Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#21

Post by dilemma »

GVIrish wrote: post #15
abtinf wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why we still need communism It is evil to make this comment, whether in earnest or as a joke, for many of the same reasons as if you had said “this is why we still need nazism.” Communism is an ideology responsible for the death of over one hundred million people in the 20th century.

You're conflating communism and authoritarianism. Nothing about Communism as a concept requires massacring people. It's just that in the 20th century those who were murderous autocrats used Communism to convince their (often poor) countrymen to give them power and they killed people in service of that power. Communist and Socialist governments were a popular vehicle for getting poor people to join an uprising in the…

Communism isn't real Communism

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#23

Post by brbrodude »

dilemma wrote: post #12
abtinf wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why we still need communism It is evil to make this comment, whether in earnest or as a joke, for many of the same reasons as if you had said “this is why we still need nazism.” Communism is an ideology responsible for the death of over one hundred million people in the 20th century.

Ok, but the people demanded this comment. It is by far my most popular on HN.

The market has spoken!

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#24

Post by ewzimm »

varjag wrote: post #16
GVIrish wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating communism and authoritarianism. Nothing about Communism as a concept requires massacring people. It's just that in the 20th century those who were murderous autocrats used Communism to convince their (often poor) countrymen to give them power and they killed people in service of that power. Communist and Socialist governments were a popular vehicle for getting poor people to join an uprising in the…

> Nothing about Communism as a concept requires massacring people. Elimination of exploiting classes and abolition of family are two things that certainly require massacring people. If you see any other realistic means of achieving these two points of Communist Manifesto, am all ears.

From the Communist Manifesto:

>The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

If one were dead-set on following he original principles of communism, which I don’t necessarily recommend, as the world has changed a bit since they were published and new ideas have sprung up since then, I think the best method would be as follows:

1. Support workers’ rights without settting up separate political entities or telling people what to do.

2. Make and support great free software so that the most valuable things in the world are free from private control.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#25

Post by varjag »

ewzimm wrote: post #24
varjag wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing about Communism as a concept requires massacring people. Elimination of exploiting classes and abolition of family are two things that certainly require massacring people. If you see any other realistic means of achieving these two points of Communist Manifesto, am all ears.

From the Communist Manifesto: >The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. If one were dead-set on following he original principles of communism, which I don’t necessarily recommen…

But that's not communism.

Socialism is about workers rights, sure. Communism is about abolition of property, the proprietor class and abolition of family (since it's a wealth accumulation instrument).

> The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

Notice how it is very specific about "working-class". It's not coincidental.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#26

Post by ewzimm »

varjag wrote: post #25
ewzimm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Communist Manifesto: >The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. If one were dead-set on following he original principles of communism, which I don’t necessarily recommen…

But that's not communism. Socialism is about workers rights, sure. Communism is about abolition of property, the proprietor class and abolition of family (since it's a wealth accumulation instrument). > The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. Notice how it is very specific about "working-class". It's not coincidental.

Of course I’m not promoting orthodox Marxism here, but it was generally his view that capitalism’s purpose was to catalyze the development of the means of production in preparation for socialism. If that’s the case, we can argue about when they are sufficiently developed to warrant a socialist revolution, but I could argue that conditions are not yet right for it and we first have to reach the point where resources are much more available than they are today. At some point in the future, when we have a healthy asteroid mining industry, fully automated industry, and human genetic engineering, social classes and traditional families will likely no longer be as relevant, so let’s try to reach for that before we implement full communism.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#27

Post by varjag »

ewzimm wrote: post #26
varjag wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not communism. Socialism is about workers rights, sure. Communism is about abolition of property, the proprietor class and abolition of family (since it's a wealth accumulation instrument). > The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. Notice how it is very specific about "working-class". It's not coincidental.

Of course I’m not promoting orthodox Marxism here, but it was generally his view that capitalism’s purpose was to catalyze the development of the means of production in preparation for socialism. If that’s the case, we can argue about when they are sufficiently developed to warrant a socialist revolution, but I could argue that conditions are not yet right for it and we first have to reach the point where resources a…

Marx' view was that communism is the next stage of social-historical development after capitalism and as such is unavoidable due to build up of internal contradictions in the latter. He did envision the transition to be revolutionary and violent, however, and ensuring class struggle wasn't meant to be bloodless.

Socialism was viewed by communists as "fake news" if you will, a fad to distract oppressed working class from building a communist society. FWIW I personally don't find socialism objectionable across much of the continuum of bilateral social compromise it represents. It also seem to have defused most of the tension present in late 1800s-early 1900s.

My reply above was to the common "No True Scotsman" retort to criticisms of Communism. We have at least two societies that did sincere attempts at following tenets of Manifesto, i.e. including both elimination of proprietors and family: early Bolshevik Russia and Khmer Rouge. Internet Communists find the appalling outcome hard to advocate and instead focus on criticising the implementation.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#28

Post by ewzimm »

varjag wrote: post #27
ewzimm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I’m not promoting orthodox Marxism here, but it was generally his view that capitalism’s purpose was to catalyze the development of the means of production in preparation for socialism. If that’s the case, we can argue about when they are sufficiently developed to warrant a socialist revolution, but I could argue that conditions are not yet right for it and we first have to reach the point where resources a…

Marx' view was that communism is the next stage of social-historical development after capitalism and as such is unavoidable due to build up of internal contradictions in the latter. He did envision the transition to be revolutionary and violent, however, and ensuring class struggle wasn't meant to be bloodless. Socialism was viewed by communists as "fake news" if you will, a fad to distract oppressed working class f…

Those are perspectives grounded in history, but I think you’d have to qualify socialism in that case as “market socialism” or “democratic socialism” as it’s understood today.

Marx did lay out socialism as the next stage to follow capitalism but didn’t provide detail about how it was to work, which led to the various types of socialism we have today. Still, many argue that these are all essentially vanguard movements for the communist ideals you laid out: the abolition of private property, social classes, and even the family. This is still the source of a lot of skepticism about the effects of these types of systems. Even without the revolutionary ideology, socialism as it’s implemented today seems to be breaking dependence on traditional social structures.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#29

Post by logicchains »

GVIrish wrote: post #15
abtinf wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why we still need communism It is evil to make this comment, whether in earnest or as a joke, for many of the same reasons as if you had said “this is why we still need nazism.” Communism is an ideology responsible for the death of over one hundred million people in the 20th century.

You're conflating communism and authoritarianism. Nothing about Communism as a concept requires massacring people. It's just that in the 20th century those who were murderous autocrats used Communism to convince their (often poor) countrymen to give them power and they killed people in service of that power. Communist and Socialist governments were a popular vehicle for getting poor people to join an uprising in the…

>Nothing about Communism as a concept requires massacring people.

It requires either jailing or massacring people who own any property and don't want to give it up, and any people who choose to exchange goods and services with each other.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#30

Post by varjag »

ewzimm wrote: post #28
varjag wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marx' view was that communism is the next stage of social-historical development after capitalism and as such is unavoidable due to build up of internal contradictions in the latter. He did envision the transition to be revolutionary and violent, however, and ensuring class struggle wasn't meant to be bloodless. Socialism was viewed by communists as "fake news" if you will, a fad to distract oppressed working class f…

Those are perspectives grounded in history, but I think you’d have to qualify socialism in that case as “market socialism” or “democratic socialism” as it’s understood today. Marx did lay out socialism as the next stage to follow capitalism but didn’t provide detail about how it was to work, which led to the various types of socialism we have today. Still, many argue that these are all essentially vanguard movements…

It's been a while since my Marxism-Leninism class so caveat emptor, but I believe the role of socialism was limited. There supposed to be transitional phase from coercive proletarian state to truly classless society aided by "socialist mode of production", but not much after that.

The socialist and social-democratic (as you correctly put it) movements promoted socialism as end-game within bourgeois/capitalist social framework and were viewed as adversarial.

And clearly there are ongoing changes in social fabric but it's hard to attribute them to socialist movements alone more than to e.g. technological, agricultural or medical advances.

Post reply on HN