
Silicon Valley wants to trick us into thinking capitalism is revolutionary - endswapper
http://qz.com/797778/silicon-valley-thinks-its-the-heir-to-1960s-counterculture-but-theres-no-revolution-here/
======
thedevil
"the industry—despite its language of revolution—is quite conservative"

This statement is crazy and captures the folly of this article. Silicon Valley
is not conservative in any sense of the word. SV is about as radical as you
can get without losing touch with reality.

The author seems to think that anything that touches money must be evil. But
you can't make much positive impact on the world by sitting around a fire
singing kumbaya. Ultimately money has to be part of the equation for the vast
majority of worthy causes.

And if you think I'm just one of those greedy capitalists peddling propaganda:
I say this as someone who took a 60% pay cut in hopes of ultimately making
more impact on the world.

~~~
vertex-four
Silicon Valley's politics, overall, lean towards being socially slightly-
right-of-centre and fiscally almost libertarian, from the perspective of a
Brit.

~~~
atemerev
That's odd. From a perspective of an actual libertarian, SV political
preferences are so far left (basic income, etc.), it's like Communist
propaganda once again.

One thing we all can agree it's radical.

~~~
valarauca1

         (basic income, etc.), it's like Communist propaganda once again
    

I don't think you really understand what Communism/Socialism is. Under these
systems you have no right to _private property_. They are post-capitalistic.
In Communism money doesn't exist. _Communist_ Countries have been Socialist
(example: U.S.S.R. United Soviet Socialist Republic). Socialism is the
transfer from Capitalism _TO_ Communism.

Basic Income is just classical liberalism. Helping people survive who are
under privileged within a capitalistic economy while leaving the existing
capitalistic economy and power structures largely intact.

Calling _basic income_ communism is just GOP propaganda, not even libertarian
propaganda.

:.:.:

Communists see Basic Income as a bourgeoisie hand out necessary to preserve
existing class structures of a post scarcity capitalist society. By pacifying
the proletariat and ensuring that in the event the bourgeoisie no longer
require proletariat labor, they will still be able to exploit them for profit.

But if there is no scarcity or labor, why must there be profit?

~~~
AdrianB1
I lived under communism for 17 years as I was born in such a country. I think
you have a wrong idea about what communism was, I hope you will eventually try
to find out and wake up.

~~~
valarauca1
I'm sorry you had to live thought the post Khrushchev era Soviet reforms. I'm
also sorry that national propaganda taught you your nation was communist, and
you haven't questioned this well into your adulthood.

Have you seriously ever read Marx as an adult? Not under a teachers
supervision? He disagrees with >75% of everything Stalin, and everyone who
came after him did. A strong argument can even be made that Leninism is a
fundamental diversion from Marxism.

But (assuming you are European) non-Leninist communist literature was banned.

~~~
dragonwriter
> He disagrees with >75% of everything Stalin, and everyone who came after him
> did.

The divergence actually goes back further than Stalin to Lenin and his rather
extensive deviations from classical Marxism to come up with a new program that
could plausibly be deployed in a society that was itself pre-capitalist
without developing mature capitalism on the road to the socialism that Marx
saw as the necessary stage between capitalism and the end-state goal of
utopian communism. Outside of the utopian ultimate end-state that both strove
for in principle, this required complete revision of every part of the Marxist
program starting with the preconditions and working through the whole rest of
the policy path.

~~~
valarauca1
This comic roughly summarizes Lenin's approach to Marxism nicely

[http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zg4XgbxYd3k/Ul2WhkOQUiI/AAAAAAAAAI...](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zg4XgbxYd3k/Ul2WhkOQUiI/AAAAAAAAAIo/Fd5KT3VuS5A/s1600/001.png)

------
bpolverini
The personification of "Silicon Valley" into some giant evil blob-like entity
attempting to consume innocent, creative counter-revolutionaries undermines a
perfectly awesome, but 100% non-unique to SV opinion: Technologists (and any
industry with any modicum of power) can suffer from a bad case of hubris.

Is creative destruction real and good (most of the time)? Yes. Is your startup
selling SGaaS (scuba gear as a service) going to radically impact the
disinherited and the poor? No. Is there anything new under the sun?

Still, the criticism of the author is received: More humility from the
collective "we" of SV wouldn't hurt.

~~~
nibs
I think the hubris is a necessary protection mechanism for the fact that
without arrogance and conviction no progress would ever happen. Reasonable
people get convinced not to rock the boat. Only unreasonable people ignore
that "good" advice and fuck shit up for the benefit (or sometimes detriment,
or sometimes both) of society.

~~~
idlewords
Silicon valley entreprenerds are top-notch conformists. The fact that they're
conforming to a culture that puts value on arrogance, megalomania, or "rocking
the boat" doesn't make them agents of progress, any more than being a goth kid
who hangs out at the Cinnabon threatens middle-class values.

~~~
smallnamespace
You could say the same thing for every revolutionary ever.

Gavrilo Princip was just some angsty kid who wanted to fit in with his fellow
revolutionaries. He still succeeded at starting a world war.

Every organization is composed mainly of followers, even ones that have
recognizably brought progress to our world.

~~~
idlewords
I don't think Gavrilo Princip is a great role model.

~~~
smallnamespace
Of course not, but you were arguing that conformists can't move revolutions
forward (whether for good or for bad).

That claim is demonstrably false.

------
zeveb
In a world where technical & economic progress are artificially retarded by
statist regulation, capitalism _is_ revolutionary. What makes me sad is to
think about how much improvement we'd see if all technologies were as free as
software (it also scares me to imagine what civil engineering would be like
were it as free as software — obviously not all regulations are bad).

Granted, I think it's a little twee when folks claim (to use the article's
example) that they are 'building the restaurant of the future,' but that's
harmless enough.

~~~
yladiz
If technologies were as free as software without regulation, cars would not
have crumple zones, seat belts, airbags, anti lock brakes, or any other safety
technology mandatory. Companies would use the cheapest pesticide even if it
causes horrible birth defects and medical issues to grow our food. Medical and
pharma companies would price their services and drugs however they want
because they can and people have to buy it (which is what's happening already,
and 17.1% of the US GDP is spent on medicine as of 2014[1], higher than any
other country in the world). In every example, companies wouldn't do the right
thing because it would cut into their profits, which is what capitalism boils
down to.

Not every regulation is good -- look at SF's housing and how you can have
multiple overlapping regulations that mean that building a building is
impossible in some situations -- but in many ways they're better than "free as
software" technology.

Edit: Yes, safety features like seat belts were available before they were
mandatory, but not everyone would buy them. I would be surprised if car
manufacturers marketed the seat belt much even if they offered it.

1:
[http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high...](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true)

~~~
jerf
Seat belts were offered in cars prior to regulation [1]:

"American car manufacturers Nash (in 1949) and Ford (in 1955) offered seat
belts as options, while Swedish Saab first introduced seat belts as standard
in 1958.[7] After the Saab GT 750 was introduced at the New York Motor Show in
1958 with safety belts fitted as standard, the practice became
commonplace.[8]"

"... The world's first seat belt law was put in place in 1970, in the state of
Victoria, Australia, making the wearing of a seat belt compulsory for drivers
and front-seat passengers. This legislation was enacted after trialing Hemco
seatbelts, designed by Desmond Hemphill (1926–2001), in the front seats of
police vehicles, lowering the incidence of officer injury and death."

Wikipedia mentions "in 1959, Congress passed legislation requiring all
automobiles to comply with certain safety standards." but the writing leaves
it unclear to me whether that included mandating seat belts.

The theory that government regulation is mandatory or companies will never do
anything healthy requires a consumer base who assigns no regard to their
health and safety, which is obviously false. I'm not say it's all market,
either; I think a government that watches a free market but does not
participate is generally the ideal. But the idea that we wouldn't have
standard seat belts if it weren't for government is silly.

In the general case, the government _can 't_ mandate things that don't exist
yet. They can at least prod things in certain directions with things like CAFE
standards, but that's all.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#History)

~~~
vertex-four
> The theory that government regulation is mandatory or companies will never
> do anything healthy requires a consumer base who assigns no regard to their
> health and safety, which is obviously false.

Either that or companies price health-and-safety options out of the price
range of some consumers, resulting in a society where we think it's right that
anyone under a certain level of income doesn't deserve to be as safe as we
are.

At least in the current system, you can't buy things without much the same
level of safety as we have - meaning that you can't realistically push their
income+benefits any lower without lots of pushback. If we thought that health
and safety features were optional... that'd be a lot different.

~~~
ashark
I think an under-appreciated effect of regulation is making participation in
the market easier.

I don't need to research the apple I'm buying at the store. I don't need to
look into the company that certified its safety to ensure it's not captured by
the very company producing/selling the apple, or that it's not the same
company that had huge scandal last year but with a new name (to take the
Anarcho-Libertarian idea that private companies would replace government
regulators in certifying safety and quality). That huge time/money cost is
just gone. Anything in the grocery store will be basically _fine_. I can just
toss it in the cart without a thought. I might gain some benefit from
researching the products there, but it will be marginal. I don't _have_ to do
that stuff to just _probably not die of food poisoning_.

Same with car safety and any number of other things. Regulation ensures a
baseline under which products will (generally) not drop, making it easier
(cheaper) for buyers to spend. It reduces (consumer) overhead and greases
wheels.

~~~
zeveb
> I think an under-appreciated effect of regulation is making participation in
> the market easier.

As a consumer — but it also makes it significantly more difficult to
participate as a producer. This is why existing firms are so often pro-
regulation: they have the resources to absorb the initial hit and then pass
the costs on to consumers, while an upstart has to raise the resources to pay
for the hit before having a single customer.

~~~
smallnamespace
Sure, but some of these are due to real economies of scale for safety.

It can be _hard_ to produce food safely, and ensuring food safety often has
fixed costs (like buying safety/lab equipment, etc.)

------
jondubois
Capitalism is built on hypocrisy and an illusion of justice (which most people
believe).

Those who obey the rules are at the bottom of society and those who break the
rules (in clever ways) are at the top.

I think that most of the people at the top are fundamentally evil but they
genuinely think of themselves as benevolent.

Companies continue to deliver growth by fostering a culture of hypocrisy and
by shielding themselves from unpleasant ideas which would adversely affect
their desire to keep growing.

Most companies have negative side effects on society but no one involved wants
to admit it (even to themselves).

~~~
AdrianB1
Even Karl Marx had more arguments when stating something, you have absolutely
none - just statements. This is not a discussion, it is propaganda.

~~~
jondubois
I'm just giving my opinion of how I think society works. Not saying that
communism would be better.

------
nitwit005
Here's something from the "About us" page of the company that made my toaster:
[http://www.bellahousewares.com/img/home/side.png](http://www.bellahousewares.com/img/home/side.png)

Companies pretty much all say the same things about themselves, inside of SV
or out. It's just whatever happens to be the marketing buzzwords of today.

~~~
eveningcoffee
Please be careful with your bold toaster.

------
mbostleman
Pretty much every narrative in politics, entertainment, and marketing ignores
the reality of economics for some imagined good deed(s).

------
saturdaysaint
My feeling is that we've barely started to grips with any of the consequences
of any of the (Silicon Valley-originated) digital services we use. Where would
you even begin to study how ever present access to information has changed
life for most people? Who can say which technologies (or any technologies)
have led to the decades-long cratering of crime rates? Really, how has
Facebook changed our lives? How has Amazon changed cities? These are almost
futile questions to seriously study, and the fact that they revolve around
major corporate brands means that a lot of smart people (such as the author)
mostly just roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders.

------
Kalium
The form of this article is familiar. It laments hubris, asserts the power of
some, and engages in a litany of evils. In that order.

Capitalism isn't revolutionary. But looking to the corporate world to solve
all your social problems might be.

------
kyledrake
"Yet the San Francisco of today is also strikingly different from the one my
parents knew—and not just because I can’t find a single good burger under
$10."

I've never paid more than $10 for a good burger in San Francisco and if you
spend a minute of work on it, you won't either.

I wonder though if the burgers the author's parents knew would qualify for the
author as "good". Lots of mom and pop diners throwing stuff together in the
"rent is cheap" days, and that's still where you'll find the cheap burgers, if
you don't mind them leaving off the truffle shavings.

------
squozzer
SV's major fault lies in its overuse of hyperbole, which it uses to trick
itself into thinking it's revolutionary.

Isn't most of what we hear from SV just typical corporate bro-speak + double
espresso?

Dennis Miller once said that 95% of art is shit, 4% shit with an asterisk, but
God bless the remaining 1%? That sums up what I see from SV pretty well.

------
kelukelugames
When a startup can't pay you real money, we have to convince you it's
revolutionary.

~~~
pc86
s/can't/won't/g

------
jesuslop
how can capitalism be revolutionary if it is older than people exchanging corn
for goats?

------
anotherarray
Capitalism isn't revolutionary or creative. It is destructive.

It's not shiny or different - it doesn't have to. As long as it makes X more
productive, it will help people in the long-term.

