Slashdot Mirror


Are Silicon Valley Workers Abandoning Libertarianism For Socialism? (salon.com)

Salon writes that Silicon Valley tech workers are "defying their overlords," arguing that recent unionization attempts by Kickstarter employees may be only the beginning: The workers' Kickstarter campaign is not the first attempt, though, or even the first time rumblings of unionization, have circulated among programmers. In 2018, software engineers at the startup Lanetix announced their intent to unionize -- and were promptly fired by management (It is illegal to fire employees for trying to unionize). The National Labor Relations Board intervened, and ultimately forced Lanetix to pay the 15 fired engineers a total of $775,000. The show of worker power at Lanetix may have paved the way for Kickstarter's workers. Similarly, workers across the video game industry -- generally among the most overworked, underpaid workers within the tech industry -- have been making steps towards unionization. Game Workers Unite, profiled by Salon last year, is building a grassroots movement to organize the ranks of video game makers.

Together, this suggests that a small but visible movement for white-collar software engineers unionizing has been gaining steam in the Valley over the past few years -- suggesting that the people who make up the tech industry, once a bastion of libertarianism, are starting to understand the often subtle ways that their employers exploit them... For decades, libertarianism was part and parcel to the tech industry. Despite a grueling work culture and a high-profile collusion scandal among major tech corporations to suppress software engineers' wages, tech workers were more likely to see themselves as future founders than an exploited underclass -- a point of view encouraged by employers through high wages and generous, often absurd office perks. Recent developments suggest such endearing tactics are no longer working.

39 of 611 comments (clear)

  1. If they're smart, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    So much that Silicon Valley (and tech companies in general) rely on is because of things produced by the government. If you really take the time to look at it, Libertarianism is a joke and built on contradiction and lies.

    1. Re:If they're smart, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ultimately all systems die in the face of human failings. Capitalism dies for the obvious reason that there are capitalists far-and-above all capital...the multi-billionaires that can distort the economy and politics alike. Socialism dies when society stops believing in its own good, or because of external governance that's not really considerate to society as a whole. Communism dies because it splits society into the haves and the have-nots, with the haves being government. It's just like capitalism but with a veneer of "it's good for everyone".

      Every system will fail. Invent a new system and it will fail. They fail because of human failure, and that's intrinsic.

    2. Re:If they're smart, they should by anarcobra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Communism would work just fine if it were run by a benevolent A.I.
      Might as well say libertarianism could work if humans were perfect and altruistic.
      Communism will never work because the perfect AI will never exist.

    3. Re: If they're smart, they should by St.Creed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only reason I can freely change jobs is because unions have made that possible. Otherwise, company stores and forced purchases would still have enslaved many workers, making a change of jobs impossible. Collusion between employers to not hire uppity folk would not be something they would try to avoid because of fines, but standard practice.

      A good union (and not the guild-type of union the US is riddled with) defends the legitimate interest of all workers in a branch or sector. Even the "smart" ones that think they can handle lawyers and corporations on their own - while not realizing that that only works because there is an overheating economy and a labour shortage.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    4. Re: If they're smart, they should by St.Creed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those things only make sense for people who are replaceable.

      So for the majority of people it makes sense to unionize :)

      Also, collusion in Silicon Valley makes a lot of sense: the opportunity loss of not gaining a new employee you really wanted is much lower than the cost of paying all those other people a lot more than you otherwise have to under no-poaching agreements. Remember: people find it extremely hard to judge competence when someone is more competent than they are themselves. Are they 2x as competent or 10x, or just 1%? They have no basis to judge this. So collusion keeps costs down, and they'll take the risk of losing a desirable software engineer because it works both ways (they also get to keep someone that would otherwise pack up and move).

      In other words, the potential for collusion is a huge and certain cost saving, while not doing it is risky and uncertain. Guess what managers like and don't like?

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    5. Re: If they're smart, they should by bigpat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the concentration of wealth is where libertarians diverge with one another. Some see, as I do, the concentration of wealth in the extreme as being the equivalent of concentration of government power. And therefore something that society has a legitimate concern to regulate against.

      Unions are just corporations. People associating and pooling resources towards greater benefit to themselves.

    6. Re: If they're smart, they should by illiac_1962 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or, you can beat the shit out of the contingent workers and burn down the plant. That was how labor progress was won. Oh, and mobs showing up at the owner's house.

  2. definition of terms first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Suggestion : Before we yell at each other in the comments about this possible ideological shift, perhaps we should have a meeting of the minds as to what libertarianism, liberalism, socialism, conservatism, fascism, et all mean (or have multiple meanings) before moving on to the topic at hand.

    1. Re:definition of terms first by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ya, the article is dumb and is assuming unionization is related to socialism. I really think that this stuff is deriving from some talking points on the right, trying to paint anything slightly left of center as 'socialist' in an attempt to scare voters. And it seems to be working as this sort of fuzziness is terms just keeps increasing. Note all the idiots who keep repeating that Nazis were socialists, not because they learned this in a history book but because those are the talking points they're told to repeat. Repeat a lie often enough and people start to believe it.

    2. Re:definition of terms first by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since they're talking about Silicon Valley, I'm assuming that they mean libertarianism as Ayn Rand's version of it, objectivism. Objectivism is for people who read & follow Ayn Rand & haven't yet worked out that it's just an elaborate way of saying anti-social asshole.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    3. Re:definition of terms first by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fascist = Anyone a liberal doesn't like. Synonyms: Racist, Misogynist, xxxxxxphobe
      Communist = Anyone that disagrees with a conservative. Synonyms: Hippie, Unemployed, Basement Dweller.
      Libertarian = You keep what you kill
      Socialist = I want some of the other guy's kill

    4. Re:definition of terms first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There IS NO SUCH THING as a free market. Every market has rules and laws and policies set by someone with metal in their hand. Pretending it is self-regulating invisible hand shit is self-deluding.

    5. Re:definition of terms first by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Important hint with anything political. If a country has the word "Democratic" in it's official name, it is about a 95% certainty there is nothing resembling democracy going on there.

      If the name has "People's" in the name, remember the great words of Adrian Monk: "Not THOSE people!"

    6. Re:definition of terms first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Socialist = We pool our kills to create a functioning society.

    7. Re:definition of terms first by geekymachoman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > Repeat a lie often enough and people start to believe it.

      Great example... Russia story.

      Just run something through the 5 main media channels for 6 months, and it's a fact.

    8. Re:definition of terms first by DaFallus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Nazi part was the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) - it's literally in the name. Learned that in history, it's a fact, not a talking point. You're entire argument is based on ignorance so profound that it actually boggles the mind.

      The People's Republic of China must be a Republic then because its literally in the name. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea must mean that North Korea is a Democratic Republic because its literally in the name.

      Do you see how stupid you are? Oh, wait, I'm sure you know the truth but you're just a troll wasting people's time and energy.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
  3. Is it a surprise? by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it a surprise that people want to be able to live somewhere, maybe have a family they can provide for, and otherwise not need visit food banks to live off the snacks available at work? The valley is so horrifically expensive, the salaries are not great compared to the cost of living elsewhere, and yet they make these companies billions of dollars. The idea of take this shit work and after 5 years you will get some stock that will only matter if the company still exists, actually has a liquidity event, is not reverse acquired, or that you are not fired for not being as productive as you used to be is a tall order.

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
    1. Re:Is it a surprise? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having literally just returned from a few weeks in Shanghai, I can 100% confirm that San Francisco is MUCH worse than Shanghai. Human feces in doorways doesn't exist in Shanghai. Heroin needles in the parks doesn't exist in Shanghai. Homeless and drug addicts wandering around and camping in doorways doesn't exist in Shanghai. Worn-down, unreliable, slow, noisy subways don't exist in Shanghai. And much more. MOST high-density cities around the world are a lot better than San Francisco...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Is it a surprise? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, better to let them camp right in the middle of your yard, than ship them off! How many homeless do you have living in your house? Why do you not allow it? Is it because - like Pelosi and her compatriots when it comes to illegal aliens - you want all those "undesirables" to have a place, just not YOUR place? Personally, I'll take institutionalizing the mentally ill and drug addicted over letting them wander free in the middle of our cities.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  4. Re:*Yawn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who cares?

    Slashdot's owners, apparently, as they are quickly throwing that "socalism" label onto unionization. Trying to pounce on this grenade early and make sure the serfs remain libertarian, are you Slashdot?

  5. white collar needs unions! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    white collar needs unions!

  6. Re:Salon? Really? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can't even define socialism correctly. It doesn't mean labor unions.

    In fact, labor unions were probably the only thing that saved many Western countries, including the US, from having full-blown socialist revolutions.

    Labor unions are in many important ways the very opposite of socialism. Under capitalism, a corporation is the aggregation of capital for the benefit of a business. Labor unions are the aggregation of labor for the benefit of workers. They are two sides of the same coin. They cannot exist for very long without each other. You can chart the decline of capitalism and the rise of socialism in the US by the suppression of labor unions, which really got rolling in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan and his "supply-side economics". That's when wages stagnated and middle class began to decline. Now it's gone so far the other way that a lot of young people see socialism as a reasonable way out of a completely corrupt system which is tilted against them.

    In a way, the same impulses led to Donald Trump. People saw the utter destruction of democratic institutions as the best solution to a corrupt system that was tilted against them, and they were convinced Trump was just the chaos agent to make that destruction happen. They decided to burn the house down because the roof had been allowed to rot, and in this way they were led to proto-fascism.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. From one extreme to the other? by Etcetera · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First rampant Libertarianism and Tech Utopianism, then Socialism and ... Progressive Tech Utopianism.

    I think everyone in the Bay Area would do well to spend time in the rest of the country -- like, several years of time -- where it's blindingly obvious in day-to-day life that neither approach will work.

    We've spent so much time and energy in this industry catering to the residents of, and solving problems that basically only exist in, the Bay Area. Imagine if some of this had been crafted by those with more sense.

    1. Re:From one extreme to the other? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've spent so much time and energy in this industry catering to the residents of, and solving problems that basically only exist in, the Bay Area.

      That's really nonsense. The big problems faced by the expensive parts of California are high cost of living, and high numbers of homeless people. Every place with a high cost of living has a homelessness problem, because the high cost of living causes people to become homeless. There are multiple strategies for solving it, including shipping people out to other places. That's how a lot of the homeless people in California got to be homeless people in California. They either came here of their own accord, or were literally sent here because they were homeless. I also hear a lot of complaints about fecal matter, but from what I've heard from people who have done more world travel than I have, that's also a problem in much of Europe. A FOAF was so struck by this that she did a photo series of turds in famous places, with landmarks in the background. You know, turd and The Louvre, turd and the Eiffel Tower, that kind of thing.

      The problem with inadequate housing for workers exists everywhere that's expensive. San Francisco has a particularly serious problem because of mismanagement of its light rail system, which should have something like twice as many trains on it in order to gracefully handle demand. It's there, and it's capable of doing the job (in spite of having an odd design, it's not a bad one) if only it were used correctly. The bus system is also fairly deplorable; when I lived there it took as long to walk from Bernal Heights (where I lived) to Potrero Hill (where I worked) as to get there via MUNI, in the best case.

      The homelessness problem has to be addressed at the national level, it cannot simply be pushed off on California. We can pay our bills, but we can't pay everyone else's as well. If Trump is going to take away our rail funding, we can't really afford to be sending so much money to the federal government, either. We need that HSR. The whole country does, in fact. It would go a long way to solving the worker housing problem.

      The annoying thing about cities, for those who dislike them, is that they can be amazingly efficient if done correctly. With good public transportation that people want to use, the roads can be free to transport goods in and out of them, and the population density provides improved efficiency. High density housing in particular can reduce resource consumption from construction, heating and cooling, and transportation. Obviously, San Francisco has some way to go in these regards, but most other large cities have problems with these issues as well. Traffic and homelessness are problems in New York, Chicago, Houston, Seattle... You name a major city in the USA, and it's either decaying or choking, or it's choking on decay.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Re:"Libertarianism" and "Socialism" mean what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Libertarianism" and "Socialism" mean what?

    Whatever you want them to mean. Watch how many comments will define them for us. There will be hundreds of variations. It's like those old ladies that make quilts, but at least they end up with a quilt.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  9. Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a socialist so I'll have a go at defining it.

    Socialism is "democratic ownership of the means of production". What that would look like in reality is a pretty radical departure to corporate governance.
    Corporations wouldn't be allowed to be dictatorships like they are today. Workers would be like temporary shareholders, gaining voting rights while joining a company, and losing those votes once they leave.Democracy would fill not only the political sphere but be fully infused into the economic sphere. Nothing would be shielded from democratic forces. Capital does not give anyone the right to dominate and enslave anyone else.

    While worker co-ops exist on a small scale, they can't compete with massive tax-dodging transnationals that shit their externalities all over people in poorer countries damaging their health and environment. That makes socialism by definition an international project.

    Socialism is not "social democratic policies", which are tax funded state-projects used to soften capitalism. To a socialist, welfare spending is not a solution, but the indication that a fundamental problem exists in society.

    1. Re:Socialism by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Socialism is "democratic ownership of the means of production".

      Yes, that is socialism. But when young people say they want "socialism" that is not what they mean. They mean they want to be like Denmark: Capitalism with universal healthcare.

      Workers would be like temporary shareholders, gaining voting rights while joining a company

      That sounds great until the company has a bad quarter and your paycheck is $0. Ownership has a negative side as well.

    2. Re:Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      This is not my observation. I see "young people" wanting pure Marxism, in concert with the latest LGBTQ feminist-but-not-for-straight-women-or-mothers campus led left-wing radical beliefs. I saw similarly confused politics in the 1960's, and the youngsters simply can't be bothered to look at the history of *real* socialism.

  10. Re:The left didn't implode by melted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Immigrants, yes. Now do illegal aliens.

  11. Libertarians and socialists by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ask six libertarians for their answer on something, get at least a dozen answers. Or even six socialists for that matter, much the same.

    Hell, as me for something and I can generally come up with at least three myself. The philosophically ideal answer, the real world answer, the practical answer, the "corrective" answer, and the achievable answer. ;)

    Ideal: The way it would be in my ideal libertarian society
    Real World: Not everybody are libertarian gods. This adds controls for failings
    Practical: No longer starting from a magical libertarian starting point. Even more failings, trends from the past
    Corrective: Society has taken a very wrong turn. In order to reach a more libertarian ideal, corrective measures are needed for a time(fixing the welfare state. No, I'm not a madman who'd cut everybody off all at once)
    Achievable: Libertarians are a minority. We'll take what we can get, like lowered amounts of regulation, legalized marijuana as opposed to all drugs, etc...

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  12. Re:GOP marketing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The suits get a base pay plus options and bonuses, why not the workers?

    The "suits" are the managers, not the owners.

    Shareholders don't get "base pay".

    Ownership doesn't mean "free money from thin air".

  13. Re: Salon? Really? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When the alternate was a warmonger and rape apologist Hillary Clinton? There's nothing fascist here.

    Well, history proves you wrong. An oil man is in charge of the Dept of the Interior. Another oil man is in charge of the Dept of Energy. EPA, FDA, right down the line.

    The working class has lost more ground in the past two years than at any time in the last 30. Did you know that the ranks of the permanently unemployed has grown by over 10 million since Trump has been president? More people have left the work force since January of 2017 than any two year period since the recession. Unemployment rate is down because so many people have stopped looking for work.

    And working people still haven't gotten a raise.

    The warmonger and rape apologist would have been a big upgrade over what we've got.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  14. still not balance by Texmaize · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is not so much that every generation has to learn unions are a good thing, it is every few generations has to learn that unions are ALSO a bad thing.

    Left unchecked, capitalism leads to worker oppression and mismanagement of natural resources and disruption of the stable governments that provide stability that allowed them to foster in the first place. This many on slashdot know and understand deep in their bones.

    Left unchecked, unions cause wages to grow to unsustainable levels. They do not seek balance or fair compensation in negations. They are forces to always get more. This is also unsustainable. Furthermore, unions tend to protect incompetence, since they make no distinction between good employee and bad. Management never has a fair point in the eyes of a union. This is something many on slashdot do not seem to know

    The answer, I think like many issues of our day, lies in acknowledging the valid parts of both arguments. We need to get back to listening to each other, and understanding the truths that lie within. This constant demonizing is helping no one.

    --
    "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
  15. Re:*Yawn* by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Socialist publication (Salon), says people like socialism, because a few people are "attempting". Yawn.

    Wake us up when you want to discuss something other than obviously biased propaganda trying to further an agenda and create a narrative for the media to adopt where one doesn't already naturally exist.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  16. Unions by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >"Are Silicon Valley Workers Abandoning Libertarianism For Socialism? Silicon Valley tech workers are "defying their overlords," arguing that recent unionization attempts by Kickstarter employees..."

    Voluntary unionization is neither Socialism nor "abandoning Libertarianism." It would only be a move towards Socialism if they were calling for compulsory unionization and/or government control.

    The Libertarian philosophy supports voluntary unions and right to work.

    The Libertarians Party support unions even more strongly:

    http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/l...

  17. Re:Got one part right. Force instead of choice by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If these workers' coops are really so wonderfully productive, then why can't they compete with capitalist companies? Why do they always seem to fail and fade away, rather than prospering?

    Because you can't "compete" against someone who had your kneecaps broken before the race even started.

    Start to get close to cutting into their business and suddenly capitalist companies become distinctly mafia oriented. You get buried under lawsuits, their agents inside the government start auditing/investigating you, they buy up all the raw materials so none is available to you or they give away their product until you collapse.

  18. Re: Libertarian here by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's insane that you believe the right to self defense is dystopian.

  19. Re: Ah... the Liz Warren deceit by jwdb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It should be an example of socialism working really poorly, considering that over 50 cents out of every healthcare dollar is provided by some level of government, either the Federal, state, or local.

    Seems to me it's an example of what happens when you take the worst bits of socialism - unrestrained government funding - and combine them with the worst bits of capitalism - unrestrained free markets applied where consumers are not free. With that combination, no wonder it's a mess.

  20. Re:Just got back from the Centrists Rally by StevenMaurer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Centrists by their nature aren't inclined to think that screaming their lungs out with fellow believers changes anything. But if there was such a rally, I'm pretty sure their chant would be more like "Stop pandering with your transparently utopian bullshit". Or maybe, "No, if the one opposition politician that you've decided to hate beyond all rationality disappears tomorrow, the world's problems won't be solved instantly."

    Or maybe just, "Grow the-fuck Up".

    When you reach a certain age, you start to realize that mountains aren't climbed by leaping off a cliff and hoping you can fly; they're climbed by taking tens of thousands of little steps, each of which don't seem like they're accomplishing anything.