--- Hakki Alacakaptan <nucleus at superonline.com>
wrote: >
> There's something about programmers and the
> money-free hyperspace they
> inhabit that makes them anticapitalist in a
> hippie-like way.
That's a bit of a generalisation. Some are. I think programmers tend to be more attracted to anarchism (be it right wing, or left wing), than old style authoritarian politics. I've met very few marxist programmers, but I know a lot who would consider themselves left-autonomists.
I think part of the reason for this is that in the last 20 years, or so, there have been a lot of developments in non-hierarchical computing. The internet is the most obvious example, but there are also developments in distributed computing, peer to peer development and various forms of networking. These are very elegant solutions to computer problems and I guess if you spend your work time working on such systems, you seek similar solutions in the personal/political space.
Also a lot of programmers are very suspicious of authority, and there is a tendency to believe that people earn their position. The reason that people like Torvalds Linus, Richard Freeman, etc have such respsect is because of what they've done, not who they are.
> But that's not enough to
> posit a "knowledge class". Where's this class that
> gets its knowledge for
> free and refuses to cash in on it? Marx didn't cash
> in on his class
> privilege either but never attempted to theorize a
> "bourgeois revolutionary"
> class.
This class didn't exist in the same way when Marx was alive. I think if we have to keep returning to a social theory from a hundred years ago, then we're all in trouble. Given Marx's pecuniary problems I don't think he belonged to such a class.
--- Scott Martens <sm at kiera.com> wrote: >
> >I think what you're noting is more a factor of
> market
> >conditions, than any lasting change.
>
> I fear the same. That's one reason why I've bailed
> out and gone back to
> school, although I am optimistic about some sectors
> of the tech industry.
Well a lot of the people getting jobs were pretty incompetent. It remains to be seen whether the truely competent will be in trouble. Sillicon Valley's in trouble.
This might be a good opportunity to recruit them, but I suspect the American left will alienate them by quoting Marx at them.
> Nonetheless, there seems to be a trend. The
ownership of capital doesn't
> seem to carry the capitalist as far as it used to.
I think there's been a move away from the deskilling that was such a characteristic of the industrialisation of the C19th. I don't know whether this is a long term trend, or not. It's interesting that tech workers are now under thread in a similar way to industrial workers. A lot of IT work has been outsourced to Indian workers, and the tech industry has been importing Indian/foreign workers at bargain rates to replace highly paid US/European workers. One is in a semi-feudal state if one gets a tech green card in the US these days. One's status is dependant upon the company one works for, making it hard for the worker to complain about conditions. Obviously tech firms are using this to undermine US workers as well.
> Small factory owners in Japan - according to
anecdotes I've seen in print -
> are little better off than their workers.
But aren't they similar to shop owners and small farmers in the last two centuries?
> Managers are at least as likely to get pink slips as
> workers, and in tech their incomes aren't higher.
Sure, but middle management has always been precarious. I don't see any change in the executive class.
> A guy with computer skills has more freedom of
movement than someone
> with a comparable income derived from property
ownership, and probably not
> much less financial security considering the
volatility of fixed assets
> these days. The winners these days seem better
defined by their education
> and skills than their assets.
Well winners in a small way. None of these people are going to threaten the Forbes list though. Their wealth doesn't give them that much power. What we're seeing is a result of the increasing inequality of our society I think.
Even in investment banking (where I work as a computer programmer, for my sins), the majority of people make low millions at best. These people for the most part come from a wealthy background, and all that's happening is that those who come from money, make more money. However they're all still working for somebody else, and making that person far more money. You're (handsomely) rewarded for being a good worker bee.
> Krugman, for exmaple, is arguing that there has been
a shift
> in the use of skilled
> versus unskilled labour, creating rising wages for
> the skilled and
> diminishing for the unskiled.
I'd agree with this. The reverse of what happened in the C19th.
>
> But what do you make of a firm whose assets are
> almost entirely vested in
> the specialised knowledge of its workers? If the
> workers cease to be
> valuable, then neither is the firm.
This is true, but the person who owns that firm will make far more than the workers will (even the stars). However firms are starting to realise this, which is why they are treating their skilled workers far better. There are a number of firms which have become effectively worthless after their staff left.
> A surprising number of high tech firms don't rely on
> restrictive patents
> much.
More and more do, though. Microsoft has started doing this in the last few years, IBM has been doing so for quite a period now. There are also companies whose existence and worth is bound up with their portfolio of patents.
> Software patents are notoriously difficult to
enforce and
> often ineffective in preventing comparable products
> from reaching market.
Well this isn't entirely true. Large companies use them to threaten small companies. The threat of a law suit is often enough. Large companies generally come to arrangements between themselves, but I think it threatens smaller companies and individuals. The free software movement has been hit a number of times with patent suits (or the threat of them).
Also law suits can delay the release of products, which is often enough to kill it.
> The tech industry has turned into a Red Queen's
Race, where
> corporate profits rest on the R&D spending that
> makes sure their new and improved product reaches
market before their
> competitiors have cloned their last one.
I think the tech industry has turned into one where large companies buy smaller ones for their R&D and novel products. Most small companies with a novel product get bought out (normally because that's a good way for the Venture Capitalists to realise a quick profit).
> True. I'm not terribly impressed with the claims of
> the free software
> movement, even though I'd rather be on their side
> than say, Microsoft's.
True, but I can't say I like the libertarian stance of many of them.
> I just wondered. I see nothing in Marx that
inherently forbids the notion
> that a change in ruling class doesn't necessarily
mean the rule of the
> proletariat. Marx, after all, pointed out that the
bourgeoisie replaced the
> feudal ruling class contemporaneously with a
fundamental change in the means
> of production. How does this rule out the notion
that the bourgeoisie can't
> be replaced by a new ruling class accompanied by a
change in the means of production?
Well it could still happen whether Marx forbade it or not. His record of prediction isn't a great one. I think a change has already happened. What's happened is that the owners are changing. Those who understand how to exploit "knowledge" assets are gradually becoming more important than those who exploit industrial assets. I don't see the old class disappearing over night, but I see their importance lessening in the first world and growing in the third world. As the new owners depend on skills far more it will inevitably change the nature of class relations. How is another question.
Cian
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com