• manicdave ( manicdave@feddit.uk ) OP
        43·
        2 years ago

        There’s some weird witch hunt going on against Dessalines on there. I don’t agree with him on everything, but them trying to hound him out for being a communist, whilst using software he made because he’s a communist is kinda funny.

        • GregorGizeh ( GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip ) 
          37·
          2 years ago

          Honestly I am dismayed we have this dumb ass reddit culture take hold. Not everything you disagree with must be bannned from the sub defederated immediately, your instance doesnt owe you a feed that’s exactly how you like it. Defederation should be the last resort, since it entirely breaks communication and interaction between the instance’s users.

          Instead, use the client side blocking features to clean up your feed. Personally I have blocked over 80 communities and users because they are centered around topics or beliefs I dont want on my feed, I blocked two instances as well, but I can still read their user’s comments and interact with their users outside the instances.

          Defederating is just splintering the fediverse. Unless at all avoidable it shouldn’t be done, in fact I chose my instance specifically because it defederates nobody but meta and illegal content such as gore and csam.

        • r00ty ( r00ty@kbin.life ) 
          9·
          2 years ago

          I always saw open source as more socialist than specifically communist. Similar to volunteering in your community. Except the community is the whole world, and you don’t need to leave your house. Bonus!

          • manicdave ( manicdave@feddit.uk ) OP
            11·
            2 years ago

            To be honest I’d say it’s more similar to anarchism than socialism. Anarchism is voluntarist whilst socialism demands state power first. Both are ideally paths to communism* though so I’m going to say “communism” 'cause it annoys the most people.

            communism as in post capitalist, post state utopia, not Stalinism*

      • Cowbee [he/they] ( Cowbee@lemmy.ml ) 
        32·
        2 years ago

        .world is basically Reddit 2, but filled with the most radical liberals that specifically want to not be exposed to leftist instances, even db0 has a tenuous relation with them.

        .world is constantly on anticommunist witch hunts, and now that Lemmygrad and Hexbear are not visible to them thanks to defederation, .ml is the last large Marxist-aligned instance they can see, so it’s the new boogeyman.

        One of them tried to tell me Lemmy is Capitalist because posting is value, lmao

          • Cowbee [he/they] ( Cowbee@lemmy.ml ) 
            5·
            2 years ago

            Which part? Posting being value? They tried to use Marx’ Labor Theory of Value to say that because admins aren’t decided democratically, and posting is labor and therefore creates Value, Lemmy is Capitalist.

            This is, in fact, ridiculous, because Lemmy has a Use-Value but no Exchange-Value. Posting isn’t labor, and anyone can fork it.

  • intensely_human ( intensely_human@lemm.ee ) Banned
    24·
    2 years ago

    Yes FOSS is communism, spontaneously arising under capitalism, requiring zero bloody revolutions.

    Marx was right about the need for people to be nice and give things to each other, but he was wrong about it being necessary to destroy capitalism before this happened.

    • volodya_ilich ( volodya_ilich@lemm.ee ) 
      13·
      2 years ago

      FOSS isn’t communism, Foss hasn’t eliminated class relations. Using an free open source library to make more money for your boss isn’t communism. While I love FOSS, it’s definitely not communism.

      Marx never said people aren’t nice and don’t give things to each other under capitalism as far as I know, where are you taking that from?

      And the existence of FOSS is reliant on a few key sectors which capitalism could very well destroy or mutate into something much different than what they are now. I don’t see far-fetched the idea that the entire physical infrastructure of the internet will one day be privately owned, and companies will be able to decide who takes part and who doesn’t, what kind of content is allowed… The fact that the capitalist overlords still haven’t eliminated it, doesn’t mean they possibly can’t.

    • futatorius ( futatorius@lemm.ee ) 
      3·
      2 years ago

      he was wrong about it being necessary to destroy capitalism before this happened

      I thought it was more that (using modern terminology) he viewed socialism as an emergent phenomenon that would arise due to the unresolved contradictions within capitalism. So socialism doesn’t require the destruction of capitalism in order to start, it’s more that once it emerges, it’ll supersede capitalism. The Leninist approach of destroying the old order, then building the new one at gunpoint didn’t work all that well (to vastly understate), leading to a long period of totalitarian state capitalism, where workers had no control over the means of production (which is the main attribute Marx ascribes to socialism) and degeneration into nationalism, imperialist nostalgia and cronyism.

      But so far, along with failed revolutions hijacked by totalitarians, the main thing we’ve seen is that spontaneous emergence of working, non-coercive socialist organizations such as co-operatives has been met with strong and sometimes murderous opposition from the incumbent capitalists.

      • Cowbee [he/they] ( Cowbee@lemmy.ml ) 
        3·
        2 years ago

        Marx believed this unresolved phenomena would lead to violent revolution, Lenin only added his analysis of Capitalism’s evolution into Imperialism, and his theory of Revolution, which focuses on the idea of the most radical workers forming a vanguard to bring the other workers up and help direct them. Marx believed the Revolution would happen and from it Socialism would emerge, hence him advocating for “siezing the Means of Production.” He also pointed directly to the Paris Commune, a hostile takeover of government aparatus, as the Dictatorship of the Proletarait he advocated for in action.

        Lenin wasn’t just “hey, let’s ignore Marx and do this at gunpoint,” it was more “hey, let’s listen to Marx, and do this at gunpoint.” Lenin actually addresses this utter de-fanging of Marx in bourgeois society in the opening section of The State and Revolution:

        “What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they claim, educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of waging a predatory war!”

        As for the USSR, it wasn’t totalitarian. Workers did have control, there were no real bourgeois elements, no competing markets, and the state was not an “other” compared to the Workers. They had democratic measures in the form of Soviets, and the consequences of this were free education, healthcare, high home ownership rates, and so forth. Was the USSR perfect? Absolutely not, but it was history’s first major attempt at Marxist Socialism, and we can study it for that. The revolution wasn’t “hijacked,” it was led by the Workers and continued to be until corruption took hold over time and the USSR collapsed, being hacked up and sold for parts as a part of “Shock Doctrine,” plumetting life expectancy, GDP, and causing 2 million excess deaths.

        Co-operatives are met with hostile action because it’s easy to crush them when you have the state and monopoly on your side, hence why they will never likely be a leading force for Socialism within Capitalism, even if they should still be supported by Socialists everywhere.

    • manicdave ( manicdave@feddit.uk ) OP
      18·
      2 years ago

      It’s half way to self management.

      Software exists in a world that kind of exists outside of property. Cynics like to think that Agile got big because as some kind of fad because the kids love it, but the reality is that fully hierarchical models just cannot keep up with self organising teams.

      The old model - the model that most of the rest of the world of work still uses - simply cannot compete on a level playing field where the means of production (a cheap computer) are available to all. A landowner can stop you building your own house, but Microsoft can’t really stop you building your own software, so they still have to put in work to collect rent.

      Imagine what we could accomplish as a species if the goals and distribution of resources were also decided democratically.

        • manicdave ( manicdave@feddit.uk ) OP
          5·
          2 years ago

          My point isn’t actually about the software.

          Agile is a limited form of workplace democracy that succeeded because the usual forms of disciplining workers couldn’t be enforced to stop it. It’s taken off in software because the outlay for software is so low that people can just quit their jobs and start a rival project with preferable working conditions. It’s stuck around because it’s significantly more effective than dictat.

          I have problems with agile too. A lot of the “ceremonies” seem more like cult rituals and bad practices are often assumed to be self justifying when they should be interrogated. (I once had a bust up in the office because I insisted in creating a future proof test framework instead of writing just what’s needed at the time. I was overruled and I’m still mad about it).

          So I guess my point isn’t even about the specific agile practices either.

          The point is that workers are able to self manage when they’re allowed to, and agile has accidentally proven this to be the case. Other work places should adopt some of these ideas. And these ideas should be pushed further, into business decisions and HR and management. And physical communities etc. all the way up to actual government.

      • manicdave ( manicdave@feddit.uk ) OP
        11·
        2 years ago

        What is impact engineering though? If it’s it’s just agile while being cognisant of technical debt over MVPs, I don’t know if it’s necessarily that different.

        It seems the study was designed to sell a book and I can’t find anything about what that book says. I should probably read it but the bait way it’s being sold makes me resistant to paying to find out.