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

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Linux and open source in general completely blow apart capitalist arguments that profit motive is necessary for innovation and technological advancement. Open source ecosystem primarily run by volunteers has produces some of the most interesting and innovative technologies that we’ve seen. The reality is that people make interesting things because they’re curious and they enjoy making stuff. Pretty much nobody makes anything interesting with profit being the primary motive.

    • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Linux and open source in general completely blow apart capitalist arguments that profit motive

      Wrong! Linux and open source only shows that the profit motive is not the only motive. One should broaden the definition of profit to encompass value in all its forms. ie A person can gain value from the satisfaction of DIY as it can be self-empowering. One can gain emotional value from sharing. It also invokes the law of reciprocation - value exchange but without a $ sign. The Open source ecosystem is also heavily funded by business who relies on open source components. It is a capital investment.

      • yogo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the profit motive is not the only motive that drives innovation, as you just agreed, then it isn’t necessary, logically. And not sure why you would then go on to expand the definition of profit into meaninglessness after agreeing there are other motives.

        • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What? How the f do you transition from ‘not only’ to ‘isn’t necessary’? That is not logic - that is mental gymnastics with a triple back flip! Profit is the PRIMARY motivator! People wish to move away from discomfort more than anything else. Currency is the best way of alleviating discomfort!

          • yogo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. If X is a necessary motive for Y, then in the absence of X, Y cannot happen.
            2. Innovation can happen in the absence of a profit motive.
            3. Therefore, the profit motive is not necessary for innovation.
            • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              People can grow food in the absence of technology - but subsistence living is a hell of time!

              nb. Marxists still have no answer for the calculation problem.

              • yogo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                So I guess you agree that the profit motive isn’t necessary, because you moved to a completely unrelated point

    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      capitalist arguments that profit motive is necessary for innovation and technological advancement

      I don’t know who is arguing this because it’s incredibly stupid. The greatest scientific minds of history, the mathematicians, the physicists, the inventors, were not capitalists, they’re people with passion for their work.

      If we move to a society that guarantees basic human needs and good education, we’re only going to have more scientists and engineers that progress technology even faster.

      • Thorned_Rose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Capitalists argue this because it gives them the appearance of a moral high ground.

        Enshittification shows how untrue this - capitalism by its very nature will always devolve into worse and worse offerings because it’s reliant on squeezing out ever more profit.

        Capitalism will only ever puh out the bare minimum of technological advancement. And keeping people in indentured labour (aka employees) to the capitalist system so that they either have no time to come up with innovations themselves or they own the intellectual property of any indentured workers means that the overwhelming majority of innovation is monopolised by capitalism too. Which also contributes to the appearance of pushing advancement.