4 ms·

Startups, especially tech startups, move power from capital to labor through sweat equity, so in a way you can see them as anti-capitalist. Also, I imagine as

Startups, especially tech startups, move power from capital to labor through sweat equity, so in a way you can see them as anti-capitalist. Also, I imagine as a non-founder I am in the majority here.

buzzybee 10y ago
I've had a conversation like this before and it's full of nuance. The typical action of startups is to disrupt something about the current marketplace. That threatens some older entrenched interests, but supports the investors. Some capital loses, and some other capital wins. There is a messy fight somewhere in the middle as people try to cash in. Judgment of this process as pro or anti-capital is easily interpreted different ways, but it is definitely built into "how capitalism works" to some degree. Ultimately, social responsibility plays a big role in outcomes. Companies that intend to blow up everything in their path, lie, cheat and steal their way into cashflow, and then have some key people escape before it all falls apart, are just destructive - they aren't even creatively destructive. Those companies are why startups have a common outsider's view of being shady ventures.
- Robin_Message 10y ago
  Definitely there is an aspect of capital competing against capital in startups, but I'd argue that is neutral in terms of the power capital holds (as you say, some wins, some loses). But in terms of the systemic effect on power between capital and labour, I'd said people being entrepreneurial shifts power (in the political sense) towards labour, partly through increasing the independence of labour in aggregate, and partly through enabling labour to capture significantly more of the rewards of their work [1]. [1] For example, compare the typical amount of equity held by "last and least important founder" vs "first employee" to see that being a founder radically shifts power your way.

Startups, especially tech startups, move power from capital to labor through sweat equity, so in a way you can see them as anti-capitalist. Also, I imagine as a non-founder I am in the majority here.

buzzybee 10y ago

I've had a conversation like this before and it's full of nuance. The typical action of startups is to disrupt something about the current marketplace. That threatens some older entrenched interests, but supports the investors. Some capital loses, and some other capital wins. There is a messy fight somewhere in the middle as people try to cash in. Judgment of this process as pro or anti-capital is easily interpreted different ways, but it is definitely built into "how capitalism works" to some degree. Ultimately, social responsibility plays a big role in outcomes. Companies that intend to blow up everything in their path, lie, cheat and steal their way into cashflow, and then have some key people escape before it all falls apart, are just destructive - they aren't even creatively destructive. Those companies are why startups have a common outsider's view of being shady ventures.

Robin_Message 10y ago
Definitely there is an aspect of capital competing against capital in startups, but I'd argue that is neutral in terms of the power capital holds (as you say, some wins, some loses). But in terms of the systemic effect on power between capital and labour, I'd said people being entrepreneurial shifts power (in the political sense) towards labour, partly through increasing the independence of labour in aggregate, and partly through enabling labour to capture significantly more of the rewards of their work [1]. [1] For example, compare the typical amount of equity held by "last and least important founder" vs "first employee" to see that being a founder radically shifts power your way.