Reading about FOSS philosophy, degoogling, becoming against corporations, and now a full-blown woke communist (like Linus Torvalds)

  • victoitor
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are a variety of views from different authors and political experiences. But they’re mostly rooted on not having privately owned means of production (a consensus exists for big corporations at least). This would mean big corporations cannot be privately owned, it must belong to the workers themselves. This implies the destination of profits should be decided between its workers, and not its owners. This might even make many more people rich than just some random dude (like Musk) for owning the whole thing.

    In general, there is no contradiction between being rich and communism. In fact, the workers should get the profits for what they build.

    • UnknownQuantity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dude, you don’t know the first thing about communism. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” It means you don’t take more than you need. “Rich communist” is an oxymoron.

      • victoitor
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

        First of all, I will say I’m definitely no expert on communism, but it’s definitely not true that “I don’t know a thing about it”.

        As I mentioned, there are quite a few views on what communism is. Communism precedes Marx and Engels and there is even a small book from Engels which discusses previous views of communism (called utopian) to their view of communism (called scientific). The phrase you mentioned precedes Marx and Engels’s work and they study how that phrase could become true. In their work, Marx and Engels do mention scientific communism cannot be exclusively theoretical (which they call praxis), for the risk of being utopian. So according to past and current experiences (USSR, China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, North Corea), there are quite a few developments and different views on communism. They don’t all agree on everything, but they do agree on “not having privately owned means of production”. On the Stalin era of USSR, it was considered something similar to the phrase you mentioned, but it was somewhat inneficient. People need incentives for their work and discoveries and it was not based exclusively on needs, as that phrase implies. The reality was complex, btw. This is really a generalistic view and don’t expect it to be flawless.