iriyan

Darwin, although a materialist at heart (maybe) wasn't very dialectical. Darwin's major faults are his binary steps of evolution, you take the right step you continue to exist, you take the wrong step you vanish, hence evolution is the result of taking all the right steps. So the panda took a wrong step somewhere, but maybe easter bugs did too, helping out humans grow things by eliminating other bugs. Now they are becoming extinct because of pesticides and insecticides. Maybe bees will too.

Do we know that humans made right choices or not? They created capitalism and this seems to be accelerating us towards extinction. What about pre-capitalist choices, like that of 10k years ago to select seeds, cultivate them, modify them, create monocultures and sentence other plants and life in general to extinction to do so. To what extent do we perceive human choices as natural phenomenon and to what extent is the dialectic with the material world and those choices acceptable or rejectable?

Can capitalism be the result of a sequence of other bad choices humanity (or certain parts of humanity that became dominant post 15th century) made? It is hard to believe that capitalism is the only poor choice humanity ever made.

Humans did exploit other humans and oppressed other humans before capitalism or even its very fundamental conditions existed (private property for one). Inequality and social stratification did exist in pre-capitalist societies, large and small, but not universally as anthropology and archaeology came to discover. Injustice as a result of inequality we can say it was more prevalent everywhere before capitalism.

But we must accept the possibility that humans can organize and revert all the bad choices made, decrease or eliminate inequality and injustice, eliminate the need for war and violence, instead of waiting for some deity to materialize and force that condition. Or at least, have this i"deal" of such a true communist society to struggle for and design the path to. (something about this statement I feel really uneasy with).

:)

Linux is a branch of development of the old unix class of systems. Unix is not necessarily open and free. FOSS is what is classified as open and free software. Unix since its inception was deeply linked to specific industrial private interests, let's not forget all this while we examine the use of linux by left minded activists. FOSS is nice and cool, but it is nearly 99.99% run on non-open and non-free hardware. A-political proposals of crowd-funding and diy construction attempts have led to ultra-expensive idealist solutions reserved for the very few and the eccentric affluent experimenters

Linux vs Windows is cool and trendy, is it? Really is it alone containing any political content? If there is such what is it? So let's examine it from the base.

FOSS, People, as small teams or individuals "producing as much as they can and want" offering what they produced to be shared, used, and modified by anyone, or "as much as they need". This is as much of a communist system of production and consumption as we have experienced in the entirety of modern history. No exchange what so ever, collective production according to ability and collective consumption according to need.

BUT we have corporations, some of them mega-corps, multinationals who nearly monopolize sectors of computing markets, creating R&D departments specifically to produce and offer open and free code (or conditionally free). Why? Firstly because other idiots will join their projects and offer further development (labor), contribute to their projects, for "free", but they still retain the leadership and ownership of the project. Somehow, using their code, without asking why they were willing to offer it in the first place, it is cool to use it as long as we can say we are anti/against/ms-win free.

Like false class consciousness we have fan-boys of IBM, Google, Facebook, Oracle, Qt, HP, Intel, AMD, ... products against MS.

Back when unix would only run on enterprise ultra-expensive large scale systems and expensive workstations (remember Dec, Sun, Sgi, .. workstations that were priced similarly to 2 brand new fast sportscars each) and the PC market was restricted to MS or the alternative Apple crap, people tried and tried to port forms of unix into a PC. Some really gifted hacking experts were able to achieve such marvels, but it was so specific to hardware that the examples couldn't be generalized and utilized massively.

Suddenly this genious Finn and his friends devised a kernel that could make most PC hardware available work and unix with a linux kernel could boot and run.

IBM saw eventually a way back into the PC market it lost by handing dos out to the subcontractors (MS), and saw an opportunity to take over and steer this "project" by promoting RedHat. After 2 decades of behind the scenes guidance since the projected outcome was successful in cornering the market, IBM appeared to have bought RH.

Are we all still anti-MS and pro-IBM,google,Oracle,FB,Intel/AMD?

The bait thrown to dumb fish was an automated desktop that looked and behaved just like the latest MS-win edition.

What is the resistance?

Linus Trovalds and a few others who sign the kernel today make 6figure salaries ALL paid by a handful of computing giants that by offering millions to the foundation control what it does. Traps like rust, telemetry, .. and other "options" are shoved daily into the kernel to satisfy the paying clients' demands and wishes.

And we, in the left are fans of a multimilioner's "team" against a "trilioner's" team. This is not football or cricket, or F1. This is your data in the hands of multinationals and their fellow customer/agencies. Don't forget which welfare system maintains the hierarchy of those industries whether the market is rosy or gray. Do I need to spell out the connection?

Beware of multinationals bearing gifts.

Yes there are healthier alternatives requiring a little more work and study to employ, the quick and easy has a "cost" even when it is FOSS.

.

I am relatively new here, so please excuse my newbiness, I mean no harm or disrespect. Nor have I researched enough on how the original community was expelled by the CEO of reddit.com inc.

If I can identify with something concretely and not negotiably, is a firm believer of dialectical materialism, so I am not posting questions as an outsider to dialectical materialists. I am only posting questions to dialectical materialists, so idealists don't waste our time responding.

I do not wish to play devil's advocate, I usually hate the attitude, but I can't help to have questions that fit the profile. As a first step I'd like to state that the theory of Marx & Engels and the evolution of Marxism is not one and the same, for reasons that relate to the questions. So here we go.

In the time Marx lived and struggled and in specific when he wrote Capital, the world was smaller, in population, and also scientific knowledge of the world itself. Since then sciences such as anthropology and archaeology evolved rapidly being really young at the time. This and other scientific knowledge was not yet available, so Marx can't be held accountable for things not yet known. He could also not be accountable for things that happened after his theory was established and based on his material reality.

Even during his life time his ideas and theory affected an amazing portion of working people around the earth, the way they organized and struggled, and the early effects of this influence as partially witnessed during his time. Labor struggle did continue to be influenced and carried on past his time. This struggle had effects on how capital dealt with labor, and also how the state/s tried to remain in power to best serve capital while not collapsing under labor pressure.

Not a static picture A and picture B kind of comparison, but a dynamic process that had its qualitative and quantitative differences in various parts of the world, I think we can safely say that the social democracy was a dialectic product of struggle and capital domination. Not only did the state evolve but also capital evolved in identifying the enemy and source of trouble, as well as the uncomfortable shape of the evolved state. So anti-communism was born through this dialectic process and resulted in the things we very well know now.

Although Marx may have developed the theory to be as scientific as possible, and it is the role of scientific theory to interpret material reality but also form predictions, we can't expect Marx to have metaphysical abilities to see the future and the details of the dialectic he helped form, as this itself would have been a violation of his own philosophy. Marxists on the other hand did apply theory, sometimes in an idealistic way, to interpret dynamic political/economic processes of the decades that followed.

It is clear through class analysis that the logical proposal for the working class to overpower and defeat the ruling class would be to organize, better, more massively, and more effectively. The other class now being affected by this growing organization (syndicalism) isn't it expected to defend itself by organizing better itself?

Can it be possible that the state didn't provide adequate defense and be sufficient organization for the class due to its evolution in the late 19th and early parts of the 20th century in some parts of the world, primarily where capital was mainly based and centered? Would they seek better organization of the nation/state or would they seek further unity among its class globally and try to organize as to be able to control the nation/states?

Marxists seem to have resisted such consideration but I believe that if Marx himself was around he would entertain the possibility of such development.

If so, what is this federation of capital, how does it relate to its influence on different states, and what are the new roles of states within this new framework of capital defense against labor? It appears to be very effective both in accumulation of capital, labor defeat, and on its original goal of anti-communism. But can we revert and conclude it exists because of its effects?

If such possibility exists, how does it effect labor organization and goals overthrowing this federated capital rule?