[Atlas667]

Capitalism is the privatization of human needs. As long as these tech platforms are owned privately they will be used to police and make money.

This view NEEDS to be central to the tech freedom rhetoric, else the whole movement is literally just begging politicians and hoping corporations do the right thing... useless.

[nazgulsenpai]

Aren't the politicians or their appointed bureaucrats who'd be making all the decisions if these needs were government owned? Why would state control lead to less policing? What incentive structure would lead to innovation without a profit motive, when even the modern communist world relies on capital markets?

(these are honest questions and not "gotcha")

[Atlas667]

> Aren't the politicians or their appointed bureaucrats who'd be making all the decisions if these needs were government owned?

Well that would be true under a capitalist government.

> Why would state control lead to less policing?

Its not just "the state runs it", its "we actively become the state".

Collective ownership through peoples councils, peoples courts with a world view that keeps it all open: socialism.

The world view of not allowing individual ownership over collective goods, the world view of socialism, is the life line of the movement. The actual practice of daily democracy, of running production and of deciding social functions is everyones responsibility and it should not be left to what has become a professional class of liars.

Public office members, which should only exist where absolutely necessary, should be locals and serve as messengers with 0 decision making power. All power should be in the local councils. We can mathematically implement this today (0 knowledge proofs).

Every single book on socialism is on theory and practices of acheiving this. Thats what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is", the dictatorship of working people, collectively.

> What incentive structure would lead to innovation without a profit motive, when even the modern communist world relies on capital markets?

We've been innovating for hundreds of thousands of years before capitalism. You dont need to generate money to innovate, the innovation itself is the driver, AKA a better life. No need to lock and limit production behind the attaining of profits of those who lead it.

[nazgulsenpai]

Thanks for responding.

[Atlas667]

Yeah, dude thanks for the good faith.

A lot of people are allergic to this rhetoric and will just assume I have a deep irrational bias, but I was actually a staunch free market supporter before.

Once I decided to be more intellectually honest with myself and read more about what both sides meant historically and currently, it really just made sense.

[nazgulsenpai]

I'm so exhausted of the partisan "my team vs your team" politics in the US that shuts down conversation, overlooks the blatant hypocrisies on either side, simplifies every issue to a single label to plaster on your opponent, etc etc.

I take honest conversation where I can get it, even when I don't agree. And to be clear I don't agree with most of your points and think it's idealistic and couldn't work in the real world. But I appreciate the spirit of what you're arguing for (in my interpretation) power with the people vs power with corporations and government and I think that's a very fundamental principle that is very important common ground.

edit: clarity

[mistercheph]

Copyleft fixes this.

[Atlas667]

They have the incentive to never chose this.

If we force it upon them by begging politicians, corporations still have the incentive to find a way to remove it or circumvent it.

Youre playing the cat and mouse game because you've been taught that solving it is too extreme (thats not a coincidence).

We dont need to endlessly fight a whole class of people, capitalists, for them not to use the things we require against us. Only socialism can solve that.