Then what is it? A teapot in the sky?
If it's a viable plan which can be realized, then how to achieve it, without killing people and creating a dictatorship? Is it possible?
I might be wrong, but it seems to me that any effort to establish communism will eventually fail with a lot paid in vain, and many lives lost, as has happened so far.
If that viable plan needs time to be accepted more widely, then maybe we should simply wait and try to be decent people in the meantime, instead of trying now to establish a "temporary" dictatorship actively as a way of "transition". And if the plan can be acted upon right now, then again the question is how (without resorting to violence and tyranny, of course). That question remains open to me. And it's a big one.
Ok, fair enough. So, everyone should be allowed, regardless of their way of thinking, to participate in managing the society. Right?
(right?)
(Also, in general, regardless of who governs, the government still should not, under any circumstances, limit individual liberties and human rights, free access to information, etc, since these are very basic stuff and should not be overridden by any socio-economic system.)
The problem is exactly the "how", as you described. And personally, I don't really have any idea, since all the possible ways seem to involve somehow contradicting that goal "temporarily" (by using violence, limiting individual liberties, etc.), which I don't like. I think maybe over time, (a very long time, perhaps?) the way of thinking of human societies will slowly (and through a painful process) shift to that direction (and maybe not! who knows!).
Thanks. Maybe, kind of. My knowledge on the topic is limited, but I think communalism (or some version of it) could involve some form of loyalty to one's ethnic group or community, which absolutely disagree with.
Social responsibility: Yes. But loyalty, especially towards something ultimately meaningless such as ethnicity: No.
My values are respecting individual choices, rights and well-being of others (which also entails some responsibility).
I can't really say I believe in a specific model, but to my knowledge, and for the current version of our world, welfare states seem to be doing the least worse currently. But really, I think our world is kinda too fucked up right now to be able to have any good social-economic system (in terms of maximum equality and minimum suffering, I guess.)
Ideally, I'd prefer no state, only local communities managing themselves (something like city states, maybe?) and their relations to other communities... but I know it's just a dream, at least for the foreseeable future, considering the current realities and the ass-people in power. Because that would need many really peaceful, non-greedy and non-selfish people, which... well, never mind.
P.s. Sorry for the pessimism, and I might be wrong of course, which I really hope I am.
That's why it's important to use hard copyleft licenses like the GPLv3 instead of merely open-source MIT or BSD licenses wherever possible when you publish software.
I have been using Linux since 2006, a lefty and against the super-rich and big corporations since I remember (to the point of avoiding their products like the plague), also never having understood or accepted gender roles and other stupid traditional concepts, yet never turned into a communist 🤷
It baffles me that so many people think that respecting gender equality, understanding the evil in big corporations and avoiding them, valuing community and being tolerant (except for intolerance) and against discrimination somehow equals communism... I say this because I've been called a communist by many people who know me, while I have always rejected it explicitly!
I think you're describing right libertarianism (which is what is known as libertarianism in the US, I think), which is influenced mainly by the ideas of Ayn Rand.
But there is also left libertarianism, which is not based on "free market" as per those libertarians. Examples of people on this spectrum I think would be Noam Chomsky (US), Bernie Sanders (US), Jeremy Corbyn (UK)... and historically: Nestor Makhno (Ukraine), National confederation of labor (Spain, fighting against Franco), Iberian Anarchist Federation (Same), and effectively any other left-leaning Anarchism-oriented person, movement or party.
Well, libertarian doesn't necessarily mean someone in line with the Libertarian Party of the US. If we want to consider the meanings of these terms by referring to how they are understood to in the US, we would be all very confused, since everything in the US seems to have a twisted meaning.
See for example, their Fascist party is called the "Republican Party"... Their Right-center oriented party is often referred to as a "left-leaning" party... and finally there's another right-wing party with slightly different positions than the fascist party, calling themselves the "Libertarian Party", because why not! 🤷
That's assuming that all workers have good intentions and consider the good of all humans before power.
Well, surprise! Workers are humans. And we have seen many times what happens when uncontrolled power has been given to any human group or individual humans.
There should be no power to the government. Only management positions. And those management positions need to be open to all people with abilities regarding those management positions.
Of course this discussion in this form is an oversimplification (e.g. no mention of whether/how to run a police force, a judiciary, or a military), but the point is that not only a "government being run by workers" wouldn't solve any problem, it would introduce even more, in my opinion. It's just as bad as effectively letting the corporations or rich people run the government. Looks at the US
No problem with that! That's actually a great thing, in my opinion. The problem, however would be a government run by any specific group of people with any specific properties other than their abilities. Because otherwise it would inevitably lead to dictatorship, as it has been tried many times throughout the history.
In short:
corporations run by workers -> Good!
governments run specifically by workers/corporations/religious institutions/rich people/etc -> No, please no!
Everyone should be able to participate in running and managing our society.
If you want different shortcuts, use the following command in your .desktop file (assuming you use Linux): firefox -no-remote -P <profilename>
for example, assuming you named your music profile music, you put the following line in a firefox-music.desktop file you'll create in ~/.local/share/applications/:
Exec=firefox -no-remote -P music (in addition to other common .desktop file fields)
If your firefox executable is not located in your $PATH (for example if you downloaded it directly from Mozilla), then you need to put the path too. for example: Exec=~/apps/firefox/firefox -no-remote -P music
Edit:
here's a full .desktop file example for a profile named "work":
file path and name: /home/confusedllama/.local/share/applications/firefox-work.desktop
Content:
[Desktop Entry]
Name=Firefox for work
GenericName=Web Browser
Exec=/home/confusedllama/apps/firefox/firefox -no-remote -P work
Icon=/home/confusedllama/apps/firefox/browser/chrome/icons/default/default128.png
Terminal=false
Type=Application
MimeType=text/html;text/xml;application/xhtml+xml;application/vnd.mozilla.xul+xml;text/mml;x-scheme-handler/http;x-scheme-handler/https;
StartupNotify=true
Categories=Network;WebBrowser;
Name[en_US]=Firefox for work
Actions=new-window;new-private-window;
[Desktop Action new-window]
Name=Open a New Window
Exec=/home/confusedllama/apps/firefox/firefox -no-remote -P work -new-window
[Desktop Action new-private-window]
Name=Open a New Private Window
Exec=/home/confusedllama/apps/firefox/firefox -no-remote -P work -private-window
This example will give you "Open a new window" and "Open a private window" options too, when you right click on the shortcut. Also as you can see, you can even set a different icon for each shortcut.