5 ms·

That's a summary? tldr My summary: the article is a cultural-marxist parable. The victim is the hacker. The oppressor is the yuppie. In olden days the hack

by andyl 11y ago

That's a summary? tldr My summary: the article is a cultural-marxist parable. The victim is the hacker. The oppressor is the yuppie. In olden days the hacker lived in a sort of eden, but now the oppressor has trapped the hacker in webs of capitalist bondage.

danielweber 11y ago
I really worry about these people trying to free me from a high income career and telling me it's for my own good.
- Sven7 11y ago
  Yup they are dangerous. Be careful Donald Trump.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pharrington 11y ago
  What I want is for a common person to not need to pursue a high income career in order to support themselves and their loved ones, persue their hobbies/education/passions, and stay culturally engaged. The cultural necessity of careerism limits the general options available and accelerates the course of the dominant culture, which as we know, primarily consolidates wealth and attacks sub-scale forms of ownership. We need pervasive ownership. You may not need freeing, but I certainly do.
  - zo1 11y ago
    That's not "freedom" you're describing. You're wanting "freedom to pursue "hobbies" and free "perks" without having to work for it" for yourself, at the expense of the general society. And by expense of general society, what that really means is that someone with the means to production/capital/etc has to part ways with some of his (labor, gasp he's no longer free), in order to fund your "free" lifestyle.
    - yellowapple 11y ago
      > what that really means is that someone with the means to production/capital/etc has to part ways with some of his (labor, gasp he's no longer free) This assumes that automation is not possible.
      - zo1 11y ago
        And if it was possible? Are you going to say that the fruits of said automated labor do not belong entirely to their owners (or people that created it/bought it/etc)? There is no in-between. Either we live in a dystopian society where all labor (or means to production) is collectively owned and the fruits of it are portioned-out. Or we live in a society where only a portion/percentage of said labor is redistributed, thus invalidating the OP's suggestion that such a society would mean freedom for all "...to pursue hobbies and live without careerism (I paraphrase there)". I can only assume that "careerism" in that sense is in reference to a job, and/or participating in a labor market of sorts.
        yellowapple 11y ago
        > Are you going to say that the fruits of said automated labor do not belong entirely to their owners (or people that created it/bought it/etc)? No. Why would I? That's silly. > Or we live in a society where only a portion/percentage of said labor Not only is this a false dichotomy, but it's also missing my point: that the purpose of automation is to eliminate the need for labor, and that by pursuing automation of tasks that few (if any) people actually want to do as hobbies or "labors of love", OP's suggestion is actually feasible. It sounds like you're trying to pin me to some communal Marxist philosphy (never mind that I personally subscribe to philosophies that can power most of Europe by wiring the corpse of Karl Marx to a dynamo in his grave). The idea of a post-labor society is actually quite compatible with capitalism; if you have a machine that makes chairs and I have a machine that makes tables, there's nothing stopping us from trading, say, a table for four chairs, or a chair-making machine for a table-making machine, or selling our tables and chairs for money and using that money to buy, say, couches.
    - pharrington 11y ago
thwest 11y ago
Cultural-Marxist? I thought he was an economist.
- shredprez 11y ago
  Lately "Cultural-Marxist" has become shorthand for anyone holding beliefs even slightly adjacent to "the rich/powerful are evil and they're corrupting the pure and poor/powerless" or "there are two kinds of people: the oppressed and the oppressors". Whether this characterization of the article is fair or those beliefs about the world are true are both reasonable questions worthy of consideration. Anyone looking for a little information on the origins of the term "Cultural Marxism" should take a look at the wiki entry for the Frankfurt School, under the subheading "Conspiracy Theory".
  - _delirium 11y ago
    I've more commonly found "cultural Marxism" used regarding social issues. People who believe in the theory allege that Marxism has expanded into the cultural realm (rather than focusing on economics and class), as part of a long strategy to undermine western society. For example: immigration is alleged to be a cultural-Marxist strategy to undermine the nation-state, abortion & gay marriage are cultural-Marxist strategies to undermine the family, and focusing on things like slavery and Jim Crow in history textbooks is a cultural-Marxist strategy to undermine patriotism. A funny thing about the more general critique of oppressor/victim narratives is that Nietzsche had a very similar critique, alleging that the pervasiveness of such narratives (which he called "slave morality") had weakened society. But he didn't blame Marxism for it— he blamed Christianity.
    - WaxProlix 11y ago
      How is class not a part of culture?
      - thwest 11y ago
        This is exactly how we keep intentionally misunderstanding Das Kapital on internet forums. Class is not a minor outcome of a social moment. It is not a mere symbol that can be quickly turned on or off by a culture, the way a culture might shift from enjoying boxing to preferring mixed martial arts. Class has arisen as an essential structure in the reproduction of society since the dissolution of European fuedalism. The same business logic that produces all our material wants, from coats to bushels, comes hand in hand with the logic that every business must give the profit (surplus labor) back to capital. Culture is a material basis, but class is the overdetermining superstructure. Shifting from a class based society to a classless one would require a fundamental shift in the economic relations where workers would own the means of production. This shift would tear apart the material basis of our culture. MTV/Viacom, MSNBC/Fox/CNN, RCA/TicketMaster/C3, WaPo/NYT/WSJ, TWTR/Facebook/Google: all of these cultural production centers would shatter into cultural microcosms if the workers at these firms weren't bound to profit maximization. On the other hand, it is trivial to manufacture new cultures without a whiff of change to class.
kazinator 11y ago
Of course, in the old days, the hacker worked with integrated circuits that were made by a multi-million dollar fab that was funded by yuppie venture capital.
- nickbauman 11y ago
  Still true today. Except the original capitalists in the case of the computer industry was the government, not VCs. Almost every major technology you use everyday in your computer originated with a government grant or program. Those HD LCD screens? They were originally developed for the Abrams XM-1 tank in the First Gulf War. Google was first funded by a DARPA grant. The Internet itself was a large DARPA project. The integrated circuit, you name it. First world nations become that way by government-led expansion. The private sector comes along later to make a profit after the fact in almost every case.
zecho 11y ago
The problem with TLDR summaries is that they're always overly blunt and often wrong and they tend to serve as dog whistles for people who are overly blunt and often wrong themselves.
legulere 11y ago
Small info: If you use the word cultural-marxist people will assume you're belonging to the fringe right or at least read lots of fringe right media

by andyl 11y ago

danielweber 11y ago

I really worry about these people trying to free me from a high income career and telling me it's for my own good.

Sven7 11y ago
Yup they are dangerous. Be careful Donald Trump.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pharrington 11y ago
What I want is for a common person to not need to pursue a high income career in order to support themselves and their loved ones, persue their hobbies/education/passions, and stay culturally engaged. The cultural necessity of careerism limits the general options available and accelerates the course of the dominant culture, which as we know, primarily consolidates wealth and attacks sub-scale forms of ownership. We need pervasive ownership. You may not need freeing, but I certainly do.
- zo1 11y ago
  That's not "freedom" you're describing. You're wanting "freedom to pursue "hobbies" and free "perks" without having to work for it" for yourself, at the expense of the general society. And by expense of general society, what that really means is that someone with the means to production/capital/etc has to part ways with some of his (labor, gasp he's no longer free), in order to fund your "free" lifestyle.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    > what that really means is that someone with the means to production/capital/etc has to part ways with some of his (labor, gasp he's no longer free) This assumes that automation is not possible.
    - zo1 11y ago
      And if it was possible? Are you going to say that the fruits of said automated labor do not belong entirely to their owners (or people that created it/bought it/etc)? There is no in-between. Either we live in a dystopian society where all labor (or means to production) is collectively owned and the fruits of it are portioned-out. Or we live in a society where only a portion/percentage of said labor is redistributed, thus invalidating the OP's suggestion that such a society would mean freedom for all "...to pursue hobbies and live without careerism (I paraphrase there)". I can only assume that "careerism" in that sense is in reference to a job, and/or participating in a labor market of sorts.
      - yellowapple 11y ago
        > Are you going to say that the fruits of said automated labor do not belong entirely to their owners (or people that created it/bought it/etc)? No. Why would I? That's silly. > Or we live in a society where only a portion/percentage of said labor Not only is this a false dichotomy, but it's also missing my point: that the purpose of automation is to eliminate the need for labor, and that by pursuing automation of tasks that few (if any) people actually want to do as hobbies or "labors of love", OP's suggestion is actually feasible. It sounds like you're trying to pin me to some communal Marxist philosphy (never mind that I personally subscribe to philosophies that can power most of Europe by wiring the corpse of Karl Marx to a dynamo in his grave). The idea of a post-labor society is actually quite compatible with capitalism; if you have a machine that makes chairs and I have a machine that makes tables, there's nothing stopping us from trading, say, a table for four chairs, or a chair-making machine for a table-making machine, or selling our tables and chairs for money and using that money to buy, say, couches.
  - pharrington 11y ago

thwest 11y ago

Cultural-Marxist? I thought he was an economist.

shredprez 11y ago
Lately "Cultural-Marxist" has become shorthand for anyone holding beliefs even slightly adjacent to "the rich/powerful are evil and they're corrupting the pure and poor/powerless" or "there are two kinds of people: the oppressed and the oppressors". Whether this characterization of the article is fair or those beliefs about the world are true are both reasonable questions worthy of consideration. Anyone looking for a little information on the origins of the term "Cultural Marxism" should take a look at the wiki entry for the Frankfurt School, under the subheading "Conspiracy Theory".
- _delirium 11y ago
  I've more commonly found "cultural Marxism" used regarding social issues. People who believe in the theory allege that Marxism has expanded into the cultural realm (rather than focusing on economics and class), as part of a long strategy to undermine western society. For example: immigration is alleged to be a cultural-Marxist strategy to undermine the nation-state, abortion & gay marriage are cultural-Marxist strategies to undermine the family, and focusing on things like slavery and Jim Crow in history textbooks is a cultural-Marxist strategy to undermine patriotism. A funny thing about the more general critique of oppressor/victim narratives is that Nietzsche had a very similar critique, alleging that the pervasiveness of such narratives (which he called "slave morality") had weakened society. But he didn't blame Marxism for it— he blamed Christianity.
  - WaxProlix 11y ago
    How is class not a part of culture?
    - thwest 11y ago
      This is exactly how we keep intentionally misunderstanding Das Kapital on internet forums. Class is not a minor outcome of a social moment. It is not a mere symbol that can be quickly turned on or off by a culture, the way a culture might shift from enjoying boxing to preferring mixed martial arts. Class has arisen as an essential structure in the reproduction of society since the dissolution of European fuedalism. The same business logic that produces all our material wants, from coats to bushels, comes hand in hand with the logic that every business must give the profit (surplus labor) back to capital. Culture is a material basis, but class is the overdetermining superstructure. Shifting from a class based society to a classless one would require a fundamental shift in the economic relations where workers would own the means of production. This shift would tear apart the material basis of our culture. MTV/Viacom, MSNBC/Fox/CNN, RCA/TicketMaster/C3, WaPo/NYT/WSJ, TWTR/Facebook/Google: all of these cultural production centers would shatter into cultural microcosms if the workers at these firms weren't bound to profit maximization. On the other hand, it is trivial to manufacture new cultures without a whiff of change to class.

kazinator 11y ago

Of course, in the old days, the hacker worked with integrated circuits that were made by a multi-million dollar fab that was funded by yuppie venture capital.

nickbauman 11y ago
Still true today. Except the original capitalists in the case of the computer industry was the government, not VCs. Almost every major technology you use everyday in your computer originated with a government grant or program. Those HD LCD screens? They were originally developed for the Abrams XM-1 tank in the First Gulf War. Google was first funded by a DARPA grant. The Internet itself was a large DARPA project. The integrated circuit, you name it. First world nations become that way by government-led expansion. The private sector comes along later to make a profit after the fact in almost every case.

zecho 11y ago

The problem with TLDR summaries is that they're always overly blunt and often wrong and they tend to serve as dog whistles for people who are overly blunt and often wrong themselves.

legulere 11y ago

Small info: If you use the word cultural-marxist people will assume you're belonging to the fringe right or at least read lots of fringe right media