5 ms·

Or, "How Cheap-As-Free Software Can Help Consolidate More Wealth in the Hands of the Bourgeoisie"

by bitwize 4y ago

atopia 4y ago
Realistically, the money is going to the Bourgeoisie either way...
- tomrod 4y ago
  My memetic sibling in tech, allow me to introduce you to the world of democratic socialist policies.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
rakoo 4y ago
Which is the reason why I believe non-copyleft licenses are now a mistake
- RRRA 4y ago
  Always have been . GIF
vorpalhex 4y ago
FOSS is literally optional. Don't create it if you don't want your software used by people you dislike.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  there are many faces to FOSS .. maybe one is cute, another is more like commodification of industry-core building parts, yet another is personal for the author and their realms.. etc
robocat 4y ago
Could you tell me what you mean by the word “Bourgeoisie”? I thought it approximately meant “middle-class” or maybe professionals.
- llanowarelves 4y ago
  That's congruent with some of the eat-the-rich movements: they end up being the rich steering the poor to attack the middle class out of frustration. High and low versus middle.
- ummonk 4y ago
  No “bourgeoisie” was meant to refer to capital owners (with “petit-bourgeoisie” referring to small business owners). Middle-class are the “proletariat” by Marx and co. Incidentally, the underclass that many on the modern left focus on were pejoratively considered “lumpen-proletariat”.
  - peatfreak 4y ago
    > Incidentally, the underclass that many on the modern left focus on were pejoratively considered “lumpen-proletariat”. This is absolutely correct in terms of orthodox Marxist theory. It's interesting how "lumpenproletariat" has been whitewashed out of modern Marxist analysis. You just don't hear this term anymore.
    - robocat 4y ago
      I just tried to get my head around bourgeoisie again - it is so confusing and I don’t understand why anyone would ever use the word. Whenever I see it, it is used as an insult, to mean someone that is more well off than the person saying it. The word “capitalist” seems mostly a better substitute. For software, a programmer literally owns the means of production, so all programmers are bourgeoise? My guess is that bitwize is not proletarian, yet doesn’t see themselves as bourgeoise. I guess I struggle to understand whether proletariat and bourgeoisie convey any meaning in my country. Disclaimer: I am definitely petite bourgeoise - that allows me to own a house like two thirds of New Zealanders do.
      - peatfreak 4y ago
        > For software, a programmer literally owns the means of production, so all programmers are bourgeoise? No, they are not. Marxist analysis doesn't really map to information technology in service economies in the classical way. The principles of analysis still apply in today's society, but first you have to recast class definitions and class relationships in a meaningful way. There's a nice (but idiosyncratic) book called "The Relevance of the Communist Manifesto" that explains this, but it won't make sense unless you already have a basic grip on orthodox Marxism.

Or, "How Cheap-As-Free Software Can Help Consolidate More Wealth in the Hands of the Bourgeoisie"

atopia 4y ago

Realistically, the money is going to the Bourgeoisie either way...

tomrod 4y ago
My memetic sibling in tech, allow me to introduce you to the world of democratic socialist policies.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

rakoo 4y ago

Which is the reason why I believe non-copyleft licenses are now a mistake

RRRA 4y ago
Always have been . GIF

vorpalhex 4y ago

FOSS is literally optional. Don't create it if you don't want your software used by people you dislike.

mistrial9 4y ago
there are many faces to FOSS .. maybe one is cute, another is more like commodification of industry-core building parts, yet another is personal for the author and their realms.. etc

robocat 4y ago

Could you tell me what you mean by the word “Bourgeoisie”? I thought it approximately meant “middle-class” or maybe professionals.

llanowarelves 4y ago
That's congruent with some of the eat-the-rich movements: they end up being the rich steering the poor to attack the middle class out of frustration. High and low versus middle.
ummonk 4y ago
No “bourgeoisie” was meant to refer to capital owners (with “petit-bourgeoisie” referring to small business owners). Middle-class are the “proletariat” by Marx and co. Incidentally, the underclass that many on the modern left focus on were pejoratively considered “lumpen-proletariat”.
- peatfreak 4y ago
  > Incidentally, the underclass that many on the modern left focus on were pejoratively considered “lumpen-proletariat”. This is absolutely correct in terms of orthodox Marxist theory. It's interesting how "lumpenproletariat" has been whitewashed out of modern Marxist analysis. You just don't hear this term anymore.
  - robocat 4y ago
    I just tried to get my head around bourgeoisie again - it is so confusing and I don’t understand why anyone would ever use the word. Whenever I see it, it is used as an insult, to mean someone that is more well off than the person saying it. The word “capitalist” seems mostly a better substitute. For software, a programmer literally owns the means of production, so all programmers are bourgeoise? My guess is that bitwize is not proletarian, yet doesn’t see themselves as bourgeoise. I guess I struggle to understand whether proletariat and bourgeoisie convey any meaning in my country. Disclaimer: I am definitely petite bourgeoise - that allows me to own a house like two thirds of New Zealanders do.
    - peatfreak 4y ago
      > For software, a programmer literally owns the means of production, so all programmers are bourgeoise? No, they are not. Marxist analysis doesn't really map to information technology in service economies in the classical way. The principles of analysis still apply in today's society, but first you have to recast class definitions and class relationships in a meaningful way. There's a nice (but idiosyncratic) book called "The Relevance of the Communist Manifesto" that explains this, but it won't make sense unless you already have a basic grip on orthodox Marxism.