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.
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.
I'd be really interested in hearing your explanation for this that focuses on the fact that libertarianism is a very broad term that encompasses (among other things) a lot of leftist ideologies.
Are you sure you're not just being a reactionary and associating "Libertarian" with a very specific form of American conservatism?
to fill out the workforce in Silicon Valley and put in 60+ hour weeks every week.
Batan death march (look it up) projects were for the first 10 years after college. The following years were for 40 to 45 hour workweeks and kids.
Switching later to consulting paid by the hour fixed the unpaid overtime problem.
It'd be just when the minimum salary you could pay per fed regulation is $250,000 or above will the unpaid overtime and other problems fall away. The current fed regulated minimum salary is $50k.
A 80% federal excise tax on pay paid to h1b would also fix many labor issues in the technology and engineering fields. H1B is for someone the company "can't just find anyone qualified" to work at the job at the price the company is willing to under pay. If it's a labor shortage and a H1B is the only answer, then cost should not be a high consideration and the company should be fortunate to pay salary + 80% tax on top.
H1B, fake skills shortage, failure to train existing employees in the desired skill area should not all fall on and be detrimental to the workers.
It's a right in this Country (the US) to unionize... the US is getting close to critical mass, closer toward a social revolt.. Capitalism has failed. The middle class has had no increase in buying power since the 1980's. In-fact every single technological advancement and efficiency gained through automation, technology, the internet, etc, have only benefited the owner class, the Oligarchy, aka "the donnor class". It's how a minority continue to win elections. The GOP has NOT won a 1st term POTUS since Bush 1 - 30 years ago. Both GOP Presidents since (Bush 2 & Lord Trumpkin) LOST popular vote via gerrymandering and legal maneuvering. Meanwhile the GOP is busy shoving Federal Judges into place to change laws in their favor, despite being against the will of the people
This 30 year or entire generation where the elite suck all the resources out of society result in ever decreasing workers benefits, (healthcare costs skyrocket, pensions are but a distant memory), schools and first responders go underfunded, infrastructure crumbles.
The former youth as they reach middle age, worry about being cast aside because they don't want to drive 4 hours to work or want to spend time with their kids. These workers have awoken, realized they won't be the next Zuckerberg, or Arod.. no, realty is cruel, and if your name isn't over the door you're nothing more than an expendable commodity - yet your servitude pays to change laws that take away your rights in favor of your overlords...
The truth is awakening.
This was used as an example of how different German is from English in my introductory German class. The "society peculiar to the nation" of Germany in that era referred to the arayan race, so an idiomatic English translation might well be "The German Racist Party"
davecb@spamcop.net
I understand the historical connection of unions to leftist politics, but I've always wondered why no one tried to re-engineer and rebrand them as something that really embodies the free market stuff that the right-wingers are always going on about.
There's no particular reason to think of a union as fundamentally any different from the corporation that employs its members. In other words, just make it one corporation employing another corporation to do a job. More than a contractor, with the framework laid out so that it's effectively as if the union members (which is also the union's employees--the union's name would be on all of the paychecks) are working for the original employer. I've actually worked at a company that did this trick for liability reasons (not unionization), so I'm pretty sure it's legally possible.
So why don't union organizers use this technique as a loophole in "right to work" states that forbid membership dues? This bypasses those laws entirely. Your old employer pays the union and the union cuts the check to you with pass-through taxation (LLC or nonprofit or something.) You show up for work at the same place, the employees are all owners the union-corporation and the union-corporation negotiates with the employer for all of the things unions traditionally negotiate for, with all of the bargaining power that unions typically have, even if it's a right to work state.
That's interesting on its own to think about. But then I wonder about taking it a step further... first, you imagine for a moment if telecommuting can be more widely accepted, so that you could have a union of white collar workers who all telecommuted. Just for the sake of this thought experiment, imagine that. Then, imagine there are guildlike union-corporations built on meritocracy and whatever other shared values and positive vibes that you think makes workers effective and pleasant to be around. If one employer starts giving you too much shit, well, the union starts shopping its collective resume around at other employers. Obviously it isn't feasible without telecommuting (you can't expect the whole union to pick up and physically move around), but just imagine for a moment if that was a given. Imagine if you had an identity as a union-corporation, as a collection of self-selected workers. You provide a certain set of skills, you have a certain kind of people working there with a certain kind of workflow and workplace vibe, and as a union-corporation you have a certain reputation in the marketplace. And if you have a good reputation and your employer starts screwing you over, you have the option of moving to greener pastures, taking all of your coworkers with you without having to slog through the interview process yourself. Or the union can simply threaten to do this as part of the bargaining process. This all could be as cutthroat or as reasonable as you want it to be--different unions could have different philosophies. A union might have a reputation for stability and loyalty to its employer even in tough times (some of that loyalty might be written into the contracts as well), and some prospective employers might find that loyal stability attractive. Larger unions might have multiple partners they provide workers for.
It probably sounds like I'm describing a consulting firm or something, but this would be for real long term employment purposes, with "pass through" benefits paid for by the employer (and also hopefully pass through taxation via nonprofit or LLC status) and you'd interact with the employer's supervisors as you normally would. Employers would still have the ability to fire specific individuals, subject to whatever dispute resolution stuff the union has agreed to with them.
I know there are major hurdles preventing this from ever happening but as far as pipe dreams go, it feels like a pretty nice one. And I like it as a thought experiment because it really puts the question to anti-union conservatives: how is this hybrid corporate-union-firm setup in any way u
As the poor class grows, and as opportunities for upward social mobility sink, popular interest in socialism grows.
This is an entirely predictable result of the above-mentioned conditions.
As popular interest in socialism grows, political candidates will seek to cash in on that interest in order to further their own careers. Again, predictable from the above conditions.
So long as there is a correct balance between socialist policies within a functioning capitalism (example: property taxes paying for public school to teach people how to compete in an open market), things will be fine. But once socialism replaces capitalism as the dominant economic model, disaster will ensue.
> While worker co-ops exist on a small scale, they can't compete
True. They exist, and generally don't do well compared to companies where the techs are profesional techs and the CEOs are professional CEOs. Generally, someone educated and trained to do a CEO job isn't very good at configuring routers, and someone trained in configuring routers isn't very good at selecting which companies their company should buy, or which divisions should be spun off as separate companies.
Actually specialization, each us being good at our own jobs rather than everyone doing everything, is what separates us from animals and hunter-gatherer tribes. When the auto mechanics are trying to run the auto company, they have no idea what they are doing and can't compete.
Credit unions and mutual insurance companies are successful models where the CUSTOMERS own the company. It works because the assets of these companies are simple dollars.
> Socialism is "democratic ownership of the means of production".
Almost. American capitalism is:
Employees can decide to be part owner of the company the company they work for, or any other company. Management often encourages yyu to br part owner (employee stock ownership program), but they can't force you to. You can choose to take cash instead of ownership.
Your proposed form of socialism is the same except your are FORCED to have ownership rather than cash.
Generally, if you lose your job, you hope your investments (company ownership) did well, because you'll need the money. If your investments do poorly, hopefully your job is doing well. So having your ownership (stock) in the same company you work for is kinda stupid - you're putting all of your eggs in one basket. If the company doesn't do well, you're fucked. It's generally smarter to have ownership (stock) in companies totally unrelated to the one you work for. That way if your job doesn't do well because your company or I has a slump, you can fall back on your investments.
That's where your idea of socialism is different than most people's. Most people who want socialism don't want that particular type of stupid added in, where one company having problems means you lose everything. Instead, they force you to be part owner of EVERY company. Instead of choosing which companies you own (as a stockholder), or having the choice to stay out of ownership for a while and take the cash, you, via politicians, theoretically have stock in every company. I suspect most of them don't realize that would make them an owner of Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Chick-fil-A, and even "Neo Nazi Quarterly" or whatever it's called.
It's obvious that you have never been to Europe because the phrase "European Socialist Utopias" as a criticism is 100% unrelated to life in the EU. There are places in the EU that have serious problems, but primarily they were previously under Communist regimes or had their economies destroyed by the 2008 global crash. Examples of the latter are Greece and Portugal which were driven into default by US, German, British and French bankers.
For example Goldman-Sachs outwitted the then Government of Greece by structuring loans that G-S knew were unsustainable. Meanwhile they issued Credit Default Swaps that paid out huge sums if there was a default. They made money selling the loans and they made money from the failures: heads G-S wins, tails Greece looses. The final debt burden was much larger for Greece because of the one-two punch.
By the way, I have been to Europe, both East and West, and people at the bottom of the economy are better off then those in the same situation in the US. And those at the top in the EU still have supercars and mansions and multiple houses etc. So what are you whining about?
Why is Snark Required?
Communism would work just fine if it were run by a benevolent A.I.
Libertarianism would never work. It was founded on the ideals of total individual freedom including the freedom from all government interference and taxation. I've never talked to a libertarian in person who believed we need taxes or any form of publicly funded government. They all believe that people will contribute out of the goodness of their hearts to pay for all the things that taxes currently pay for. When pressed if they will guarantee they will contribute the same amount as their current tax burden they will beat around the bush and give excuses as to why they can't guarantee they would contribute the same amount they currently pay in taxes. There is the problem. The majority of libertarians want to do away with taxes and are expecting the rest of society to pick up the tab. They aren't going to give 25% of their income to pay for all the things a society needs to function like public schools and roads. They believe that others will pay for all of that and that they can keep every penny they make.
Libertarians are just greedy folks who don't want to pay taxes and think that they should be able to do whatever they want without any consequences. They think they should be able to build a four story house on their property and do it all themselves without building plans or a licensed plumber and electrician because of "muh personal freedoms" but they don't give a fuck about the safety of their neighbor if their shitty ramshackle construction should fall down and crush their home. It is a system built on the ideals of greed and "FUCK EVERYONE BUT ME" and that can't work unless you live out in the middle of nowhere and have no interactions with everyone else. In a country with 330 million people that will never work and it can never work. It is a fantasy that overlaps way too damn much with doomsday preppers who think they can survive the apocalypse with room full of guns and 2 years worth of shitty dehyrdrated food. It's people living in a fantasy world where they get to do whatever they want with no thoughts about everyone else living around them.
Libertarians want complete personal freedoms and that just is not possible in a civilized society. Part of living with other people means you can't just do whatever you want whenever you want because your action effect all of the people around you. Like it or not we all have to live together and that means we can't do what we want. I hope the folks who just can't deal with that reality can get wealthy enough to buy their own private island and enjoy it for a few years before sea levels rise and their island paradise is under water. But back in the real world we will have to live next to each other and that means society needs rules and a system to enforce those rules to keep everyone civilized.
Not really.
On principle, the goal of libertarianism is simply to preserve individual choice wherever possible. Smaller government that provides less direct interference or control over people's lives is the result, but it's certainly not a call for no government and there's no point at which it ceases to work...because it's simply a goal to preserve where possible. Any hint of "purism" would remove the "where possible" with "everywhere"...which is closer to anarchy.
Simple examples:
Schools. Preservation of choice would allow parents to decide that a particular school is a better fit for their child than another and have the choice to send them there. The schools can still be public schools, accessible to everyone...but the individual or the family has a choice rather than the location being forced on them.
Basic Income. Rather than welfare, food stamps and many different programs that have specific restrictions on what you can and can't do with the money a basic income actually fits libertarian philosophy because it puts the money in the hands of the individual and allows them to choose how to use it themselves.
Government. Federal laws essentially remove individuals from having any say in how they are governed. Having the law exist primarily at more localized levels (state, county and city) rather than federally allows for the maximum degree of freedom of governance for individuals. They have the ability to choose to move when legal objections are strong and the ability to contact politicians, run for local seats, etc to influence things directly. The state of California has a higher population than Canada...there's very little reason that California should primarily be legislating itself. There's also very little reason that California policy should be pushed in Nebraska.
These are clear, simple and straightforward principles that work in literally all scenarios because they are goals and not hard lines. Sometimes those things will not be possible, but as long as the respect for individual choices is a core tenant the results become better for everyone. The only place where these ideals don't work is for people who quite literally want to determine how other people should be forced to live their lives.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
I see, again, hot discussion about the similarities, or not, between socialism/communism and the nazis.
Here is something to think about.
The first democratically elected president of my country after the fall of the wall was a philosopher and a dissident. Why was he a dissident?
Well, back in the 60-ies he wrote a book. Called “The Fascism”. The communists were very vocal about the fact that we were with the germans during the war and claimed that all those people they killed, tortured and send to camps (all the way until the 80-ies, mind you) were fascist, helping the fascist government. So, I guess at the beginning they liked the subject of the book.
However, when the author characterizes the fascist state, listing all those features (economic, social, religious, racial ect.) that we discuss in this tread it turned out that our society, the one we knew so well, the one we lived in every day checks all the boxes that the fascist checked!!! Without saying one direct word against the communist regime, the author exposed them fully, for anyone with more than 2 brain cells to see. It was poetic, truly poetic!
Well, the communists did not miss this. The book was banned and taken away from shops and libraries. Of course, they never stated a reason, just in case they don’t point the obvious to those with less than 2 brain cells. And they did not really prosecute the author; did not kill him or threw him in a Gulag. Just quietly kept him under wraps. After all, that book was elucidating what horrible criminals the fascists were; how inhuman their doctrine was. Oh, the delicious irony!
Look chaps, it does not matter that nominally both ideologies begin from supposedly the opposite ends of the political spectrum. They both end up in the SAME PLACE! And both have been tried all over the globe, so we can’t pin it on a particular person (Stalin was bad, but Brezhnev was good!) or particular culture (all continents participated).
I am still not sure why this is, although when it comes to the communism I think it is the equality of outcome doctrine that fucks up everything. After all, nothing in nature has equal outcome, not even the stupidly named “spectrum” of human sexuality. Every spectrum expresses different frequencies with different intensities. If they are all expressed equally that is called “noise” and it is not very helpful. The other state with equal outcome is the heat dead of the Universe (maximum entropy). In short, if there is no difference, there is no potential. No potential, no driving force. No driving force, no nothingoh, and just to make matters more perverse, the commies encourage us to perform. Yes, they did! I got numerous awards in front of the whole school for excellent marks. However, they used the doctrine to remove inconvenient people. If I became inconvenient, all of a sudden, all my successes would be due to my “privileges”, for instance my “bourgeois family”, which I did not have but that does not really matter, they’d find something to hang me for. Isn’t that funny! Doesn’t it remind you of what is happening every day in our society? Where people, like those techies, who got there by being better than others, working harder than others, competing with other, all of sudden find all kind of “privileges” in others who are successful, forgetting they are also in the 1%. I mean 90% of the conversations between my parents about their work had to do with yet another incompetent ass who rose to prominence due to loyalty to the party line and uses the system to remove the competent, the conscientious and the knowledgeable.
When it comes to the fascist it seems that racial superiority is the alarm word, after which we should stop listening to whoever is advocating italso, since that doctrine does not try mimicking itself behind “universal brotherhood” or any number of seemingly good ideas, it is easier to identify and dismiss.
Just my 20 cents (wrote a bit too much for 2)
One thing that was consistent: the Europeans I met were just plain puzzled by the United States. In particular, our brutal form of capitalism, and our perverse fascination with guns.
As a European, I would like to thank your "brutal capitalism" for coming to Europe's rescue in the last two world wars and helping rebuild it afterwards.