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

An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 353 posts

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#261

Post by recycledfood »

migf wrote: post #215

Author is ignoring the value of building a network of engineers and professional relationships that will withstand any particular gig. This is the mode we have for building solidarity among developers. Software is unique as a means of production precisely because it is a much more efficient way to turn labor into capital assets (software programs). I think the way out it presents us is to start software focused busin…

> I think the way out it presents us is to start software focused businesses that are wholly employee owned without VC input; bootstrapped as employee cooperatives.

I like this idea and think it's in the same vein as proposed in Developer Hegemony[0]. Stumbling blocks for me:

- I don't think anyone in my network also wants to do this and I'm afraid to take the first step. This one's on me obviously.

- health insurance. In the US, it seems small business health plans only cover full-time employees, and a certain number of covered employees are needed to have a decently-priced risk pool (so good luck if not everyone is all-in right off the bat). The individual insurance marketplace absolutely sucks, at least in my state, cynically viewed as by design but also probably because it's a Lemon Market.

- reputation. How do you generate quality leads and close deals without either an established reputation as a business or significant funding?

[0]: https://daedtech.com/developer-hegemony-the-crazy-idea-that-...

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#262

Post by throwaway675309 »

WalterBright wrote: post #152
MarkMarine wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you square the circle of management wanting to pay employees the minimum they can for the maximum amount of their employees labor? The company is a giant thing, with lawyers, power and resources that are impossible for an individual to push against and win anything that is contested. Like 80 hour work weeks. Children working in manufacturing jobs. Unsafe working conditions with fire exits blocked. Which are al…

> 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…

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.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#263

Post by MarkMarine »

drjasonharrison wrote: post #247
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?

Sarcasm: until we had publicly funded schools, what else was the urban working class going to do with their children all day long? Putting them to work made sense in a "making the ends meet" sort of way.

Talking about this stuff really makes people drop their masks.

How many children should we use to grease the wheels of capital accumulation? How good is this system if that’s what it requires.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#264

Post by jojobas »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #237
jojobas wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then any kind of trade is adversarial as it's beneficial to defraud your trade partners. Something something prisoner's dilemma Nash equilibrium tit for tat.

No, the dilemma with employers and employees comes from the differing numbers thereof. The fact that there are (relatively) few employers, and that these employers have already chosen to seek their fortune (or that of their shareholders) by tapping the excess value of their employees, means that it is much easier for their interests to all align, without coordination. However, the vastly greater numbers that make up…

The inherent problem with a union is that, unlike with metalworkers, stonemasons or train drivers, there is still no way to tell a capable software developer from a bootcamp wannabe, and people in the same position can differ 10-100x in output.

Call me an elitist gatekeeper, I don't want to pay dues to protect dunces and have my employers keep paying them.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#265

Post by pdonis »

malermeister wrote: post #211
pdonis wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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 alone one with an explicit manifesto that all the governments who killed all those people in the name of communism explicitly said they were following.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#266

Post by pdonis »

carlosjobim wrote: post #222
pdonis wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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",…

Good to hear, but it's still a huge stretch to call skills capital - what does any of us gain by redefining words in free conversation? When arguing for or against communism (as is the theme of the article and thread) we need at least to have some common understanding of what a word means. "Capital" is generally understood as exclusive ownership. > In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor"…

> "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 unskilled worker if you have that knowledge, and use it to be more productive, is return on capital.

> many people are changing careers to get a better return on their skills and effort.

I.e., return on their capital. Yes, exactly! They are realizing that the capital they own is worth more than they were being paid before, so they are changing careers to increase their return. Try doing that as an unskilled worker and see how far you get.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#267

Post by [deleted] »

etothepii wrote: post #223
pdonis wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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",…

I suspect the point was more that those who write articles like this one are borrowing heavily from communist ideas. If you aren't a communist, there's a good chance that you don't think that skills are capital and the rebuttal was along those lines.

[deleted]

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#268

Post by pdonis »

MarkMarine wrote: post #206
pdonis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your skills only have value if you're using them. Yes. That's true of everyone, including those that you are calling "capitalists". But that being true, and a person knowing that it's true and acting accordingly, are two very different things. > Capitalist vs laborer is basically someone who doesn't work, but their money does vs someone who has to work. If you think that Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai,…

You're standing up a bunch of straw men to argue with here. I didn't say half of what you're asserting, just trying to clear up the definitions of some terms you were getting wrong in the context that you were using them in. If you want to talk about this, which is essentially Marxist theory, and then argue against it... some familiarity with the source material would be good to acquire.

> You're standing up a bunch of straw men to argue with here.

I'm not sure what you're basing that on since I'm responding to things you explicitly said.

> If you want to talk about this, which is essentially Marxist theory

I have no idea what you are basing that on. The only thing I said that was at all related to Marxist theory was my reference to "class warfare"; yes, Marxist theory was one of the culprits in using class warfare rhetoric to obscure economic realities. Which is why countries that tried to run themselves according to Marxist theory were abject failures that killed many millions of their own people, either through incompetence or through deliberate "can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" logic.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#269

Post by pdonis »

p0pcult wrote: post #190
pdonis wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is what Karl Marx calls "exploitation." Karl Marx himself knew he was peddling bullshit; he once told Engels, "I have of course so worded my proposition as to be right either way." The real tragedy is that several generations of intellectuals swallowed his bullshit hook, line, and sinker, and in the 20th century well north of a hundred million people died as a result. I would hope we have figured out by now th…

Yes, he told Engels that in reference to some military maneuvers he suggested the English take, when he was writing as a war correspondent.[1] Not his economic works. Please, do yourself a favor: stop digging. The hole is only getting deeper. [1] https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1857/l...

If you seriously believe that remark described a rhetorical strategy that Marx only used in that one particular context, I think you are the one who needs to stop digging. But obviously we're not going to come to agreement, so I'll bow out at this point.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#270

Post by pdonis »

etothepii wrote: post #223
pdonis wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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",…

I suspect the point was more that those who write articles like this one are borrowing heavily from communist ideas. If you aren't a communist, there's a good chance that you don't think that skills are capital and the rebuttal was along those lines.

> If you aren't a communist, there's a good chance that you don't think that skills are capital

The post I responded to (GGP of this one) said "skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary". Did you mean that if you are a communist, there's a good chance you don't think that skills are capital?

Post reply on HN