1352
Steve Balmer quotes
(infosec.pub)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
1352 points (97.4% liked)
linuxmemes
20363 readers
1005 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
Insofar as "FOSS" is a specific, delineated, reified thing you can point to and describe, it doesn't reject profit and capitalism when devs use licenses that enable corporations to use their work for free. That's enablement, not rejection.
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.