If the workers collectively own everything, then that means they have to work together and organize to get things done. This means that the group has to come up with a way to organize. This means that the group will be deciding on behalf of those in the group what work is done by who.
If the workers collectively own everything, that means the workers have to decide what rules or laws to follow, and how to enforce them. So now the group has to decide by what convention it'll hold its members accountable. If it wants to hold members accountable, it implicitly has the power to do so.
A group with decision making power that enforces law among its members is a central authority.
A central authority with power over the market and all decision making is central planning.
Your description of capitalism legitimately sounds like mental gymnastics. You can call anything centralized if you reduce the context to only itself. That is dishonest, the context here is the market. If a market is centrally planned, then all aspects of the market need to be centrally planned by the same unit. That's what central planning means. A disunited group of private entities all planning things for themselves is absolutely not an example of central planning.
If Workers democratically and decentrally decide things, it's central planning, and not only is it central planning, it's more centralized than if they had no say whatsoever a la Capitalism?
I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to mental gymnastics like that. I prefer decentralization and democratization over letting the few control everything unopposed except by each other.
I didn't say the workers decided things, I said they had a right to, and then alluded to the diplomatic issues that creates.. In fact, I heavily implied they can't realistically make decisions when I said the group decides things on their behalf.
Central Planned Economy: an economy where decisions on what to produce, how to produce and for whom are taken by the government in a centrally managed bureaucracy.
In socialism, the market is controlled by the state. This fits the definition of central planning perfectly.
In capitalism, the market is not controlled by a centralized bureaucracy.
You followed an arbitrary logical chain to depict one form of Socialism, yes.
In Capitalism, the market is controlled by Capitalists, who represent a minor fraction of the population. In Socialism, the economy is controlled by everyone.
I was just thinking about why many things on Linux are better. Like the install process on Linux is years ahead of windows.
Then it occurred to me that windows only improves things that can make them money. If you need to install windows, then you can deal with the crappy installer.
Linux devs improve the parts they think need to be better. The decisions are not guided by money and can be made without bias.
Now that you've got the idea apply it to everything in capitalist society. Especially if something is owned by shareholders.
This realization somehow amazes and depresses me at the same time
Most people don’t install windows. It comes pre installed on something they bought. Microsoft probably puts more time into automating the process.
Also, last time I installed windows it was a breeze. I haven’t installed Linux in at least a decade, so I can’t speak for that.
Try installing debian some time, the installer makes windows' installer feel like its for a piece of software you got of a sketchy site that wants to install 16 other things not even related to it
I mean, sounds exactly like the Windows installer to me
We must be using different installers then, because between the amount of telemetry you have to turn off, the dark patterns, and the insistence on using a Microsoft account the whole experience reminds me of installing one of those "driver updaters" when I was a kid and before I learned that was a very bad idea
I trust Bonzi Buddy more than anything made by microsoft at this point.
Sounds like the decisions about what to make, how to make it and for whom to make it are done by the people doing the work. 🤔🫢
Sounds pretty communist
The install process on windows is clicking a few buttons.
For the vast majority of users it's a way better experience.
From my experience(installing windows 10, 11, linux mint and nobara), installing linux is way easier than installing windows
That's the default tracking experience, if you fall for all the dark patterns. Was a while ago, hunh?
Again the vast vast majority of users don't care. And that's their target audience.
There's that one screen where you disable telemetry, which I've always consider a part of the install process, but is there anything malicious other than that? The process as a whole is quite straightforward in my experience.
Anyone know how I can program Anarchism?
Allow all code merges automatically
Anarchy is not absence of rules, it's absence of hierarchy. So you could still collectively agree to certain rules for merges.
Basicaly democracy on steroids
So we could use a blockchain....... (/s)
But then one person disagree with those rules and we're back to no rules
You can have a majority vote system.
Which is not a collective agreement and not anarchism, if it imposes rules on those who voted against.
Is it not possible for the people to all agree to respect the result of the majority vote even if they voted against the motion?
Which requires a consensus.
Open a GitHub repo with a hello world script and accept each and every commit
work on decentralized technology like lemmy
The same way, generally. Work on decentralized, open source software. It's modern Mutual Aid.
dd if=/dev/random of=anarchism bs=1024 count=1024;chmod 755 anarchism;./anarchismHoly hell, I need to try this in a vm sometime!
The output is not valid, it won't do anything... maybe write to a file "anarchism" in the dir in which the terminal was opened.
I think that emulates anarchism pretty well.
Well, not exactly. Anarchism is pretty close to what Socialism is, in terms of distributing labour.
Open a git repo.
Anarchists are just people who think Stalinism is communism and haven't read Marx yet
Microsoft loves open source nowadays.
People do a huge amount of their work for free.
They're also heavily invested in Linux for the cloud. So any work done there helps them.
Well, capitalism is an abusive relationship so we shouldn't expect more.
Do you think it's a good idea to adapt licenses to be able to disallow training models on the source code? Do you think this could be enforced? If so, how?
This was meant to be detached from commercial use, just on "training models".
With Microsoft, any love shown could well be the Embrace part of the strategy that will lead to Extend and then Extinguish just as soon as they can figure those parts out. They might already have a plan.
The fact they've been able to turn things to their advantage so far does not mean they don't have such a plan. Or won't ever have one.
In the 90s, Microsoft was pure evil. Now they are the “good guys.” Late 90s early 2000s, Google was the good guys, now they are evil. So the pendulum of perception swings.
Funny how all these folks embrace Linux on the cloud side. I don’t think they’ll be able to extinguish that. If they do manage to, they will be shooting them selves in the foot.
Never trust a corporation. It will almost always do whatever makes the most money for C-levels, shareholders and end-of-year profits, and when it doesn't, we should be even more wary of its actions. Occasionally these unspecified actions and choices align with the preferences of people outside the corporation and this makes the corporation "one of the good guys" for a while.
Corporations have no right to complain about being called out on this. In fact, they'd do better to acknowledge it. All it needs is one change of CEO and the whole corporation can change direction in a heartbeat. Twitter is an example of this.
Also see: The fable of the scorp(orat)ion and the frog.
FWIW the 90s ended over 20 years ago. A lot of people were not alive yet, or were only children at the height of Microsofts tomfuckery.
The 90s ended 23 years ago. And to not just live through but also "care" about MsS doings in the 90s someone needs to be even older.
Its really not that far fetched that a lot of younger people may see MS in a more positive way than you do apparently.
As someone in their mid 40S: YYEAAARGGHH
Seems unlikely with how they work now. You also can't really extinguish foss.
.Net is cross platform and open source as well now.
Maybe if Linux becomes a competitor in the desktop market. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
Steve Balmer wasn't as keen on it...
Ah, the late 1900s when you could still pretend that Apple was the choice of the counterculture for no credible reason except for Apple marketing. Slacktivism, my dude. Worthless.
This meme is truly ancient. I bet those little iMacs go for a pretty penny on eBay now after everyone tossed them in the garbage circa 2003.
On an old coloured plastic iMac too.
Those things were so hideous… and I actually thought they were cool at the time… well. Except OS9 sucked balls.
The power mac versions with the pull-to-open side were cooler. Mostly because there was a space above the PSU had just enough space to accommodate a tub of cottage cheese.
Pop it in on a Friday…. You’d be having class…. Elsewhere on Monday…
Herecy
Heresy
Hear say
Hennessy
Hershey
Heracles
Holy shit, this is an old old meme. This image has got to be at least 25 years old
it's a parody of this poster from early 2000s
You wouldn't download the means of production!
You wouldn't steal a policeman's helmet!
and then go to the toilet in his helmet!
And then steal it back!
https://gcc.gnu.org/
Of course tankie-shaming is something the RIAA would do to deter piracy....
I think it was created to make fun of the RIAA’s campaign back then, I don’t think they actually did it. Kind of like the “NAPSTER BAD” Metallica flash animation.
I'm pretty sure if I dug into my backup-of a backup-of a backup-of a backup to get to my old files from the 00s I'd find this there. I might have even ironically had this picture on my Zune.
I know, isn't it great?
Like capitalism isn't also horrible?
It's also the worst. It was the backbone of both Nazi Germany, and modern Social Democracies. Capitalism is incredibly broad, both the most evil and most benign states in history have relied on Capitalism.
Socialism similarly is broad, and isn't at all synonymous with Stalinism or Maoism.
It's almost as if authoritarian/
liberallibertarian and capitalism/socialism are orthogonal directions on the political compassTo be fair, the political compass is a vast oversimplification itself. For example, there cannot be an Anarchist Capitalism in any fashion, as Capitalism definitionally has a requirement for hierarchy to exist.
It's better to understand values and positions than try to place people on an imaginary grid.
Libertarian*, but yeah.
You know that communism isn't the same thing as stalinism at all right?
Was fine for the smurfs
You've obviously never read anything about communism or socialism.
But where are the good outcomes of communism? I agree that communism is terrible does not make much sense as a general statement.
There are a lot of benefits to it, like no real central leadership (more like central steering, not really iron fisted dictators which is what most implementations of it turned out to be), abolishing the monetary system (if implemented all the way), communes decide for themselves, good free healthcare, people are at the center of the system, not money/profit, etc.
If you abolish the monetary system, how do people acquire goods and services and get compensated for their labor?
Abolishing money is a very gradual process, not an immediate one. In lower stages, Labor Vouchers would be paid, and these represent an hour of labor. The difference is that labor Vouchers are destroyed upon first use.
Secondly, difficult, unpleasant, or otherwise undesirable labor would either be paid at a higher ratio, or require less labor per week to make the same amount of labor Vouchers. Alternatively, these dirty jobs may require rotation, so nobody is stuck working them. There are many ways of handling this, with more proposals than you would expect.
So labor vouchers are money that give special treatment to people who do undesirable tasks? Or are they forced upon people at random, like a temporary forced labor lottery?
That requires a different mindset and (maybe) a different level of eveolution. Food is free, you take what you need. Services are free, if your house needs something fixed, you call the adequate people, they do the job, that's it. Same for healthcare, you just go to the doctor, no bill, you just leave (we used to have that around here). Tech products are free, you take what you need (TV, stereo, phone, PC, etc.). You go to work and do the same as everyone else, do your job and go home.
This is a very simplified version and as I said, it requires a different mindset. We're not used to that right now, it's alien to us.
You have to put someone in charge of distributing the goods and services, set laws to make interactions between parties fair, and divy up resources, and remove/rehabilitate criminals, and that inherently creates a power imbalance. How do you suggest we keep the leaders beholden to the governed in this system so they dont abuse this power?
If you're going to debate a topic - and especially if you're going to make such a bold claim - you have a duty to learn and understand the topic you are debating.
You've neglected that duty.
Derail the conversation... OK, now I know you're just parroting what others have told you all your life.
Communism and socialism are primarily social orders, not economic ones. Yes, there must be an economic order in place, but as a derivative of the social order, to serve the social order and make it better, to grow and mature. That is not the case with democracy and capitalism.
Na, humans are just really good at making other living beings suffer, no matter the system. Communism is certainly not a pleasant system to imagine, however it is not inherently worse or better than others that we know.
What, genuinely, is unpleasant to imagine about a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society? I've only ever heard people say that Communism sounds great in theory but for some reason or another can't work in practice, or support for both. I've never once heard that Communism itself is unpleasant in theory.
Yeah in theory it sounds pretty darn great
Not just great, but eventually necessary. Capitalism can't outlast automation, increasingly automated production will eventually result in mass job loss and stagnation unless directed by society as a whole. It's important to ensure this transition goes well and we learn from transitions of the past to not repeat their mistakes.
Basically we're looking at the choice between Star Trek and Mad Max.
Pretty much, though Star Trek may look wildly different. There are many "good" outcomes, but none of them will be a continuation of Capitalism.
Capitalism is undeniably declining, though. Production is through the roof, but wages have stagnated with respect to that. Factorization in the sense of industrialization was never seen to go against Capitalism, rather, with the rise of factories came the rise in Capitalism.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, of course.
Additionally, the fact that one prediction was wrong does not necessitate that all predictions are wrong.
Not everywhere, Yugoslavia is a good example of things being implemented the right way. There is always room for improvement of course, things were far from perfect... and perfect is just such a strong word, the idea is not to be perfect, to always improve it.
Yes, there was a war, but there were a lot of factors that contributed to that, including the US medling in internal affairs. In general, up until the death of Tito, everything was pretty much OK. The turmoils began after his death.
Do you know what most of the Communist countries that "invariably went to shit" had in common? One of the most powerful, red fearing countries in the world fucking with them relentlessly, despite the "fact" that "they would have failed if left to their own devices"
So when you see a group of kids building a sand castle together on the beach it's ok to just walk over and kick it over right?
That's not the theory, though. The initial claim was that it's unpleasant to think about. Regardless of your claim that it "invariably leads to shit," that doesn't answer the initial question.
If the claim should truly have been that existing attempts at Communism are unpleasant to think about, rather than "Communism itself is unpleasant to think about," then it's just an issue with wording.
So then it's a wording issue, though it's more accurate to say that revolution itself invariably turns to shit.
You don't live in theory so it doesn't matter if communism isn't unpleasant in theory.
Theory is a plan for reality. If you can prove that tools have a mystical property that causes people to turn evil if they share them, be my guest. You can't actually tie that absurd claim to reality though, so you won't.
Personally, I love the idea of decentralization, collaboration, and democratization, which is why I love FOSS and am on Lemmy rather than Reddit.
Optional communalism I say, when you learn to cook, clean, or use a toilet, that's communalism, you didn't teach yourself and you didn't pay by wiping your own arse.
Did Bill jump over them first?
For people needing a reference
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
For people needing a reference
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I’d like to know the argument that leads up to something like that.
He's the angriest CEO you'll ever meet with close to 0 intellect... probably why he was removed from that position ages ago.
Cocaine bear but human
Yep, spot on 👍.
Worst than Steve Jobs?
https://youtu.be/7GM4Lt5k24s?si=gA1RCO14viDatpSA
https://youtu.be/XxbJw8PrIkc?si=Ib3qb5pxOM7ieqX2
Hahahahahahaha holy shit what a nut job!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/XxbJw8PrIkc?si=Ib3qb5pxOM7ieqX2
https://piped.video/7GM4Lt5k24s?si=gA1RCO14viDatpSA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Different kind of bad. Jobs would get angry if you didn't understand his vision, but at least he had a vision. Ballmer's only vision is a pile of money.
I feel like that is apples vision too?
Apple now? Sure. Jobs was an asshole, but he didn't only care about money.
To be honest, this is true. With Jobs, it wasn't just about the money.
Well... no 😂... I doubt there is anyone worse than him 😂.
He's such an 80's wolf of wall street businessman I'm surprised he doesn't have boneitis.
When the program is free, it's socialism. The more free the program is, the more socialism it is. When the source is free, it's communism.
Ironically, the freer the source, the less communism.
GPL: our source is free and yours must be too.
BSD/MIT: our source is free and you can't blame us.
Public domain: do whatever the hell you want.
A reminder from Microsoft... While he's using a Mac?
But the dude is programming with the Communist devil so he is the one doing the communism! They need a windows toting jesus to surf in with sunglasses and a guitar or something
Preferably on the back of a dinosaur.
Balmer? Yes, I believe that was one of the biggest blunders at a conference he was attending 😂.
No Mac. That's one of those cool colorful monitors from 1999
Those were iMacs...
Maybe the first ones. I definitely had one for my windows 98 PC.
Talk shit on FOSS, by comparing it to communism like it’s a bad thing, on Lemmy.
Now there’s a message this place will love, lol.
It's clearly a red scare parody.
Of course, and it’s an old image too, but it still amused me thinking of the contrast between the message and the current audience.
There isn't, the message itself is satire. The audience is precisely who the message is for, it's making fun of Microsoft comparing FOSS to Communism, parodying red scare propaganda.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, of course.
Trying to explain satire is communism
it seems like a pro-communist programming message to me. the red dude looks super cool and supportive.
Yeah, he’s probably giving mad tips to the dev and he looks happy, so we know the red dude is not just a dickhead.
Hey Microsoft, your GitHub is showing
If github is still showing, you must be logged in.
https://github.com/rnicrosoft
(At some point that username existed: don't know when it was killed)
Well at least they are slighty more open to open source software since it make them money.
They're just making face, doing what is necessary to prove they're not evil, cuz open source software is in now.
I highly doubt that. They are open-sourcing a small suite because it is economical to do so. Closed source means constantly having to re-train newcomers. Normalizing VsCode and friends will go a long ways. Same thing Google did with their IT certs.
Nah, nobody cares about their monopoly anymore. They got outmaneuvered on mobile, and they're stuck being a desktop OS while the rest of the market moves around them.
Happens a lot with monopolies. IBM was the biggest name in mainframes, but their PC division made a standard that other companies would take and run.
Microsoft wouldn't have put as much effort into WSL if it was just performative.
Did IBM really invent the OSI model on their own? I thought the IEEE standardized that with help from programmers all over the industry?
Hmm? I wasn't talking about OSI.
If you're thinking BIOS, that was originally IBM proprietary stuff.
OSI started from a lot of telecom companies, who inflicted their silly ideas of Presentation and Session layers on us all.
Actually, it's not that silly, TCP/IP is built on that model, so are many other protocols. Though yes, it can be done better.
TCP/IP does not have a concept of Presentation or Session. Everything above it is just "Application", which is more sensible. There isn't much criticism to be had of layer 4 down, but when they got to layer 5 and 6, they were telecom people sticking their nose in software architecture. You can write networked applications with those layers if you like. I've seen it done, and it's fine. There are also plenty of other ways to architect it that also work just fine.
That is true.
But, you have to understand, back when OSI was made, the only thing which could benefit from it was telecom and banking... there were no PCs as we know them today. It's no surprise that OSI caters mostly to telecom software and needs.
And you could always just use the model up until layer 4, it's pretty good up until layer 4, and just do whatever you like after that... if you're developing your own protocol for something that is.
No I'm definitely thinking of the OSI model lol
What are you talking about, then? What IBM standard did everyone else adopt?
BIOS.
They recognized that PCs were the next big thing and needed one of their own. Large companies don't move fast, and IBM is certainly no exception, but they had to move fast now. So they took a bunch of off the shelf components that anyone else could have bought and called it their PC.
Everything except the BIOS. It regulated how the OS interacts with the hardware. Almost to the point where you could argue DOS isn't an OS at all, but just a thin command line layer over the BIOS, plus a simple minded file system.
Anyway, some people at Compaq make a cleanroom implementation of the BIOS and release an "IBM PC compatible". This quickly becomes the basis of everything we call a PC today. But IBM doesn't get to profit off it in the long run. They sold off their PC division decades ago.
The show "Halt and Catch Fire" has an excellent fictional example of the reverse engineering process.
I'll go out on a limb here and assume they're talking about the IBM PC.
Still, everything enterprise related or video/audio revolves around them (and Macs of course). That is one of their biggest assets now, as well as the "a perscription OS" spin they're trying to pull on Windows. Also, their subscription services, people that do all sorts of businesses use them a lot.
Even enterprise stuff has largely moved away from Microsoft. They are still dominant in some areas like the business desktop space/office 365/active directory, but 'enterprise' apps running on Windows Server (and associated stuff like IIS) with tight Microsoft integrations are a thing of the past.
Yeah, that's what I meant by enterprise use, not IIS. And they're still dominant on the audio/video production market. Basically, every aspect that is not just your everyday browsing or small office work.
Microsoft open-sourced all of dotnet core, which is arguably the largest and most well-maintained (with exceptions) collection of tools/platforms for developers that exsists to date. So, I don't really agree that they're just "making face"
This makes me like it even more.
I find the irony of the kid being on a shitty early 00’s iMac to be hilarious here
Based.
o7
This is great, where are the rest?
This is a photoshop, the original from Modern Humorist said something like “when you download MP3s, you’re downloading communism” and it was attributed to the RIAA instead of Microsoft.
Source: I owned the print of this a couple decades ago, and you can probably find Modern Humorist on archive.org
Thanks!
That iconic mac was the icing on the
cakekekShit, I though at least one will be like "where linux" 🤣🤣🤣.
And here I thought I was programming a Bluetooth a2dp app.... I guess C is for communism?
Communism!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Communism!
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Now there's a guy I would have pegged as an Epstein disciple.
Yeah, but why would Microsoft post this? They barely make any open-source software so why are they promoting FOSS development?
It's a meme dude, it's a play on poster from the early 2000's about pirating media.
Okay but is this completely fake or was this an actual FOSS promotion poster and the creator of the meme wrote Microsoft on it?
It was a joke, a meme, nothing more, meant to amuse. No promotion intended.
Use the right tool for the job
Communism...
Nah, Linus would never let that happen.
Man on crypto themed instance has dumbass take, more news at 10.
I am aware of that lmao
At 10: This crypto nerd also seems to be using a lot of proprietary software as well as an Invidia GPU. Dave, have you got more information?
-Yes I do actually. Additionally, This Linux noob appears to be using a Chinese smartphone! People like this are certainly a disgrace to the Linux community.
Oh great, the Communists have found this community. Time to make a new one.
Why are you surprised that there's huge overlap between FOSS and Leftist beliefs? They go hand in hand.
They in fact do not. One can be conservative and support FOSS. Saying that is a over generalization
Leftism is about collective ownership of the means of production, whereas Capitalism is concerned with individual ownership.
Supporting FOSS over Capitalism is a leftist take.
I don't think you understand what FOSS is. Its not a political ideology. Honestly neither is communism as it is a fringe belief.
FOSS isn't a political ideology itself, no. That's like saying Mutual Aid or Worker Democracy aren't political ideologies. Technically correct, but that wasn't the point, all of those are leftist structures.
Communism is a political ideology, and I don't think it can be globally considered fringe. Perhaps in the US, but not globally.
Well anyways I don't think it should be allowed in this community. This isn't a communist community.
Everything is political, where do you draw the line? Where it doesn't align with your views?
tell me you're a conservative without saying it lmao
So USA is not capitalism? Because it is country with most anti-individual and anti-ownership practices.
It's one of the most Capitalist countries on the planet, and is filled with individual Capital Owners that employ Proletarians.
Then explain patent trolls and general "you will own nothing and pay for it".
Capitalism.
Yeah but communists are a whole other level. They consider liberals to be nazis lol
That's not really true, in my experience. They see Nazis as Nazis, and Liberals as misguided and naive.
As is the case with most groups, there are loud douchebags with extremist views (relative to the group) that give a bad impression.
Right, whereas we see them as deeply stupid and naive.
Even though all real world implementations of communism have failed miserably, liberals must be the naive ones.
Do you consider drastically improving upon previous conditions to be a miserable failure? Ignoring that Communism has never existed, and only specific forms of Marxism-Leninism have existed, and ignoring that MLism is only a fraction of all of Communist ideology, even MLism drastically improved upon previous conditions.
I'm not even close to a tankie, but I'm genuinely curious what you mean by what you've said.
Sure, and capitalism has never existed either, only specific forms of libertarian-constitutionalism 🤷♂️
Now, if you can see how silly what I just typed is, you should be able to see how silly it is to claim communism has never been tried. You say yourself that Marxist-Leninism is a communist ideology, so if it's being attempted, then it's valid to say a form of communism is being attempted.
All of the citation needed. Don't make the mistake of including the goals of outcome as part of the definition, that's just cheating. Op obviously rejects the idea that it makes things better, you can't just assume it a priori.
Socialism has existed, that's what the USSR was. It was an ML Socialist state, but it failed to become a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. In other words, it failed to reach Communism. Communism has been attempted, but never reached. It never reached the Communist stage, so Communism itself hasn't been tried, only the ML form of Socialism.
The Soviet Union doubled life expectancy from the mid 30s to the mid 70s, had constant GDP growth until it liberalized and collapsed, guaranteed free Healthcare and education, and had mass housing initiatives. It had far lower wealth inequality than before or after its existence. This is all freely available information.
Am I a USSR Stan? Fuck no, the Politburo was a corrupt mess and Stalin was a thug. However, you've completely misconstrued my argument.
Why downvote? I and comrade Starlight approve.
The more communities - the more communists.
Good luck
Can we keep mainstream politics out of here please. I'm sick of them getting shoved into everything.
Is Communism "mainstream" now?
Joking aside, politics are everywhere, and Lemmy is always going to be more political than reddit, as choosing Lemmy over Reddit is almost purely a choice based on political values.
everything is political.
FOSS is political.
As much as I'd hate to admit it, everything is politics... talking with your wife is politics.
Marriage is a legal institution codified into law, so... Yes. Especially when it comes to who gets to marry and how.
Getting married is the easy part. Staying married is the hard part 😂.
No. Foss Software is peak Capitalism.
Socialism means a central bureau decides what is needed and worked on
Meanwhile Capitalism is a System of decentralization
Foss Software isn't being centrally ordered because someone higher up decides it is needed. First the need arises and then the "Market" (The Developers out there) create a Solution to fullfill this need.
This Market, this pool of Developers is decentralized in smaller Groups. And that's good that way. I don't want someone to decide which Software gets developed. Not some CEO and definitely not some Bureaucrat.
I mean, the F in FOSS allows decentralized usage and a lot of People in the FOSS-Community prefer decentralized Solutions
Wrong on several fronts.
Socialism means workers collectively own the means of production, and it isn't synonymous with central planning. Concepts like ParEcon, Worker Councils, Mutual Aid, and so forth reinforce this decentralized structure.
Capitalism is similarly not a system of decentralization but of many centralized islands. Each individual capitalist entity is very centralized in structure, more so than a system of Socialist entities, such as Syndicalism or Market Socialism.
FOSS itself rejects the profit motive and markets, and therefore is the antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism relies on private ownership, the profit motive, and IP protections, all of which FOSS abolishes.
Truthfully, the fact that you don't want some CEO or bureaucrat deciding what gets produced unilaterally is precisely why your views are actually that of a leftist. You desire more democratization of production, a Socialist ideal to the core!
The fact that FOSS is based on non-profit decentralization is the very reason FOSS communities are dominated by leftists.
Free - rejection of the profit motive
Open Source - rejection of individually owned IP
FOSS is fundamentally anticapitalist.
Found the GPL fundie.
Even if they do, if they follow the license and release the source, that's fine by me.
This can only be true if you stop thinking at the end of the sentence, without reading into any of the implications, or any circumstantial cause and effect.
If the workers collectively own everything, then that means that every worker has just as much right as anyone else to make decisions on how the process plays out. This means that the group has to come up with a way to make decisions. Since the group has to make a decision, and everybody has a right to make decisions, the group is effectively making decisions on behalf of those in the group.
If the workers collectively own everything, then that means they have to work together and organize to get things done. This means that the group has to come up with a way to organize. This means that the group will be deciding on behalf of those in the group what work is done by who.
If the workers collectively own everything, that means the workers have to decide what rules or laws to follow, and how to enforce them. So now the group has to decide by what convention it'll hold its members accountable. If it wants to hold members accountable, it implicitly has the power to do so.
A group with decision making power that enforces law among its members is a central authority.
A central authority with power over the market and all decision making is central planning.
Your description of capitalism legitimately sounds like mental gymnastics. You can call anything centralized if you reduce the context to only itself. That is dishonest, the context here is the market. If a market is centrally planned, then all aspects of the market need to be centrally planned by the same unit. That's what central planning means. A disunited group of private entities all planning things for themselves is absolutely not an example of central planning.
If Workers democratically and decentrally decide things, it's central planning, and not only is it central planning, it's more centralized than if they had no say whatsoever a la Capitalism?
I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to mental gymnastics like that. I prefer decentralization and democratization over letting the few control everything unopposed except by each other.
I didn't say the workers decided things, I said they had a right to, and then alluded to the diplomatic issues that creates.. In fact, I heavily implied they can't realistically make decisions when I said the group decides things on their behalf.
Central Planned Economy: an economy where decisions on what to produce, how to produce and for whom are taken by the government in a centrally managed bureaucracy.
In socialism, the market is controlled by the state. This fits the definition of central planning perfectly.
In capitalism, the market is not controlled by a centralized bureaucracy.
You followed an arbitrary logical chain to depict one form of Socialism, yes.
In Capitalism, the market is controlled by Capitalists, who represent a minor fraction of the population. In Socialism, the economy is controlled by everyone.
Take my gold