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

'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

truthdig.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 278 posts

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#241

Post by reading-at-work »

zanny wrote: post #191
Fins wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't it at least a little bit curious that any and everyone trying to implement it did an equally terrible job?

I'm not a fan of the argument that since the Soviet Union and its derivative states (including China) failed that there is no way to accomplish that Marxist utopic vision or that any variation on socialism has to fail. Russia was the only real attempt. The 1917 revolution was about it, and then the coup by Stalin to overthrow Lenin and Trotsky threw out any shred of attempt to reach any kind of utopia and just turned…

I see what you're saying, and you're right that foreign influence is a big factor, but I'd still argue that the failure of the USSR shows a major flaw in the system, and that is that it is easily exploited by despots. I made a similar point in another comment so I'll just link it rather than copy/paste it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16689969

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#242

Post by bbddg »

reading-at-work wrote: post #215
bbddg wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between saying "Capitalism in America" vs the whole system of capitalism. That aside it's probably hyperbolic for me to claim that it "might not have even been possible." My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism. I'm sure there's equally biased pro-socialist rhetoric but since we live in a capitalist society the scale is…

I see what you're saying, and it's a fair point. I've never claimed capitalism is without its flaws. You say "people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism," but more often I hear the opposite. I see socialism promoted all the time as this utopian ideal, and capitalism detracted as a horrible injustice, at least in my circles. So I suppose I'm more conditioned to…

I would point to Scandinavian countries as probably the best functioning economies in the world right now. They aren't socialist, but they're closer than the US is. The fear of Authoritarianism is a real threat under any system. There is a certain level of authoritarianism that we live with here in the US I would argue. I don't think that socialism has to mean "large-centralized government". I look at it more like extending democracy to include the workplace and the economy.

As for what that means exactly, I don't have a good answer for you. I'm trying to find answers myself. Maybe every business needs to be a worker-owned co-op. Maybe we should have a "National fund" that replaces private banks and investments in which every member of society would have equal ownership of. Maybe we should all live in communes in the woods.

I guess I should explain why I think this is even necessary. If the only issue was poverty, we could probably just make do with the social-democratic, Scandinavian style economy. However, to really challenge climate change and automation I think we might need more radical solutions.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#243

Post by reading-at-work »

deft wrote: post #221
reading-at-work wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In a successful socialist state neither party elites or bureaucrats should exist." So to paraphrase, there has never been a successful socialist state.

Exactly, read the essay length comment above from another user. They explained it well. The USSR was the only country that made a legitimate attempt at implementing it. Once Stalin got rid of the people interested in that idea it was all downhill.

I'd disagree that the USSR was the only "legitimate" attempt. And even accepting that premise I think it does still show a flaw in the system, which is that it was easily exploited by a despot to seize control. By allowing the state absolute control of the economy, which is necessary to transition into a truly socialist system, you give the people running the state immense power. Then you just have to hope they treat it responsibly, which as we know, didn't happen.

I made a longer argument about that here, probably better to link it than reiterate it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16689969

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#244

Post by reading-at-work »

bbddg wrote: post #242
reading-at-work wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you're saying, and it's a fair point. I've never claimed capitalism is without its flaws. You say "people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism," but more often I hear the opposite. I see socialism promoted all the time as this utopian ideal, and capitalism detracted as a horrible injustice, at least in my circles. So I suppose I'm more conditioned to…

I would point to Scandinavian countries as probably the best functioning economies in the world right now. They aren't socialist, but they're closer than the US is. The fear of Authoritarianism is a real threat under any system. There is a certain level of authoritarianism that we live with here in the US I would argue. I don't think that socialism has to mean "large-centralized government". I look at it more like ex…

As far as the Scandinavian countries, I'd agree that they're operating well. However, like you said, they aren't socialist. They're strong market economies with social safety nets layered on top. They're also very homogeneous, and smaller population-wise than the US, making those social programs easier to implement, fund, and maintain.

"I don't think that socialism has to mean large-centralized government. I look at it more like extending democracy to include the workplace and the economy."

And therein lies the problem. It seems nobody can agree on what socialism actually means these days. I think it does necessitate state control of the economy by definition, like the USSR back in the day or Venezuela more recently. That's more in line with what Marx originally advocated for and how a lot of countries have tried to implement it.

However, if we scrap that definition, then it's anybody's guess. I have no problem with socialism on a small scale - by all means, start a co-op or go live in a commune. As long as it's your choice to do so. My problem with large-scale socialism is that it's "an idea so good, it's mandatory." There's no "opt-out" when the government seizes control of the economy under the guise of promoting equality. So that's what I worry about when people promote socialism. Like you said, there's a fear of authoritarianism in any system, but I can't help but notice socialist countries are historically much more likely to become despotic dictatorships than capitalist countries are.

In terms of combating climate change and automation, that's a much broader issue for sure. But I'm optimistic that modifying our current system can help rather than overhauling it completely with an ideology that has proven so difficult to successfully implement.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#245

Post by emodendroket »

humanrebar wrote: post #188
stevenwoo wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This author made the mistake of trying to overgeneralize from the New York taxi industry, but most American job growth since 2005 has been temp work/contracting, Uber/Lyft are just the most visible for one industry - this kind of explains the general unease/longing for the past we saw in a sizeable percentage of the electorate expressed in the 2016 election in both parties. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/m…

Arguably full-time employment is: * more like serfdom than having several bosses you can replace as needed * historically more of an anomaly than juggling a few side hustles like fishing and delivering mail and giving boat tours Besides, it seems like employment law is more to blame for the lack of full time jobs. At least more to blame than companies that hire part time workers. If, economically, we want more full t…

What makes full-time jobs with benefits unappealing to Uber is exactly what workers want. Someone ends up losing out here.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#246

Post by deft »

padobson wrote: post #159
deft wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone is well aware of that. In a successful socialist state neither party elites or bureaucrats should exist. In a capitalist state or authoritarian system those are designed and necessary groups. Most people's objections to socialism are exactly what socialism is attempting to remove. Lenin, Stalin etc. did a terrible job.

Lenin, Stalin etc. did a terrible job. I'm open to being wrong, but I don't think anyone can do a good job. No one has yet invented a way of distributing resources more efficiently than markets. I'm not sure if socialism can be real socialism if markets are involved, but I know there's no existing solution to feed and clothe people without them. You might argue for Ptolemaic Egypt, but they had a huge advantage with…

This is an issue with terms. None of those countries are socialist. Market socialism has been discussed at length by many theorists. A trustless AI market planner / coordinator could also be designed, especially with current tech. Project Cybersyn by the Chilean government in the 70s was an early attempt at this.[0]

Technology should be used to free humanity not further constrict it. The topic of this thread is exactly the latter: how the "gig economy" is putting most people in worse positions than ever before

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#247

Post by scarecrowbob »

vinceguidry wrote: post #217
scarecrowbob wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could be wrong, but insofar as wage labor is an evolution of serfdom, it seems to press farther away from the care that the owning classes have to invest in "their" workforce. That is, wage labor is a way of moving the conditions of reproducing labor onto the laborers themselves, and the gig economy is just another step in that same process. I have only a base understanding of the history and a very inconsistent an…

Feudalism was an evolution of the old "agrarian empire" concept. Technologies to easily transport large quantities of goods were still hundreds of years away. So your kingdom could only get as big as the economics of transport allowed. You could gain political control over a distant land and exact tribute, but you had to visit the area regularly with your imperial army or they'd stop. Ruling classes were limited in j…

Thank you for the brief history.

I'm in the middle of reading "Caliban and the Witch" and it's nice to have additional ideas about the motion from feudalism to the newer systems.

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#249

Post by vinceguidry »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #247
vinceguidry wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feudalism was an evolution of the old "agrarian empire" concept. Technologies to easily transport large quantities of goods were still hundreds of years away. So your kingdom could only get as big as the economics of transport allowed. You could gain political control over a distant land and exact tribute, but you had to visit the area regularly with your imperial army or they'd stop. Ruling classes were limited in j…

Thank you for the brief history. I'm in the middle of reading "Caliban and the Witch" and it's nice to have additional ideas about the motion from feudalism to the newer systems.

Looking that book up reminded me of an easy-to-read history with a strong focus on women, taking us from the 19th century to after WW2.

https://www.amazon.com/Servants-Downstairs-History-Britain-N...

Re: 'The Gig Economy' Is the New Term for Serfdom

#250

Post by speby »

gambiting wrote: post #3

I was mostly agreeing with the article until this part: "His medallion, once worth $1.1 million, had plummeted in value to $180,000. The dramatic drop in the value of the medallion, which he had hoped to lease for $3,000 a month or sell to finance his retirement, wiped out his economic security. He faced financial ruin and poverty. And he was not alone." The medalions are stupid and shouldn't exist. Relying on their…

I've got some news for him ... sometimes people invest in their 401Ks and GASP.... when they might want to withdraw from it in retirement, if the country is in the middle of a depression or a recession, guess what? It's worth a fraction of what it once was.

Same goes people who bought ridiculously priced homes in the run-up to 2008... Guess what? Thinking that $600,000 3-bedroom home in the desert near Phoenix, AZ was a good retirement vehicle was not a good choice.

And to a lesser extent, this is another example, a sad one, of people choosing to avoid diversifying their sources of wealth and income. There's simply too much risk by having ALL of your eggs in a single basket.

It's on the one hand easy to sympathize with this case but on the other, I don't think there is anything due him economically.

Post reply on HN