Boost this if you want to be part of an explicitly anticapitalist technology liberation movement.

It's time to stop being held back by this libertarian bullshit that corporations might possibly be okay.

So, what shall we call this movement? I think it would help to move past both the terms "free software" and "open source". Communal software? Solidarity software? Communal liberatory software?

Let's come up with a term that creeps and fascists won't want to be associated with.

I am drawn more and more towards simply "communal software". It is simple and to the point without needing to bring in a lot of loaded political baggage. Sure capitalists might fund some of it, but I think it would be significantly more difficult for capitalists to co-opt "communal software" than the nebulous "open source" which has had its meaning intentionally diluted and stretched to absurdity.

I also like that "communal software" doesn't say anything about source code, which I think could be more welcoming for people contributing in ways that are not programming.

"Communal software" might not totally keep obnoxious libertarians away, but it I think it would do a pretty good job of preventing them from dominating the discourse.

@be honestly capitalism is beneath my range of concerns. freeing the means of production, so we all are enabled, is the visionquest i'm on atm. that happens to be anticapitalist right now but if capitalism becomes convenient to the moral cause then i might possibly reasses. liberate technology.

@be so if no corps exist where will people fulfill their needs for supplies? The federal government?

@jordan31 I have no energy to explain this to you.

@jordan31 You can derive this yourself. Get out a blank piece of paper, and start designing a system. Whenever you get a part that looks like a corporation or federal government, cross that out and try again.

Once you have something that meets these requirements and doesn't immediately fall apart when friends fall out (or actually it turns out that clean water is important, or …), turn the paper over and try making something even more different.

Then you'll have a foundation for understanding.

@wizzwizz4 I'll pass. I'm actually in favor of capitalism and businesses. Though mainly small and medium business.

@jordan31 @wizzwizz4
Exactly! 😉

"A #corporation is a legal entity ... separate and distinct from its owners.
An important element of a corporation is limited liability, ... shareholders may take part in the profits ... but are not personally liable for the company's debts.
#Corporations are not always for profit."

A small #company of 10 people can be a corporation. Shall we demonize them? Do people even understand what they're bitching about?

@evelynyap @jordan31 That's specific to US law.

> A corporation is an organization—usually a group of people or a company—authorized by the state to act as a single entity (a legal entity recognized by private and public law 'born out of statute"; a legal person in legal context) and recognized as such in law for certain purposes. Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature).

@evelynyap @jordan31 It's not about the tax status, not really, and it's not about the ten people. It's about the *entity*. More powerful than people, caring only about money – or it gets crushed by those that do. And then when it's enough of a monopoly or monopsony not to have to worry about that? The sufficiently-ruthless leaders are now minor world powers – on the order of a small country, usually.

Individuals working together to achieve something behave very differently.

@wizzwizz4 @jordan31
Corporation is as corporation does.

Anything bigger than you will probably be more powerful than you -- whether 2 or 10 or just 1 larger person. It's not whether it's a corporation or not, it's about the individuals running them.

The Point Is:
Like #socialmedia platforms, #capitalism, #socialism... #Corporations aren't bad/evil. It's the #people.

Use a different word. Take your pick. #megacorp #diactatorshipcorp #tyranniccorp #megalocorpomaniac?

@evelynyap @wizzwizz4 its the people that drive it, just like a car. Sears, target, toys r us. They were all huge corps for many many years but never threw there weight and money around to lobby for just social cause. What we have a problem with is big corps like Facebook and Google owning so much of the market and other markets. But its the way they utilize this.

#CorporateFacsism is what has been building up over the 50 years since we completely severed our relationship with the limiting factor of gold in 1971.

The banker crimes started in 1913, though.

What commentators have identified is #CorporateState #Totalitarianism. A good explanation is in the film, #Obey (2013, #FilmsForActionDotOrg).

@evelynyap @wizzwizz4

@jordan31 @evelynyap @wizzwizz4
Corporate State Totalitarianism is not capitalism.

They print money to serve their mates, who are closest to the #MICIMATT and #WallStreet. To be succinct, we call them the #JeffreyEpstienClass.

#Unaccountable and protected, until they start looking at bitcoin. *wink*

econ pol 

@dsfgs @jordan31 @evelynyap Fiat is an incredibly powerful tool, and it's much better than fractional reserve banking. In the hands of an entity with the people's interest at heart (e.g. a not-lied-to populace, … can't think of another) it could be great…

But yeah, agree with the rest. We need a better crypto than Bitcoin, though; it's a great prototype, but it's technically problematic (it wastes loads of electricity, you can't use it off-grid…).

econ pol 

(Sidenote, we tend to bomb countries that vote on policies, rather than elected reps, but we digress)

(Bitcoin is a layer one currency, heat from which can be used democratically/ubiquitously in storage #waterHeaters, or underfloor etc. The important thing now is to begin to identify the LayerTwo currency, that will be more liquid.)

Anyway TooBigToExist as the current crop of plutocrats, so fully support idea of #CommunalSoftware.


@jordan31 @evelynyap


@dsfgs @jordan31 @evelynyap Once we've identified a good layer two currency, we don't need the layer one currency.

The only advantage Bitcoin has is “everyone uses it”. It has many disadvantages; the core “trustlessness” relies on unproven mathematics.

> In 2014 mining pool obtained 51% hashing power […]. The pool has voluntarily capped their hashing power at 39.99% and requested other pools to act responsibly for the benefit of the whole network.


(Those were the very early years days of Bitcoin, a lot has changed. It's highly unlikely the Layer2 can be as democratic as bitcoin, the layer 2 will require more bandwidth and storage but not so much more that only the big players can afford to operate it, we'd say 10 times the number of transactions every 10 secs, 1MB/sec approx, but you need bitcoin as L1 to step backwards or it just risks being another corporate-sanction-printMe-coin.)

@jordan31 @evelynyap

crypto tangent 

@dsfgs @jordan31 @evelynyap Decentralised double-entry bookkeeping and a Merkle graph that prohibits double-spending would function similarly to Bitcoin (except with a bundle of threads instead of one big blockchain), allow faster transactions, and wouldn't need to be based on Proof of Work. Things get buried in this transaction-tangle by other meaningful transactions depending on them.

That's just *one* other way things could be done. There are many. Can you think of any?

Show newer
@evelynyap @wizzwizz4 @jordan31 > shareholders may take part in the profits ... but are not personally liable for the company's debts

Privatize the profit, socialize the loss.
@jordan31 @be Companies that are not limited liability and not owned and controlled by faceless shareholders, e.g. family-owned businesses. Cooperatives. Sole proprietors. We had supplies before the corporations where invented 400 years ago. We'll just have to use our imaginations.

@be Corporations aren't bad per say it's allowing companies to go private and do what every they want including breaking the law that's the biggest issue.

@koreymoffett At least in the United States, corporations are legally prohibited from spending money on anything that is not for the purpose of getting their shareholders more money.

@be I'm just saying that if they were held to the same standards as everyone else such as following the same laws everyone else does i feel like most of the issue would be solved

@be I don't really see what you are saying here, for example they should still pay taxes like everyone else even though they aren't people, of course the amount paid would scale.

@koreymoffett @be actually, I'd argue that private companies *can* be good. They don't have the "maximise shareholder value" as their single incentive like *public listed* corporations. I'd say the latter are inherently in a race to the bottom, ethically speaking. I've written about it here:

@koreymoffett @be oops - "public listed" is redundant. Public corporations, which have "person status" in many jurisdictions, are the real problem in my opinion.

@lightweight I wasn't saying private companies are bad, I'm saying at least in the US when companies go private they seem to be able to just do what every they want including ignoring laws. My point was if we were to hold companies to the same standards as everyone else meaning follow the laws of the countries they are in I think that would fix a large portion of the issues

@koreymoffett I think every private company has to be judged on its merits, but every listed corporation, as it grows, ends up evil. It's inevitable.

@koreymoffett they become big enough to influence the regulatory environment in which they exist, and in many cases (like the Frightful Five) rewrite the laws that regulate them, because they effectively control gov'ts, like the US'.

@be If you choose solidarity software, (SS), you'll have to, eventually, stand in solidarity with people with disabilities, and any software that isn't accessible, you'll have to reject. Gnome won't like that very much (see the crappy accessibility of Gnome Shell), and KDE, well, you'd have to put them on hold. So yeah probably better to pick something else for the 99%. :P

@be More seriously, maybe communal software, to give the nuance of everyone working together. (CS without a need for a CS degree).

@be and if you sell merch it can be called: Commiwear. ;)


I'm with you so far, but then what about Free/Libre Culture? Communal Culture?

Also, the one thing I liked about Open Source (and to be sure there wasn't a lot) is that it conveyed the idea of source as the proffered distribution. I wonder if that can be captured somehow?

@emacsen If you emphasize source code, first you have to explain to people who have no idea how computers work what source code is. It's a distraction.


What about the other topic, of personally more interest to me, about software and/vs culture?

@emacsen I don't know. Call it "cooperative culture" if you want? 🤷 It's related but kinda tangential.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.