6 ms·

You can demand all you want, but if there are no unions or legislations to back your demands, nothing is ever going to happen. Unions, which are most widely fo

You can demand all you want, but if there are no unions or legislations to back your demands, nothing is ever going to happen. Unions, which are most widely found in western Europe accomplish little these days (the negotiated wages for call center workers are barely livable for example). If you're a skilled developer, you can work your way to freelancer / self employed consultant or join one of the companies that offers part time work / 4 day work week (there was a recent article about one in Portland that only does 4 day work weeks). If you're unskilled, you'll always be fucked to varying degrees, as such is life unfortunately. Also it's hard to take an article seriously when it cites Marx, whose theories obviously don't work in the real world, as humans are competitive to varying degrees by nature.

fche 12y ago
"You can demand all you want ..." Even better, those feeling this way can refuse to work for more time than they'd like. They don't need to force the rest of us.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
chucksmart 11y ago
Marx (like Freud) established a language of concepts as well as theories. While the initial theories may have failed - we continue to use the language of related concepts in the on going discussion.
aaronlevin 11y ago
> Also it's hard to take an article seriously when it cites Marx, whose theories obviously don't work in the real world, as humans are competitive to varying degrees by nature. Marx's "theory" was a method of analyzing history by focusing on class conflict as the main driver for history. By applying that analysis to capitalism, he predicted that the proletariat would inevitably come into conflict with the bourgeoisie. Das Kapital was a deep dive into how and why this conflict comes about (both economically and philosophically). As for what happened next, those are "implementation details" which Marx didn't write too much about. We've seen a few implementations (Bolshevism, Stalinism, Cuba, Maoism) and a few modern contradictions (current China, North Korea, etc.) and most have been flawed. However, not every implementation of capitalism has been successful, either. There are plenty of fascist and repressive states that are capitalist. Nazi Germany and Italy during WWII, Argentina during Pinochet, hell, you might even say ISIS is capitalist. So, I'd argue that many implementations of communism have failed in the same way that several implementations of capitalism have failed, but there is a large space for experimentation as there has been with capitalism. For example, democratically planned economies with analytical input is a space that hasn't been explored too well beyond very tiny experiments in sectors within Latin America.
- cynicalkane 11y ago
  The same group of people that would support "democratically planned economies with analytical input" are the people who would blame the same sorts of analysis for the Great Recession. I wonder if they think that if only the bankers were democratically controlled, their risk modeling wouldn't have gone berserk. The experiences of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should serve as a counter data point to this assumption. This is a general problem with Marxism. Embedded very deeply in Marx is the idea that if only the correct social class controlled everything, things would be better, and that violence and injustice--which Marx explicitly advocated--are acceptable ways to achieve this. The idea that social class and morality are economic forces is a good one, but Marx wasn't the first guy who thought of this--he actually very deeply studied earlier economists and used their ideas--and we would do ourselves a service by not paying attention to someone who repackaged these ideas into a loathsome story about the inevitability and rightness of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". (I'll add further that mainstream economics has moved on from many others of these ideas because they turned out to be dead wrong--like the labor theory of value.) Edit: Intolerance of informed criticism is not a convincing defense of your ideas.
- jswinghammer 11y ago
  Even if you concede all those points (which I won't) the entire Marxist system relies on the labor theory of value which was smashed by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk in his book "Karl Marx and the Close of His System". No one has really bothered to follow up on it since it was so definitive. That his theory lives on is a testament to the degree to which people a.) never learn anything ever and b.) the intoxicating nature of what he proposes.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    (EDIT: Perhaps the downvoter would care to give a counter-argument for why the LTV is a pre-requisite for Marx political ideology?) I don't see what it is you believe relies on the labor theory of value. Marx theories span a wide range, but certainly his political ideology did not in any way rely on the labor theory of value to underpin it, and it is something most people advocating Marxism don't even know or understand very well. What it does rely on is whether Marx hypothesis that capitalism will necessarily self destruct as it reaches the limits of market expansion is correct (no more people living out of reach of capitalist competition). Marx expected this to happen by forcing capitalists into ever harsher competition and automation at the cost of starting to throw workers back into poverty and as a result pulling the rug out under their own markets, eventually leading to sufficient social upheaval to drive the working classes to revolution. It further relies on Marx hypothesis that upon the self destruction of capitalism, that the working classes can end the class struggle by seizing control and redistributing wealth and the control of the means of production. The LTV is used by Marx as justification for why some of this is "right", but at the same time Marx theories on the political and economic development of society does not rest on right and wrong, but on how the self-interests of the members of the various classes affects society as the economic development alters the relative powers of these classes. There are plenty things that can be wrong in these theories, but whether or not the LTV is right or not is an entirely orthogonal issue.
vidarh 11y ago
> Also it's hard to take an article seriously when it cites Marx, whose theories obviously don't work in the real world, as humans are competitive to varying degrees by nature. I find this a curious objection to Marx, as if anything a major part of Marxist thinking around class struggle is about how to stimulate the working classes to stop silently accepting the hand they've been dealt and organize to rise up and demand more and to compete against the bourgeoisie the same way Marx describes the bourgeoisie as having outcompeted feudalism. A large part of the problem for the working classes, according to Marx, is that they buy into the capitalist idea that people are paid what they deserve, rather than what the capitalist can get away with. Furthermore, Marx spent quite a bit of time praising capitalist competition, as an absolutely essential pre-requisite to create the economic efficiency required to make socialism viable. The first chapter of the Communist Manifesto for example, starts as a homage to the advances brought about by capitalism, and first towards the end does it turn to criticism of where capitalism was going.
Shivetya 11y ago
I work for a fortune 500 company and frankly I have never seen the abuse I read here. Perhaps developers need to spend more time looking a company's past history before signing on. There are many great companies to work for, some might be in an industry boring to you but its your choice.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Have you ever read Marx, or are you just parroting words.

fche 12y ago

"You can demand all you want ..." Even better, those feeling this way can refuse to work for more time than they'd like. They don't need to force the rest of us.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

chucksmart 11y ago

Marx (like Freud) established a language of concepts as well as theories. While the initial theories may have failed - we continue to use the language of related concepts in the on going discussion.

aaronlevin 11y ago

> Also it's hard to take an article seriously when it cites Marx, whose theories obviously don't work in the real world, as humans are competitive to varying degrees by nature. Marx's "theory" was a method of analyzing history by focusing on class conflict as the main driver for history. By applying that analysis to capitalism, he predicted that the proletariat would inevitably come into conflict with the bourgeoisie. Das Kapital was a deep dive into how and why this conflict comes about (both economically and philosophically). As for what happened next, those are "implementation details" which Marx didn't write too much about. We've seen a few implementations (Bolshevism, Stalinism, Cuba, Maoism) and a few modern contradictions (current China, North Korea, etc.) and most have been flawed. However, not every implementation of capitalism has been successful, either. There are plenty of fascist and repressive states that are capitalist. Nazi Germany and Italy during WWII, Argentina during Pinochet, hell, you might even say ISIS is capitalist. So, I'd argue that many implementations of communism have failed in the same way that several implementations of capitalism have failed, but there is a large space for experimentation as there has been with capitalism. For example, democratically planned economies with analytical input is a space that hasn't been explored too well beyond very tiny experiments in sectors within Latin America.

cynicalkane 11y ago
The same group of people that would support "democratically planned economies with analytical input" are the people who would blame the same sorts of analysis for the Great Recession. I wonder if they think that if only the bankers were democratically controlled, their risk modeling wouldn't have gone berserk. The experiences of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should serve as a counter data point to this assumption. This is a general problem with Marxism. Embedded very deeply in Marx is the idea that if only the correct social class controlled everything, things would be better, and that violence and injustice--which Marx explicitly advocated--are acceptable ways to achieve this. The idea that social class and morality are economic forces is a good one, but Marx wasn't the first guy who thought of this--he actually very deeply studied earlier economists and used their ideas--and we would do ourselves a service by not paying attention to someone who repackaged these ideas into a loathsome story about the inevitability and rightness of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". (I'll add further that mainstream economics has moved on from many others of these ideas because they turned out to be dead wrong--like the labor theory of value.) Edit: Intolerance of informed criticism is not a convincing defense of your ideas.
jswinghammer 11y ago
Even if you concede all those points (which I won't) the entire Marxist system relies on the labor theory of value which was smashed by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk in his book "Karl Marx and the Close of His System". No one has really bothered to follow up on it since it was so definitive. That his theory lives on is a testament to the degree to which people a.) never learn anything ever and b.) the intoxicating nature of what he proposes.
- vidarh 11y ago
  (EDIT: Perhaps the downvoter would care to give a counter-argument for why the LTV is a pre-requisite for Marx political ideology?) I don't see what it is you believe relies on the labor theory of value. Marx theories span a wide range, but certainly his political ideology did not in any way rely on the labor theory of value to underpin it, and it is something most people advocating Marxism don't even know or understand very well. What it does rely on is whether Marx hypothesis that capitalism will necessarily self destruct as it reaches the limits of market expansion is correct (no more people living out of reach of capitalist competition). Marx expected this to happen by forcing capitalists into ever harsher competition and automation at the cost of starting to throw workers back into poverty and as a result pulling the rug out under their own markets, eventually leading to sufficient social upheaval to drive the working classes to revolution. It further relies on Marx hypothesis that upon the self destruction of capitalism, that the working classes can end the class struggle by seizing control and redistributing wealth and the control of the means of production. The LTV is used by Marx as justification for why some of this is "right", but at the same time Marx theories on the political and economic development of society does not rest on right and wrong, but on how the self-interests of the members of the various classes affects society as the economic development alters the relative powers of these classes. There are plenty things that can be wrong in these theories, but whether or not the LTV is right or not is an entirely orthogonal issue.

vidarh 11y ago

> Also it's hard to take an article seriously when it cites Marx, whose theories obviously don't work in the real world, as humans are competitive to varying degrees by nature. I find this a curious objection to Marx, as if anything a major part of Marxist thinking around class struggle is about how to stimulate the working classes to stop silently accepting the hand they've been dealt and organize to rise up and demand more and to compete against the bourgeoisie the same way Marx describes the bourgeoisie as having outcompeted feudalism. A large part of the problem for the working classes, according to Marx, is that they buy into the capitalist idea that people are paid what they deserve, rather than what the capitalist can get away with. Furthermore, Marx spent quite a bit of time praising capitalist competition, as an absolutely essential pre-requisite to create the economic efficiency required to make socialism viable. The first chapter of the Communist Manifesto for example, starts as a homage to the advances brought about by capitalism, and first towards the end does it turn to criticism of where capitalism was going.

Shivetya 11y ago

I work for a fortune 500 company and frankly I have never seen the abuse I read here. Perhaps developers need to spend more time looking a company's past history before signing on. There are many great companies to work for, some might be in an industry boring to you but its your choice.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

Have you ever read Marx, or are you just parroting words.