An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer • Hacker News Board

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#331

Post by thiagoharry » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 7:35 PM UTC

pelasaco wrote: post #305

wpwpwpw wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you have an answer in marx's capital: all surplus is wage theft because the capitalist, who does nothing, gets money from those who do the work. so any more money you get is not free, it's just a slight reduction in the money which is getting stolen from you.

what insane idea, don't believe people still citing Marx in 2023, coming from a communist country, I can just laugh hard on you. I'm working on a open source software, and our money depends directly on our work. Our CTO works side by side with us, and our bonus are all the same. That's just BS. If you want the same conditions, there are plenty of companies doing the same. Just find one.

Coming from a capitalist country, I say that money here do not depend directly on our work. The majority of people in my country works a lot and receives very little. The life for workers on farms, and meat-packing industries are particularly difficult and cruel. There are lots of people that becomes sick, or that became unable to work because of lesions. And guess that: they keep being poor and their employers are rich despite working much less. People in developed countries would understand better why Marx is still considered relevant and has worldwide appeal looking outside the comfort bubble that only a small part of countries in the world enjoy. Tech industries are not so terrible? Sure, they are not, and jobs in developed countries also are much better. But let's not forget that the goal in capitalism is increase profits, not well being of people. If and when it is necessary, the well being can be sacrificed. And even if you work in much better conditions, all the increase in productivity that you achieve will go to increase profits, not your wage. Sure, sometimes you can receive a little bonus and a good environment as a "thank you", that returns to you a small part of what you produced.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#332

Post by thiagoharry » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 7:49 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #181

carlosjobim wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. Skills have an unlimited supply that can not be limited. If you want to mind-bend people into believing skills are capital, then all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid.

> Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. I have no interest in the communist vocabulary. Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. > all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid. In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor",…

> Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century.

Well, capitalism also killed hundred million people in the same century following the same logic... Modern capitalism and institutions also came from bloody revolutions, created a world order with colonialism in XIX century, produced wars to dispute such colonies and global power in XX century and did a lot of bloodshed also in XX century because it was afraid of losing power to socialism. If we use this logic, we cannot discuss any philosophy or social theory, probably all them produced several deaths.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#333

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 7:52 PM UTC

jgeada wrote: post #274

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The company (owners plus workers) getting a big pot of money is not adversarial, it's cooperative. Dividing the pot of money is where it gets adversarial. But spend all your time focusing on how to divide the pot always (at least in the long run) means the whole group loses out on the big pot of money.

Management decides what portion of the pot gets to be divided by the workers, and much of that pot you might get. You're not even a part of that discussion. You are an individual, management is not. They have negotiating power because they see what everyone else gets paid, you don't. Your only viable threat is walking away, and for most people that is not a credible threat. Your perception of your negotiation skills…

Even accepting everything you say, you have still missed my point. Company A has employees who are working as a team, working for the good of the company. Company B has employees that are doing as the article says, sabotaging actual work. Which company is going to do better, A or B? Even if management decides that workers only get X%, and workers can't negotiate that, in which company is there a bigger pot available to pay workers?

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#334

Post by thiagoharry » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 8:09 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #265

malermeister wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. So did Capitalism [0]. Now what? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme

> So did Capitalism The logic that attributes those deaths to "capitalism" is lot more sketchy than the obvious fact that the deaths I attributed to communism were directly due to the actions of governments who explicitly declared themselves to be communists and who directly took the actions that resulted in the deaths with the explicit purpose of advancing communism. "Capitalism" isn't even a single philosophy, let…

The wars, purging campaigns, African slave trade and colonial wars were all made by governments that were (and declared themselves) capitalists and that did actions with the explicit purpose of advancing profits for their dominant classes. Several ethnic conflicts also were provoked by them. I do not think that we have so much difference here.

The problem is that it is normalized in western ideology to consider any death in communist countries as death by communism and any death in capitalist countries as explained by several other factors that do not relate with capitalism.

> "Capitalism" isn't even a single philosophy,

But I can say the same for communism. Or any other concept: there always will be differences in interpretations. And capitalists do not need an explicit manifesto because they are already the hegemonic power. They already succeeded in their past revolutions to give power to the bourgeoisie. The ideals for what they fought in the past are already normalized in the society.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#335

Post by pdonis » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 8:36 PM UTC

carlosjobim wrote: post #315

pdonis wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Capital" is generally understood as exclusive ownership. Sure, and you exclusively own your skills, so they meet this definition. > Applying your skills is still labour. The time you spend applying them is labor, yes. The knowledge on your part of how to apply them to produce much more value in that time than a unskilled worker could produce, is capital. And the fact that you can get paid much more than an unskill…

> Sure, and you exclusively own your skills, so they meet this definition. You can never exclusively own skills. If somebody else achieves some skill or knowledge that I have, I cannot use the force of the government to stop him from having those. A capitalist can and will use the force of the government to stop others from using the things he has laid claim to: Land, natural resources, equipment. A capitalist can cr…

> If somebody else achieves some skill or knowledge that I have, I cannot use the force of the government to stop him from having those.

That is true, but it's irrelevant here. When you use your skills to increase your productivity, it's your productivity that gets increased, not someone else's, even if they have similar skills. That is the sense of exclusive ownership that is relevant to this discussion.

> A capitalist can and will use the force of the government to stop others from using the things he has laid claim to

So can a non-capitalist. Anyone who is willing to use the government as a tool to further their own ends can. That is a much broader set of people than "capitalists".

> A capitalist can create capital out of thin air by making money

No, that's not what creates capital out of thin air. What creates capital out of thin air is creating something that increases productivity. Just "making money" does not do that. Money can of course help with creating something that increases productivity, but it can't be done just by making (or spending) money.

> and use the force of the government to stop others from making money.

Again, this is not a problem of capitalism, it's a problem of corruption: people using the government as a tool to further their own ends.

> Right now I think it is mainly unskilled workers who are changing sectors, as they are the ones who can benefit most from it.

I don't think this is true. Skilled workers are far more likely to be underpaid as compared to the productivity they are capable of.

> As for skilled workers, they have already climbed a few steps on the ladder.

I don't think this is true either. Skilled workers very often are not able to climb on the ladder, because their skills are not being recognized or compensated properly as compared to other skills that ladder climbers have, like schmoozing and taking credit for other people's work. And once they recognize this, they are far more likely to be both willing to and capable of finding a better job that compensates them better for the skills they have.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#336

Post by MarkMarine » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:13 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #282

throwaway675309 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absurdly farcical take. They went away because government regulations were slowly built up to guard against this kind of thing from occurring in the future. See Fair Labor Standards Act in the 1930s.

If we unwound technology back to 1900 level or so, child labor would come back, laws or no laws.

Just to put a fine point on this, a couple child labor in manufacturing news articles from today:

Children found working throughout Hyundai's supply chain, 12 year olds working in manufacturing jobs in the US - https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-immi...

New proposed law in Iowa that allows children to work in meatpacking, mining, and other dangerous jobs. Employers not civilly libel if killed: - https://www.commondreams.org/news/iowa-child-labor-laws

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#337

Post by MarkMarine » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:16 PM UTC

tpush wrote: post #328

WalterBright wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you square the circle It's squared by the employees wanting the maximum pay for the least amount of work. It's call "Supply & Demand". It's the Law. > impossible for an individual to push against and win anything that is contested Not impossible at all. I've done it many times. The power the employee has is to say "No" and go work for someone else, or start their own company. > Like 80 hour work weeks / chil…

Walter Bright, you're a callous fuckstick.

Creator of the D language if that's the same person. Talented programmer, I guess some interesting ideas about class divisions and how the lower classes should be treated by the upper classes.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#338

Post by ClumsyPilot » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 9:21 PM UTC

pelasaco wrote: post #309

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who should we compare outselves to? Can't be doctors - they risk deadly infection to save a life. Lets not get carried away thinking we are specially noble.

> Lets not get carried away thinking we are specially noble. The guy in Nebraska maintaining one of key dependencies of your project thanklessly disagrees[1]. Well, we build stuff. we praise the knowledge. We were called geeks, hackers, etc. I can just compare software engineering with science like math, * engineering, physics. Finance market as put by the other contributor, is just what we are not, and why Linux exi…

What is the conclusion we should reach then -> engineers are unnecessarily noble and should not allow themselves to be exploited?

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#339

Post by ninjagoo » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 10:23 PM UTC

MarkMarine wrote: post #337

tpush wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walter Bright, you're a callous fuckstick.

Creator of the D language if that's the same person. Talented programmer, I guess some interesting ideas about class divisions and how the lower classes should be treated by the upper classes.

There are some theories on the source of these disconnects between talent and odd beliefs. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nicoll#%22Brain_eater%22

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#340

Post by ninjagoo » Wed, Feb 08, 2023, 11:23 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #281

MarkMarine wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> were necessary when productivity was much lower than today. Wow. just incredible. I've never seen the take that kids working in manufacturing jobs were necessary. Begs the question, necessary for whom?

> necessary for whom? Do you know that it wasn't until 1800 or so, and only in the US, where the ever-present spectre of famine was eliminated? Economies simply were unable to produce enough food. It wasn't that the rich were eating it all. There just wasn't enough food. Which means it's all hands on deck to work. Other problems were it was very expensive to produce cloth, so for people to get clothing, lots and lots…

> Do you know that it wasn't until 1800 or so, and only in the US, where the ever-present spectre of famine was eliminated? Economies simply were unable to produce enough food. It wasn't that the rich were eating it all. There just wasn't enough food.

There's no way to sugarcoat it - this is completely false. There were many regions around the world that were prosperous, many for far longer than the United States has been around. Humans have been smart for a long time, far longer than our current global technological civilization... [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]