Where I work in software development, we were about to undertake writing a pretty large application from scratch. Mostly, the company was a Java plus Spring shop with a few exceptions. One team wrote almost exclusively Python, for instance. But as far as I knew, there wasn’t any specific policy requiring the use of any particular language.

So as a team, we pushed to write our new project in Python. It was originally my idea, but my team got on board with it pretty quickly. Plus there was precedent for Python projects and Python was definitely appropriate for our use case.

The managers took it up the chain. The chain hemmed and hawed for months, but eventually made a more official policy that we had to use Java (and Spring).

Good call. “Let’s burn all blockchains in a fire” is actually a great idea.

The correct answer to every suggestion that contains the word “blockchain” is “that’s a terrible fucking idea.”

Look, I right-clicked $1.2 million.

(Full disclosure, it took a little more than right-clicking to download that image. OpenSea apparently purposefully makes it hard to download images. Not terribly hard, though. Only took me a couple of minutes to figure out.)

I don’t think the lemmy.ml admins have been coy about it.

If you go to the lemmy.ml home page, at the bottom of the right column is a list of admins.

The first admin’s profile banner is a picture of Mao. And the second’s profile pic is a photo of Fidel Castro. The other two don’t have profile pics that are explicitly authoritarian communist and I haven’t had the patience to look through a whole lot of their posts or anything.

Just a couple of Reddit threads (via libreddit.hu) on the topic: one and two. Unfortunately what they link do doesn’t appear to be in the wayback machine as far as I’ve been able to tell.

We might be able to answer the question better if you named the “other platforms” you’re referring to. It doesn’t seem like an unusual amount compared to, for instance, how much communist/transgender content Reddit had back when Reddit wasn’t as evil as it is now. (Who knows what Reddit’s like now. I haven’t been back since the two-day boycott over the API pricing.)

All that said, some of the communist content here is tankies. (That is, authoritarian communists who spout CCP or other authoritarian communist regimes’ propaganda.) Some of the Lemmy instances (like latte.isnot.coffe and lemmy.ml) are run by tankies.

That said, a lot of the communist content here is grass-roots anarcho-communist advocacy by people like me who ideologically lean that way.

2023 was the year Mississippi declared war on New Mexico.

I didn’t realize people were advocating philosophies that bowed to the idea that “needs” should take priority over personal possessions.

Yeah, I tend to work Maslow’s work into my take on political systems. Maybe I should call myself an anarcho-Maslowist or something. Heh.

I do really think that society is best that best fulfills people’s needs. And by “needs,” I mean something very like the way Maslow used the term. I’m not sure what higher purpose one could give for a society than the fulfillment of needs, really.

(Mind you, I do know that there have been other psychologists who have built on Maslow’s work as well as some with different models of needs. I don’t necessarily mean to exclude those other definitions of needs. I don’t think it would serve us well to be dogmatic about one person’s take. But even if Maslow can be improved on, I do think the broad strokes of his take are on to something.)

To be fair, just about any purpose a society might have can be shoehorned into the language of “needs” and that paradigm may be better for some things than others.

Also, of course, more basic needs are more important. If you’re trying to improve things and you have one option that will address society’s unfulfilled need for basic sustinence and another option that will improve society’s access to aesthetic fulfillment, let’s fill people’s bellies first and put up murals later.

Now, I do largely believe in “usership,” but the idea can definitely go too far. If in the revolution, Ted takes possession of a mansion and uses it daily for a private indoor jogging track, that’s fine with me so long as others are not deprived of some sufficiently basic need. Under a strict usership system, one could say that Ted uses all of that mansion daily and that there is no “surplus” of space there. And, again if others are not deprived, I have no issue with it. But if homelessness exists in that area, Ted’s claim to that mansion for his comparatively frivolous use of the structure is superceded by other people’s right to not have to live in a tent under a bridge.

But this is all mostly my own take. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone else take quite the same stance on things. But then, I haven’t really read that much anarchist theory either. Just Conquest of Bread and /r/Anarchism, pretty much. (Oh, and some random guy on a first person shooter I used to play a lot that was my introduction to anarchism.)

Edit: Oh! Also, there is the whole “to each according to need” thing. Maybe Marx would’ve been a fan of Maslow’s ideas. Who knows.

So, first off, let me say that if it’ll help us move toward something better than we have now, even if in my head I call it anarcho-communism, I’ll happily call it “capitalism.”

For reference, there’s an author named Charles Eisenstein who in his book “Sacred Economics” advocates for taking steps that he intends to move us (the world, I guess) eventually to a gift-based economy without money or barter. And he calls it capitalism. With a straight face. Now, I don’t know if deep down in his heart he believes it actually qualifies as capitalism or if he’s calling it capitalism because he feels like his aims are more likely to be well received by pro-capitalists if he calls it “capitalism.”

One can IMO go too far with that. Case in point: ecofascism. But I digress.

On to the definition of capitalism. At least in my head, capitalism is characterized by:

• The profit motive. The incentive to amass. (Typically money, but a barter-based system could well be the same in every way that matters.)
• Quid pro quo. The whole system is based on it.
• Private property. A particular set of rules for who has ownership rights over what.
• The institution of employment.

My answer didn’t include the word “capital”, so I’ll skip that second question.

As to your third question, let me take exception with the question itself. I don’t believe “control over what you produce” is necesssarily a good thing per se. I believe in having something roughly like ownership rights over what one uses. But if one produce a surplus, I don’t believe they should be able to deprive others in need of said surplus.

I think capitalism coerces people into producing surplus for others to sell for a profit that the producer (employee) doesn’t get a fair share in if that goes more to the spirit of your question.

Bonus questions:

1. I… don’t know or care? “Capitalist” can mean someone who supports the institution of capitalism. Or it can mean something like an owner of a company that employs people. I think plenty of people participate in capitalism (by selling things they make, by accepting an employment position, etc) out of necessity while disapproving of the system as a whole. Hell, I’m one of them. I’m not sure I understand why you ask.
2. If I’m the person who sells things I make? Again, anticapitalists participate in capitalism because capitalism doesn’t give them a choice. Does that answer your question?
3. The word “sell” here has some baggage I don’t like. I’m not for a system in which anybody “sells” anything. But to answer how one might expand an operation that produces things, worker cooperatives are probably the most obvious answer.
4. Anyway, worker cooperatives are owned and run by the workers. Corporations are owned by shareholders and run by boards of directors. Worker cooperatives don’t have incentives and power to fuck their workers over. They do have incentive and power to take care of their workers.

Maybe I should have read the first thread you referenced before answering these. Maybe it would have given more context. But hopefully this response gives you what you were looking for.

Vi. Not even Vim. Just whatever vi is preinstalled on Arch Linux.

IDE’s and I… don’t get along.

I had some hands-on computer repair training at a private school once. One old machine wouldn’t boot, complaining that it couldn’t find the keyboard which was plugged into it. I unplugged it while the computer was on. At the time, unplugging a keyboard while the computer was on was… not a good thing. There was a little curl of smoke, a scorch mark on the motherboard, and a sustained tone from the chassis and that computer breathed its last.

Later, in college, I used the “net send” command on random people in open labs just to watch how confused they got.

Pros:

Cons: We’re federating with Threads.

Edit: I appreciate the upvotes, but please use your votes to boost @FormlessMartian@lemmy.world’s post with a link to an excellent post enumerating in great detail all the reasons why we should defederate Threads.

This is a clickbait YouTube video waiting to happen. And now I really want to see it to find out all the logistical issues they’d have to go through to make, cook, and eat a single noodle long enough to reasonably be considered a single plate full of spaghetti.

As one of the folks who came from Reddit when everyone else did, sorry. :(

It makes sense that any mass exedous from some other community will greatly change the destination community, and much of value will be lost in the process.

So, is there anything I can do to help preserve and embody what I’ve helped destroy? I’ll definitely keep in mind what you’ve said here about “toxicity, entitlement, and stupid challenges,” and I’ll learn more about federation and keep an open mind. Any other advice how we former Redditors can help keep what made Lemmy great before hordes of Redditors flooded it?

Any advice how we can help even enrich the Lemmy community and make it better than we first found it?

I don’t want to go back to Reddit. And I don’t want to be a pariah or paracite here. And I accept that those who were on Lemmy have wisdom to share that newcomers can benefit from.

Just my own $0.02, but…

If people are hoarding and stockpiling, at least part of the response needs to be to look at the motivation these people have to stockpile and address that motivation. A hoarding problem is probably a valuable signal of some deep societal issue of distribution that needs resolved.

The vast majority of scarcity we face in this capitalist-controlled world is manufactured, so I wouldn’t think actual scarcity would often be an issue, but if hypothetically it was and someone was stockpiling more than they could use of some basic need like food allowing others to starve, I’d say the starving taking the surplus (the portion the stockpiler can’t use) by force would be justice.