Comment by Nasrudith | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nasrudith | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If the source is looked at as a labor movement it would be a deeply atypical example of the bloc. Normally labor movements are all about guaranteeing good conditions and pay but such efforts have historically received chilly receptions despite obvious grounds for appealing to them like long hours and poor work-life balance. They appear to generally desire a competitive workforce and to reap the benefits of success. There are elements of that in other professions with guilds but those have operated in at times naked self-interest. It isn't even quite 'organized' labor per say - at least not yet. Even Free Software fundamentalists haven't signed on charters refusing to work with proprietary software for instance.

Instead ethics are what finally seem to have pushed tech workers to unify against their employer's raw immediate financial interests in spite of often having shares to benefit from them. It doesn't even seem to map consistently to either 'mainstream' or 'geek' ethics perfectly either although growing disillusionment with the government appears to be part of it.

I suppose the tech political mainstream also can be considered 'misfit' in other ways not fitting entirely in the typical left or right bounds.

It’s deeply atypical of the US labor movement because the Taft-Hartley act was specifically designed to curb union power and, correspondingly, class consciousness and class solidarity. This combined with the vicious (not to mention deeply anti-Semitic) purge of socialists and communists was intended to narrowly circumscribe what union membership meant and furthered.[0] It’s far different in Europe, where labor unions are much more expressly engaged with the formation of political parties that serve their interests[1]

If tech workers are waking up to their class position as labor, learning the power inherent in collective action, refusing to help further US imperialism, that’s something to be celebrated. And if anything, it’s a brilliant recognition of their position relative to other laborers (highly paid and benefitted), that they first use their power for the sake of ethics before pursuing their self-interest.

[0] https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/taft-hartley-unions-right-to-...

[1] It’s a bit hard to explain in an HN post, but essentially, the way that labor-oriented political parties are constituted and have their priorities decided in the US is backwards from those in Europe (top-down vs bottom-up). Seth Ackerman outlines this in this podcast episode, if you have time to listen:

https://www.blubrry.com/thedig/35556305/a-new-party-of-a-new...

> the way that labor-oriented political parties are constituted and have their priorities decided in the US is backwards from those in Europe (top-down vs bottom-up)

I don't believe the proposition that parties in Europe have their priorities decided in a bottom-up manner. And the problem with having labor unions that are not-quite political parties is that you'll end up with unions which are concerned by issue far of from the concerns of the workers, which then tend to not suscribe

Not a chance. Like the comment below mentions, Snowden probable expected there were others like him. Nope. Not a one. Very few people have that sort of conviction.

But mainly, technical work is just different in nature. It’s a lot more competitive and the hierarchy is more fluid. There’s not an obvious floor like there is with factory workers, where there are a few managers and administrators for hundreds of workers. And the work is almost never manual. Technical workers are also constantly concerned with implementation and that sh were their attention goes. I don’t ever see this actually happening.

Actually, lots of people have that conviction. Over a thousand people inside Google signed on against the company’s collaboration with the military, there was all kinds of internal outcry and contention at internal forums, they pushed strongly back against executives bald-faced lies. It already happened:

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military...

And here’s the thing about labor struggle: the reason why Capital owners try to quash it before it gets started is because it’s transformative. Once people see the power they have when they act collectively, what really turns the wheels at work and in society, they’re changed.

> Once people see the power they have when they act collectively

Also, once people see things under the facade, such as

> “Letting you ask that question is the voice that you have. Very few companies would allow you to do that.”

You’re replying to a devout Marxist. This is not a debate over the value of labor movements.

There seems to be a reason the labor movement has squandered since the rise of the Military Industrial Complex, and what’s what I’m speaking to.

> If the source is looked at a labor movement it would be a deeply atypical example of the bloc.

I hesitate to be certain of where the typo is in your thesis here so I’m not exactly sure of your point. But, I think I do disagree with at least some of what you’re saying.

Tech workers have not unified against anything but the lower class. As long as rents are soaring in every tech hub at a faster rate than anywhere else, while the tech workers’ servants are shoved out of their neighborhoods, you remain hopelessly out of touch. Not even in the ballpark, or planet for that matter.

I can imagine some argument that tech workers have stood up against some internet mischief somewhere; give me a break. You have no idea what that looks like if this is your claim. A

The Googler thingy a few months ago? Let us understand what that was. These employees were embarrassed, ashamed. They were acting out of virtue, pride, shame, not conviction. The difference will be lost on someone not up to speed with the differences, though they are vast...

Compare your Googlers with Edward Snowden. US tech workers have done nothing but let him down. He has single-handedly accomplished and sacrificed more than all other US tech workers combined and then some. Unified? I’m not seeing it.

And now I will defend the Free Software movement, though I’m not sure it’s useful to assume there’s any need. Your criticism of the Free Software movement exemplifies you know not even the exact first thing about activism; it truly is always this: The systemic impossibilities of exiting the system, especially in the name of countering it. All it takes is to consider a step in another’s shoes to realize the aloofness illustrated by your accusation. To articulate such a an accusation is to expose your failure to have even lent a visit to consideration of the matter. Please realize my elaboration is not just me rubbing it in. There’s a tradition (now, because it is fairly recent) of first-world activists confronting this realization of hypocrisy-reversal, if you will. Usually one will keep it to themselves, a result of shame.

That out of the way, the Free Software movement absolutely has the high road here. It’s simply congruent with critical discourse through the (almost) centuries. The standards of Free Software are transparent and accessible, systemically thorough, and community oriented to the teeth, precisely as they should be. To suggest your ‘general will to ethics’ has achieved squat is one thing, but you would do best to keep Free Software out of it.

They aren't unified against the lower classes - more apathetic to their impact at worst. They don't rent or buy out of a desire to screw over those who can't afford it but because it is a good deal for them. Palo Alto was once the cheaper alternative in the start up space. Once. And they aren't unique in this at all. Even artists and same-sex couples have had gentrifying impacts on neighborhoods. Even if they indirectly drive out old residents it would be rightfully regarded as insane homophobia to suggest it is the result of some gay agenda instead of the natural results of living their lives. The uncomfortable fact is everyone in the same position (better off but not so good to grab the premium) does it and one can't simply keep communities in stasis regardless of what measures are taken.

That wasn't a criticism of free software at all just a note that it hasn't materialized into any sort of career enforcement or fencing in contrast to existing professional movements and demands. Free software is for the software's sake more than levers of power. It shouldn't be expected to really in the same sense that one wouldn't expect to see doctors kidnapping unvaccinated children to immunize them - even if it would technically help with the problem it misses the primary purpose and causes other issues.

I was trying to detach my analysis from my own viewpoints for concern of tooting my own horn.

I had considered pride and exceptionalism as motivations but decided not to delve into them as too speculative and spinny in the same sense of "Did he become a firefighter to impress women, for the pension, or desire to save lives." The why is ironically immediately irrelevant when it comes to society - they are just glad to have someone fighting fires. The relevance only comes in when trying to calibrate numbers.

They are absolutely unified against the lower classes. Your argument is simply that they don’t realize that, and I agree. It appears they don’t realize much at all in terms of social concern.

Let’s take a minimally critical look at Palo Alto’s history. Simply enough, if there was any tide of social consideration amongst these tech communities, Palo Alto, Bay Area, etc. would not have turned into the dystopia it now is. There would be less wealth and more humanity. Theee’s nothing complicated about this unless you insist on disbelief.

The “start-up space” is a misnomer of progressivism.

“Start-ups” are technocratic race-to-the-bottom capitalist entities; precisely the enemy of social concern since the advent of social concern. There’s nothing in Karl Marx’s works that does not apply to start-ups. You’d do best to just call them businesses because this term “start-up” apparently has an addictive element that causes some people’s eyes to glaze over giving a sense of unmitigated positivity. And maybe the hope is positive for themselves but not for others, and that is the problem.

> The Googler thingy a few months ago? Let us understand what that was.

This is very recent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17682348

> “Everyone’s access to documents got turned off, and is being turned on [on a] document-by-document basis,” said one source. “There’s been total radio silence from leadership, which is making a lot of people upset and scared. … Our internal meme site and Google Plus are full of talk, and people are a.n.g.r.y.”

I wouldn't know if that is true, but on HN, such stories seemed to mostly plummet off the front page, with no commentary by Googlers. It's pretty hard to know what people who can't talk freely are thinking.

Though I agree that there isn't likely to be an equivalent to Snowden's "the American people have a right to know about this so they can make decisions", that is, other than on a personal level.

But let's first and foremost understand that we don't know what either of this "was" or "is", because that involves a whole lot of people, most of whom we haven't heard of, much less candidly. The factuality of that is worth more than speculation and generalization. It does say something in and of itself, something that is not good, but it's still not a canvas onto which we can just draw things, because they cannot or won't protest and nothing can be verified.

> Compare your Googlers with Edward Snowden.

The average Googler is a fiction. There are only the actual people.

There were a few comments by Googlers in an article on the same topic but posted separately.

When I asked a Googler, who was angry at the accusation that they don't care about the China story, whether or not they would protest against this or threaten to leave, there was 0 response. I assume this would be similar for most Googlers.

Of course they are "a.n.g.r.y." but it seems that this is the extend they are willing to go. Why protest when you can just post on the internal meme board?

Ok a few weeks ago. That’s what I meant. It registers as nothing to me.

You’re right. We haven’t heard. And until we do, we have every reason in the world to doubt it. Google is an utterly dystopian black box surveillance machine and these people have no clue.

This is so far from Marxist class consciousness it’s a joke. Means nothing and will accomplish nothing. This is isn’t even student body politics. They know not the first thing about community or conviction on the level of systemic worker oppression. And you don’t know what conviction is.

Don’t get your point about average Googlers. I didn’t use that phrase.

I really recommend everyone here look at Boots Riley’s new film ‘Sorry To Bother You’.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com