• Little_mouse@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    8 days ago

    Same way it’s done now, only with the profit staying with the workers. Anti-capitalism is not anti-infrastructure or anti-technology or even anti-commerce. It’s just anti-private-ownership of the above.

    • TheMightyCat@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 days ago

      I know, that’s why I asked how would it be build under anarchism, not under anti-capitalism.

      My question was really how could something as logistically complex as a semiconductor fab be build without some organization to coordinate it.

      But as @BeatL@pawb.social said if anarchism = no unjust hierarchy then that is no problem. As there is still a organization coordinating things just not an unjust one?

      I admit I’m not very knowledgeable about anarchism.

      I don’t really associate anarchism with the global supply chains necessary to build and run a semiconductor fab. But I suppose I am mistaken then?

      • A404@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        7 days ago

        A common misconception is that we need hierarchy to handle complexity. The best way to handle complexity is by increasing the amount of decision makers. Just look at how the open source community can compete with professional software companies despite not having any hierarchy,

        • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 days ago

          The hierarchy is not set in stone, but I wouldn’t say there isn’t one. Otherwise, anyone could merge anything into any repo. And yes, not one repo needs to be “the official” one, but they de facto are, until some people decide to split out for some reason.

          So I don’t see it as a lack of a hierarchy, more as a consensual hierarchy similar in some ways to a democracy. But hey I may be completely off!

          • ChilledPeppers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 days ago

            A opt in hierarchy can be accepted in anarchism, because you are not coerced by it. If there is a project and you want to add your feature, but they dont allow it, you can just soft fork and maintain your feature separately from the main project.

        • Cypher@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          The best way to handle complexity is by increasing the amount of decision makers

          Spoken like someone who has never witnessed the horrors of design by committee

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          That is not true big successful Open source products have a decision maker. Linus for the kernel as an example…

      • Diurnambule@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        Good specs and motivated people at the right place… As we do now in high complexity IT environments. The major struggle we got in production are people being unmotivated, as it should in this system. But if you only have people doing it for the love systems would be far different.