I’ve just come across a rather striking fact: The End of Angst.
But first, some background: Every year since 1976, the Monitoring the Future Study has asked around 3,000 U.S. 12thgraders how important various things are to them. It seems everythingis getting more important. Well, not quite. 13 of 14 issues have become more important. The only exception: “Finding purpose and meaning in my life”.
Do students today have “purpose and meaning” solved, or is it that they can’t see the point? What has driven this rather extraordinary change in attitudes?
Oh, the angst. Or lack of it.
Which should be very interesting/troubling to the philosophic community...
Still, I think there is an oppressive reification force that takes up one side of a battle. Think of the copyfight in music and so forth.
How do you see an "oppressive reification force" at work in the copyfight in music?
And do you see reification as necessarily oppressive? I ask because I was under the impression that reification might be necessary for class consciousness. What if reification were self-inflicted, as opposed to inflicted by an oppressor. Is that even possible?
Education is still a problem and the push for something like No Child Left Behind is again this standardization/reification push against the human individual.I have something to say about this, but I want to save it for a future post on web services that get their revenue from advertising. Preview: when (e.g.) Google targets you with ads based on your activity on the internet, they are doing something like reifying you, but doing it in a way that you are almost totally individualized. This may be scary, but it also gives you a lot of room for freedom,
( ... )
While the computer and program mindscape has taken up art, this seems to be merely a rebellious facet of the original intent of computing which was very bourgeois in its outlook. It was to keep and sort records for production, if not for war. Codebreaking and number crunching for atomic bomb building.
Even when software is sold or licensed as a "commodity" like windows, there is still a connection between the programmers and the finished product that is lacking for the factory worker. The programmer must issue patches, develop upgrades, and otherwise maintain the software. The factory worker, however, has no contact with the commodity after it rolls off the assembly line.
A problem might remain with whether the standard programmer is really "the authentic master of the process" as well. The programmer may not play an automated role (for the reasons you describe) but there may be coding standards she has to adhere to, she might be assigned to a specific portion of a large project without time for her own personal projects (my impression is that google is still largely an exception, not the rule, even in the software industry), her ideas may be overruled by her boss, and so on.
But even if so, I think you give a nice description of how a critique of industrial capitalism can lack relevance for different forms of economic
Even when software is sold or licensed as a "commodity" like windows, there is still a connection between the programmers and the finished product that is lacking for the factory worker. The programmer must issue patches, develop upgrades, and otherwise maintain the software. The factory worker, however, has no contact with the commodity after it rolls off the assembly line.
Good point. What's interesting is that in theory this should be doable by anyone, but in practice the necessary knowledge of the program is so complex and tied up with the procedural and theoretical knowledge of the programmers who wrote it that it's often prohibitively expensive to retrain people. This is how a lot of open source developers get funding.
A problem might remain with whether the standard programmer is really "the authentic master of the process" as well. The programmer may not play an automated role (for the reasons you describe) but there may be coding standards she has to adhere to, she might be assigned to a specific portion of a large
( ... )
Let's first get some things straight: look up what a mode of production is, so that you can understand that the statement "I'm working now in an industry that, as it has matured, has invented for itself a new mode of production that is radically different from those of either capitalist investment or proletarian labor: software engineering." is utter nonsense. A mode of production is both the activity of the laborer and the social relations under which he enters into it. I assume that you as a software engineer are being paid a wage and that you do not get to keep the products of your labor: you are still toiling under a capitalist mode of production, and you are still producing commodities
( ... )
I was hoping you would find this eventually. Thanks for responding.
look up what a mode of production is, so that you can understand that the statement "I'm working now in an industry that, as it has matured, has invented for itself a new mode of production that is radically different from those of either capitalist investment or proletarian labor: software engineering." is utter nonsense. ... I assume that you as a software engineer are being paid a wage and that you do not get to keep the products of your labor: you are still toiling under a capitalist mode of production, and you are still producing commodities.
You assume wrong. Yes, I'm being paid a wage. But the product of my labor is open source, which I "keep" as much as anybody.
But, more to the point, I used "mode of production" deliberately because I think there is a marked change in both the activity of the laborer and the social relations under which he enters into it. Consider the rest of the content of the OP: I am arguing that there are important qualitative
( ... )
But, more to the point, I used "mode of production" deliberately because I think there is a marked change in both the activity of the laborer and the social relations under which he enters into it. Consider the rest of the content of the OP: I am arguing that there are important qualitative differences between the way software is developed and commodities are produced; that the activity of the software engineer is qualitatively different from that of the factory worker; that software itself is does not participate in the commodity structure, per se.
Uh, yes it does. How does it not? If it is playing a role in the circulation of commodities, if it is being sold as a commodity, it is working within the capitalist mode of production as a means of realizing surplus value. This all turns on the labor theory of value: that is how Marx says capital works. Some people labor and add value to stuff, and other people keep it, to put it crudely
( ... )
I think you are referring to the claim, "software itself is does not participate in the commodity structure, per se." Yeah, you got me. That was probably wrong.
I think I do want to say that software is not strictly speaking a commodity, however, in many of its contemporary incarnations. Agreeing on a definition of "commodity" would be helpful here, but for now I'm working from various things Lukacs says about commodities and, because I'm not trying to impress anyone, the wikipedia article. Feel free to educate me, if you are so inclined.
With that concession, I would respond to this:
Even if you're designing widgets for facebook (which is a capitalist enterprise that uses the attention of its 'clients' as a sort of labor power) that are 'freely available', or if you're designing open source software that is freely downloadable, which drives up site traffic and allows advert revenue, you're entering into capitalist production.by saying: yes, sure, the business practices you describe do take part in capitalist
( ... )
"In the modern software company, the idiosyncrasies and human qualities of the worker are nurtured and cultivated, as these are the irrational source of the worker's inspiration
( ... )
I'll respond to this first, then your other reply.
"In the modern software company, the idiosyncrasies and human qualities of the worker are nurtured and cultivated, as these are the irrational source of the worker's inspiration."
Heh. A modern software company like Microsoft? Heh. Ha. Heh.
Um, yes. Microsoft is a great example of this. Look at their corporate office--it's literally a campus. It has, like, museums and shit on it. The whole point of it is to get people to want to spend their whole lives there, spontaneously working on the problems available to them. I mean, I haven't checked on this lately, but I could call friends of mine who work at Microsoft and confirm, if you want.
Right. If the inanity of internet advertising (a capitalist activity), and other things from current economic activities, these authentic masters of the process would be thrown into the streets. They are employed because they make a profit for the owners Paulie, not because Google has a soft spot for community and ittle quirks of humanity.Yes
( ... )
The whole point of it is to get people to want to spend their whole lives there, spontaneously working on the problems available to them. I mean, I haven't checked on this lately, but I could call friends of mine who work at Microsoft and confirm, if you want.But none of this changes the fact that Microsoft is one of the most vicious corporations out there, and so follow capitalist imperatives to maximize surplus-value. Who gives a shit if software engineers get a yoga class on Wednesday and Thai Chi on Friday? The guys who designed the tracks through the Rockies probably got free whiskey: does that change the fact that they were engaged in capitalist enterprise
( ... )
but none of this changes the fact that Microsoft is one of the most vicious corporations out there, and so follow capitalist imperatives to maximize surplus-value. Who gives a shit if software engineers get a yoga class on Wednesday and Thai Chi on Friday?
Well, I'll have to refer you back to the point of the OP, which was that Lukacs' analysis of the proletariat does not seem to apply to software engineers. I'm suggesting that Thai Chi and yoga are symptomatic of the qualitatively different relationship between capital and software engineering.
"I think the original point still stands."
Then you must like being ripped off.What are you talking about? The original point under discussion was whether or not software engineers are "authenthic masters of their labor," in the sense of not having their labor be externally rationalized. How does recognizing this point mean that I like getting ripped off
( ... )
Comments 38
But first, some background: Every year since 1976, the Monitoring the Future Study has asked around 3,000 U.S. 12thgraders how important various things are to them. It seems everythingis getting more important. Well, not quite. 13 of 14 issues have become more important. The only exception: “Finding purpose and meaning in my life”.
Do students today have “purpose and meaning” solved, or is it that they can’t see the point? What has driven this rather extraordinary change in attitudes?
Oh, the angst. Or lack of it.
Which should be very interesting/troubling to the philosophic community...
Reply
How do you see an "oppressive reification force" at work in the copyfight in music?
And do you see reification as necessarily oppressive? I ask because I was under the impression that reification might be necessary for class consciousness. What if reification were self-inflicted, as opposed to inflicted by an oppressor. Is that even possible?
Education is still a problem and the push for something like No Child Left Behind is again this standardization/reification push against the human individual.I have something to say about this, but I want to save it for a future post on web services that get their revenue from advertising. Preview: when (e.g.) Google targets you with ads based on your activity on the internet, they are doing something like reifying you, but doing it in a way that you are almost totally individualized. This may be scary, but it also gives you a lot of room for freedom, ( ... )
Reply
Reply
While the computer and program mindscape has taken up art, this seems to be merely a rebellious facet of the original intent of computing which was very bourgeois in its outlook. It was to keep and sort records for production, if not for war. Codebreaking and number crunching for atomic bomb building.
Reply
A problem might remain with whether the standard programmer is really "the authentic master of the process" as well. The programmer may not play an automated role (for the reasons you describe) but there may be coding standards she has to adhere to, she might be assigned to a specific portion of a large project without time for her own personal projects (my impression is that google is still largely an exception, not the rule, even in the software industry), her ideas may be overruled by her boss, and so on.
But even if so, I think you give a nice description of how a critique of industrial capitalism can lack relevance for different forms of economic
Reply
Good point. What's interesting is that in theory this should be doable by anyone, but in practice the necessary knowledge of the program is so complex and tied up with the procedural and theoretical knowledge of the programmers who wrote it that it's often prohibitively expensive to retrain people. This is how a lot of open source developers get funding.
A problem might remain with whether the standard programmer is really "the authentic master of the process" as well. The programmer may not play an automated role (for the reasons you describe) but there may be coding standards she has to adhere to, she might be assigned to a specific portion of a large ( ... )
Reply
Reply
look up what a mode of production is, so that you can understand that the statement "I'm working now in an industry that, as it has matured, has invented for itself a new mode of production that is radically different from those of either capitalist investment or proletarian labor: software engineering." is utter nonsense. ... I assume that you as a software engineer are being paid a wage and that you do not get to keep the products of your labor: you are still toiling under a capitalist mode of production, and you are still producing commodities.
You assume wrong. Yes, I'm being paid a wage. But the product of my labor is open source, which I "keep" as much as anybody.
But, more to the point, I used "mode of production" deliberately because I think there is a marked change in both the activity of the laborer and the social relations under which he enters into it. Consider the rest of the content of the OP: I am arguing that there are important qualitative ( ... )
Reply
Uh, yes it does. How does it not? If it is playing a role in the circulation of commodities, if it is being sold as a commodity, it is working within the capitalist mode of production as a means of realizing surplus value. This all turns on the labor theory of value: that is how Marx says capital works. Some people labor and add value to stuff, and other people keep it, to put it crudely ( ... )
Reply
I think you are referring to the claim, "software itself is does not participate in the commodity structure, per se." Yeah, you got me. That was probably wrong.
I think I do want to say that software is not strictly speaking a commodity, however, in many of its contemporary incarnations. Agreeing on a definition of "commodity" would be helpful here, but for now I'm working from various things Lukacs says about commodities and, because I'm not trying to impress anyone, the wikipedia article. Feel free to educate me, if you are so inclined.
With that concession, I would respond to this:
Even if you're designing widgets for facebook (which is a capitalist enterprise that uses the attention of its 'clients' as a sort of labor power) that are 'freely available', or if you're designing open source software that is freely downloadable, which drives up site traffic and allows advert revenue, you're entering into capitalist production.by saying: yes, sure, the business practices you describe do take part in capitalist ( ... )
Reply
Reply
"In the modern software company, the idiosyncrasies and human qualities of the worker are nurtured and cultivated, as these are the irrational source of the worker's inspiration."
Heh. A modern software company like Microsoft? Heh. Ha. Heh.
Um, yes. Microsoft is a great example of this. Look at their corporate office--it's literally a campus. It has, like, museums and shit on it. The whole point of it is to get people to want to spend their whole lives there, spontaneously working on the problems available to them. I mean, I haven't checked on this lately, but I could call friends of mine who work at Microsoft and confirm, if you want.
Right. If the inanity of internet advertising (a capitalist activity), and other things from current economic activities, these authentic masters of the process would be thrown into the streets. They are employed because they make a profit for the owners Paulie, not because Google has a soft spot for community and ittle quirks of humanity.Yes ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Well, I'll have to refer you back to the point of the OP, which was that Lukacs' analysis of the proletariat does not seem to apply to software engineers. I'm suggesting that Thai Chi and yoga are symptomatic of the qualitatively different relationship between capital and software engineering.
"I think the original point still stands."
Then you must like being ripped off.What are you talking about? The original point under discussion was whether or not software engineers are "authenthic masters of their labor," in the sense of not having their labor be externally rationalized. How does recognizing this point mean that I like getting ripped off ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment