Most people don’t know they are allowed to dream, let alone in which direction. While this might not connect with you, there are millions of tech workers who have zero perspective on what’s out there.

I would argue the title implies “leaving the tech industry”, and in the beginning it says the article is for who wants to still work with the same skillset, but outside of the tech industry as in the companies who produce technology for profit. Probably only the tech co-op part can be said to be still within the tech industry

Futurism.com is garbage. I think it’s quite a distorted narrative: the vetting is extremely invasive, with regular face scans and passport verifications at sign up. Then maybe a lot of shit was still going through, but this narrative suggests that these companies are not at the forefront of extremely invasive worker surveillance, which is demonstrably false given the wave of class actions and privacy violation proceedings they are subject to.

You wouldn’t criticize a baker for studying and applying chemistry to their craft.

It’s fun you bring this up because it’s been a debate for a long time: baker theory and practice beats chemistry every day if you want to make nice bread. Baking and proofing are not exact sciences and in most scenarios, even industrial breadmaking, complete reproducibility is unfeasible. When it’s achieved, it’s achieved at the cost of making terrible bread.

Mamdani won the primary while identifying as a socialist, the fact you can somehow take that win and twist it into a negative, insisting we should abandon the label, shows that you in fact are the one who has abandoned reality for fantasy, the fantasy that the bourgeoisie has won a decisive battle against communism and our only remaining solution is to retreat onto their terms.

Thousands and thousands before him ran for mayor under a socialist identity. He won because he built a strong infrastructure, he has good communication, he doesn’t care about intellectuals and theory but actual, concrete problem as lived by people and not as investigated by sociologists. The same is true for Die Linke in Germany: decades of swinging around their socialist identity and no result. Purging the old ideologues stuck in their books and 6 months of building infrastructure for canvassing and they tripled their votes.

Organized, disciplined class struggle can, and will, break the chains of capital. For sure, but old identities and old practices are repulsive and an obstacle to obtaining such result. Organization is built on relationships and relationships are built on commonality. If people do not identify as socialists and think socialists are losers that keep talking about irrelevant stuff, that commonality is not there and it’s harder to build.

You know what’s the cool part about this new way of doing politics on the ground? That most people are realizing they can leave behind opinionated communists: they make for worse organizers because they question everything and reason from prime principles, they have no leverage, and they have no positional power. We are just collectively moving on from the need of stale leftists to be involved at all. We will leave you larping on the internet, quoting dead people to each other while we do the work.

You should do some politics in the real world. You clearly leave in a fantasy made of theory books

There’s plenty of neo-nazis in the Free Software movement. It’s “Free Software”, not “Free People”

The opposition was there, but the construction of a shared mass identity for workers was a viable strategy in the face of that specific environment, that now has changed. Political strategy is not a blueprint and just because it worked in a radically different environment, doesn’t mean it’s going to work again and, in fact, it failed over and over in the West for the last 40-50 years.

Identity is a primary driver of political participation and today almost nobody wants to be a communist: right-wingers because they are right-wingers, progressives because communists lost over and over, and even communist more often than not prefer to identify with a specific sect and present themselves as such. Just because an identity and a narrative worked once, doesn’t mean they will work every time.

are you aware the world of communication, identity and political decision-making resembles very little the world they were living in? Do you think a century of anti-communist propaganda does nothing and it will magically disappear if you state your identity hard enough? So egocentric.

it’s source available, and most of the code is public, but you cannot contribute or fork

his voter base is people of color, wtf are you talking about? That’s helping him.

He just represents novelty and anti-establishment values like talking about the problems of working class people, in the same way Trump does, but he does that without appealing to fear or hate. That’s it, that’s why he won. The rest is just ornamental. He defines himself socialist to get traction and participation among volunteers, but for the voter base, that’s not helping him.

or, you know, you could be strategic and stop making politics an identitarian issue to avoid such reactions. Mamdani won despite defining himself as a socialist, not because of it.

it’s not open source

protestantism for techbros. Boring. No machine will come and save you, just go to therapy instead.

Also the future is built, not predicted.

The market doesn’t reward quality.

ok, CEO…

decespugliatore (debusher) or tosaerba (grass shearing)

Money is not a measure of power. Power is always relational, positional. You can position yourself better and build relationships using money, but you can also waste a lot of it to gain very little power.

It’s ultimately about what actions you enable for the people who side with you, and money is a great enabler, but if we are talking about private entrepreneurs, usually the vast majority of their wealth cannot be freely allocated to political projects, but it’s blocked to generate further capital. The portion you decide to spend to garner political, social and mediatic capital, and how you spend it, matters more than your total wealth.

Rodrigo Nunes.

There’s no self-organization, neither in politics nor anywhere. There’s no spontaneity. Political change is a function of environmental conditions and systemic decision-making.

Fascism is a symptom of chaos and lack of order. Political action is the creation of order (organization) towards coexistence.

Politics is a conflict of forces, not a conflict ideas: it consists in constructing the powers necessary to alter the existent (potentia) and deconstructing the power that keeps things the same (potestas). Anything that happens and doesn’t alter this balance of power between potentia and potestas is simply a reproduction of the present in a different form.

Contrary to most people, most of my thoughts are in the form of a dialogue. When it’s a monologue, it’s still a monologue delivered to a crowd. So the language basically depends on who I’m thinking to speak to. Sometimes the mechanism is faulty so I snap out and realize I would never speak English to a certain person.

For context, I’m Italian, living in Germany with an American partner.

Most people don’t study history. A lot of those that do, do want specific patterns to repeat.

Also humans don’t form their political positions through knowledge and reasoning, but primarily through relationships. If everybody around you is right-wing and you want to fit in, you’re going to be come right wing, rationalizing any knowledge of history you might have into supporting your right-wing position.