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

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#31

Post by ewzimm »

varjag wrote: post #30
ewzimm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Socialism and communism are often used interchangeably, but communism almost always refers to the end state, while socialism tends to encompass both the transition and the end state. It’s a little hazy even to Marxists. This might help clear it up:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.h...

Anyway, the type of socialism you’re referring to is associated with the cooperative movement which led to things like mutual insurance and credit unions. I fully support these types of systems in which people with common interests and a common communitry create structures to support themselves. I think this is the best way to create structures with community-based values that compete with for-profit industries which don’t always represent their customers.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#32

Post by amag »

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…

Let's not forget Mao, he sure killed quite a few people as well.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#33

Post by amag »

s_kilk wrote: post #5
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, thought experiment, what is the death-toll of Capitalism in the last century?

This surely is comparing apples and oranges.

When communist death tolls are discussed the meaning are those who are killed when communism is implemented or re-enforced (e.g. The Great Leap). When capitalism is implemented there is no need to shoot communists.

Death tolls from capitalism are due to other factors which may also exist in one form or another in a communist regime (e.g. war).

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#34

Post by GVIrish »

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.

> 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.

I mean if you want to strictly adhere to the Communist Manifesto then you're probably going to end up with strike and violence in some form. That still doesn't mean you have to massacre people to evenly distribute property and wealth. That could be done through a judicial system if a government was so inclined. It just so happens that autocrats prefer massacring people. That has been true of capitalist dictatorships as well as communist ones. Communist dictatorships killed far more people to be sure.

If you want to look at Communism as a very strict system that can only exist in the way that Marx conceived then yeah you'll probably end up with bloodshed. But every sort of political system has a number of different interpretations and modes of implementation. The Communist governments we've seen thus far have taken a few different forms so it's entirely possible that a more benevolent form of Communist government will take root somewhere. I just don't think mass killings is a key component of Communism as a system. Mass killings were how Communist autocrats seized power and maintained power.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#35

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#36

Post by julianmarq »

executesorder66 wrote: post #18
abtinf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero. Capitalism is the system of protecting the rights of the individual to engage in the free exchange of goods and services. The extent of human flourishing is the extent to which human societies adopt capitalism. Even when it is adopted in small degrees, the result is a dramatic uplifting of billions of people out of poverty. Capitalism is good and we would all be better off if we had more of it. All of the mass…

> Capitalism is the system of protecting the rights of the individual to engage in the free exchange of goods and services. If they can afford it. Capitalism is actually the system of stealing value from your labour in order to make a profit. > The extent of human flourishing is the extent to which human societies adopt capitalism. I guess that explains why two of the world superpowers in recent times are/were commun…

> If they can afford it. Capitalism is actually the system of stealing value from your labour in order to make a profit.

And yet, freelancers or one-employee businesses are also engaging in capitalism. Are those the ones being stolen from or the ones stealing? Socialist ideas are so confusing that I can no longer tell.

> I guess that explains why two of the world superpowers in recent times are/were communist (USSR, China)

And half of them dropped it while the other is not precisely the best place to live in the world, even if it might be the only communist experiment that isn't a complete nightmare.

> That must explain why China is lifting more people out of poverty than any other country.

Wasn't China the place were only five years ago there were thousands starving in sweatshops? And that's assuming that isn't happening anymore, I haven't kept up to date on that.

> It's better than fuedalism, but I'd rather live in a society focused on helping each other, than in one focused on exploiting others as much as I can to maximize my capital.

It's not like you can't live in such a place today, where are you writing this from? I'm assuming China, given that it's the only example of communism you're using.

> But don't you think it's better when people work together and help each other, rather than thinking only of themselves?

Capitalism prevents this how? For that matter, this you're describing here isn't what socialism or communism are about, as history shows.

> You sound like someone who drank way to much of the Ayn Rand Cool Aid.

And you sound like someone who'd greatly regret his/her life choices once you see yourself in a gulag (or a gulag by any other name). Wait, did you think you'd be spared?

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#37

Post by dragonwriter »

julianmarq wrote: post #36
executesorder66 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capitalism is the system of protecting the rights of the individual to engage in the free exchange of goods and services. If they can afford it. Capitalism is actually the system of stealing value from your labour in order to make a profit. > The extent of human flourishing is the extent to which human societies adopt capitalism. I guess that explains why two of the world superpowers in recent times are/were commun…

> If they can afford it. Capitalism is actually the system of stealing value from your labour in order to make a profit. And yet, freelancers or one-employee businesses are also engaging in capitalism. Are those the ones being stolen from or the ones stealing? Socialist ideas are so confusing that I can no longer tell. > I guess that explains why two of the world superpowers in recent times are/were communist (USSR,…

> > Capitalism is actually the system of stealing value from your labour in order to make a profit.

> And yet, freelancers or one-employee businesses are also engaging in capitalism.

Those are essentially two different words that happen to be spelled and pronounced the same. The first is a politico-economic system, the second is the act of of entrepreneurship independent of what politico-economic context it occurs in.

That they are both called “capitalism” doesn't actually make them the same thing.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#38

Post by varjag »

amag wrote: post #32
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…

Let's not forget Mao, he sure killed quite a few people as well.

Sure. Am just not certain he ever tried abolition of family, having only a cursory knowledge of Maoism. Given that he was disciple of Stalin (who assumed power long after USSR ceded on these attempts), suspected he did not.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#39

Post by varjag »

GVIrish wrote: post #34
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.

> 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. I mean if you want to strictly adhere to the Communist Manifesto then you're probably going to end up with strike and violence in some form. That still doesn't mean you have to massacre people to eve…

> That still doesn't mean you have to massacre people to evenly distribute property and wealth.

The point of Communism isn't to evenly distribute property and wealth. It's to eliminate property ownership completely, and prevent further accumulation of wealth by individuals. The commune part of Communism.

> I just don't think mass killings is a key component of Communism as a system.

It's not an end goal, but an unavoidable instrument if you want to rob people of their property or destroy their families. Historically, there was not much voluntary cooperation.

Re: Stack Overflow lays off 20% of staff

#40

Post by dragonwriter »

varjag wrote: post #39
GVIrish wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I mean if you want to strictly adhere to the Communist Manifesto then you're probably going to end up with strike and violence in some form. That still doesn't mean you have to massacre people to eve…

> That still doesn't mean you have to massacre people to evenly distribute property and wealth. The point of Communism isn't to evenly distribute property and wealth. It's to eliminate property ownership completely, and prevent further accumulation of wealth by individuals. The commune part of Communism. > I just don't think mass killings is a key component of Communism as a system. It's not an end goal, but an unavo…

> The point of Communism isn't to evenly distribute property and wealth. It's to eliminate property ownership completely

No, just non-public ownership of the means of production (at least in Marxism and those forms of Communism whose approach on this point follows Marxism, which is not all of Communism); this is a frequent point of confusion in criticism of Communism because Communist literature and theory uses a different definition of “private property” than non-Communists are used to, which both leads to both accidental confusion of people not familiar with this fact, and intentional misrepresentation by dishonest critics who are fully familiar with the difference but expect that their audience is not.

Post reply on HN