I don’t understand the comparisons people make between OSS and comunism. Comunism is a flavor of old-world authoritarianism, based upon the idea that mankind is incapable of choosing the right thing, so the right choice is instead mandated by law. OSS’s emhasis on freedom, choice, and the lack of any kind of governing authrorty or social dogma, as well as the inherent trust in the majority public to choose the right (to donate or contribute) has a lot more in common with liberalism than comunism.
Mostly because it’s dependent on who told you “Comunism is a flavor of old-world authoritarianism, based upon the idea that mankind is incapable of choosing the right thing, so the right choice is instead mandated by law.”
A good working definition of the ideas of communism is democracy of the work place and the economy. As it stands work places are dictatorships run by bosses that effectively have unilateral control over all choices of the company. Socialism and communism are built on the idea since workers are the ones actually doing the work that make the money and bare the brunt of the choices, they should be the ones making the choices.
Really it’s actually capitalism that supposes people are too dumb to make their own choices or know how a business is run, and thus shouldn’t have say over company choices.
Really it’s actually capitalism that supposes people are too dumb to make their own choices or know how a business is run, and thus shouldn’t have say over company choices.
Really it’s actually that businesses with that structure tend to perform better in a market economy, because no one forces businesses to be started as “dictatorships run by bosses that effectively have unilateral control over all choices of the company” other than the people starting that business themselves. You can literally start a business organized as a co-op (which by your definitions is fundamentally a socialist or communist entity) - there’s nothing preventing that from being the organizing structure. The complaint instead tends to be that no one is forcing existing successful businesses to change their structure and that a new co-op has to compete in a market where non-co-op businesses also operate.
If co-ops were a generally more effective model, you’d expect them to be more numerous and more influential. And they do alright for themselves in some spaces. For example in the US many of the biggest co-ops are agricultural.
Really it’s actually that businesses with that structure tend to perform better in a market economy
Yes dumping industrial waste into the town water ways, buying up all competition, off-shoring labor, and paying employees as little as they can get away with, are all well incentivized market systems.
Individual business being allowed to be cooperatively owned does not equate an economy where individual ownership of the means of production is disallowed. And as every facet of society seems to being increasingly enshitified while we barrel towards climate collapse, I don’t really feel the need to argue that strict market only economic systems are fundamentally flawed and have outlived their use.
Comunism is a flavor of old-world authoritarianism, based upon the idea that mankind is incapable of choosing the right thing, so the right choice is instead mandated by law.
You know capitalist nations also have laws, right…?
If a theory and every attempt at real world application of a theory yield wildly different results, shouldn’t that suggest something in the theory is deeply flawed?
Oh my god! I thought I bought a gaming handheld but i bought… communism!
Excusme sir, the word is now wokeness/wokeism.
Fuck, if it’s easy to mod games and run script extenders, I’ll be in-Stalin it this week.
I replied one too deep. Fuck.
I’m collectivising this comment, this is now our mistake, comrade. 😉
I don’t understand the comparisons people make between OSS and comunism. Comunism is a flavor of old-world authoritarianism, based upon the idea that mankind is incapable of choosing the right thing, so the right choice is instead mandated by law. OSS’s emhasis on freedom, choice, and the lack of any kind of governing authrorty or social dogma, as well as the inherent trust in the majority public to choose the right (to donate or contribute) has a lot more in common with liberalism than comunism.
Seems I alerted the hoard, lol
Your understanding of communist ideas are on a par on your spelling of it.
It shows.
Just a heads up, you were lied to about what communism means.
Who lied?
People richer than you and their useful idiots.
Society broadly. 🤷
The oligarchs in particular paid the propagandists to brainwash everyone
Well that’s rather indeterminate.
Mostly because it’s dependent on who told you “Comunism is a flavor of old-world authoritarianism, based upon the idea that mankind is incapable of choosing the right thing, so the right choice is instead mandated by law.”
A good working definition of the ideas of communism is democracy of the work place and the economy. As it stands work places are dictatorships run by bosses that effectively have unilateral control over all choices of the company. Socialism and communism are built on the idea since workers are the ones actually doing the work that make the money and bare the brunt of the choices, they should be the ones making the choices.
Really it’s actually capitalism that supposes people are too dumb to make their own choices or know how a business is run, and thus shouldn’t have say over company choices.
Really it’s actually that businesses with that structure tend to perform better in a market economy, because no one forces businesses to be started as “dictatorships run by bosses that effectively have unilateral control over all choices of the company” other than the people starting that business themselves. You can literally start a business organized as a co-op (which by your definitions is fundamentally a socialist or communist entity) - there’s nothing preventing that from being the organizing structure. The complaint instead tends to be that no one is forcing existing successful businesses to change their structure and that a new co-op has to compete in a market where non-co-op businesses also operate.
If co-ops were a generally more effective model, you’d expect them to be more numerous and more influential. And they do alright for themselves in some spaces. For example in the US many of the biggest co-ops are agricultural.
Yes dumping industrial waste into the town water ways, buying up all competition, off-shoring labor, and paying employees as little as they can get away with, are all well incentivized market systems.
Individual business being allowed to be cooperatively owned does not equate an economy where individual ownership of the means of production is disallowed. And as every facet of society seems to being increasingly enshitified while we barrel towards climate collapse, I don’t really feel the need to argue that strict market only economic systems are fundamentally flawed and have outlived their use.
heads up, neither USSR nor China were ever communist
You know capitalist nations also have laws, right…?
It’s a joke because Bill Gates once called it that. Nobody actually thinks that other than some tech bros that are high from huffing their own farts.
Which is ironic now that they have WSL, And Azure
Communism is a classless stateless moneyless society based on the principle of “from each according to ability, to each according to need”
There is a vast difference between communism the theory and communism the real world application as it occured in 20th century.
If a theory and every attempt at real world application of a theory yield wildly different results, shouldn’t that suggest something in the theory is deeply flawed?