/tech/ - Technology

>are computer touchers considered proletarian?
Yes.
>if so, why do they seem to lean libertarian and meritocratic
Because they're often labor aristocracy + tech fields have undergone insane neoliberal astroturfing.
>Also when will AI finally break programmer chuds (inshallah)
Likely never. Jobs will become more scarce but the role itself cannot be replaced entirely.

>are white collar jobs that earn considerably above the median immiserated reserveless workers
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>30232
>le "labor aristocracy" and le "astroturfing"
see when youre some retarded amerifat ideologue who pushes "we are le 99%" garbage you need to patch the glaring flaws in your ideology by making up some shit about "labor aristocracy" (and then define it almost indistinguishably from petit bourgeois/middle class anyway) or that propaganda is some literal brainwashing contraption

ohh if only workers with considerable reserves and property werent propagandized then theyd totally seek to destroy class society like the rest of the proletariat ohhhhhh!!

As always this question is ridiculous, and a fun distraction.
Programmers nearly own their own means of production.
The product itself is a critical part of the means of production which isn't owned.
Ideologically they align with pic related.

>>30235
whats with pseuds and their obsession with saying "means of production" in the abstract

they just own considerable reserves that could be put into capital (whether they do or not is irrelevant to class analysis), its that simple

>>30234
>"labor aristocracy" (and then define it almost indistinguishably from petit bourgeois/middle class anyway)
>workers with considerable reserves and property
well they arent petit bourgeois if they dont have productive property. owning a house that you live in isn't the same as owning capital. if "middle class" means workers with reserves then they fit right in there and would be labor aristocracy. its not made up marx engels and lenin talked about it at considerable length. its also the case that labor aristocracy and petit bourgeois have similar interests and perspectives about most things and are generally in the similar situations even in differing material conditions

>>30237
pick up volume 2 & 3 and theories of surplus value

>productive property
meaningless nitpick. i just said enough reserves can be invested. you arent doing proper analysis if you account for individual choice. capitalism is pretty simple: profit or die

if you can earn from revenue (reserves) and choose not to do so you simply suck at competition, it doesnt make you proletarian

>they are different but also have the same class background and class interests
lol?

>owning (property) is not the same as owning (property)
thanks, very cool

>>30231
>are computer touchers considered proletarian?
No. Mao said We must first eliminate those worker-aristocrats in the ranks of the proletariat who have been bought by the bourgeoisie. A handful of worker-aristocrats has indeed enjoyed a higher standard of living at the charity of the bourgeoisie. They are no longer members of the workers’ ranks, but renegades of the proletariat.
>>30237
>well they arent petit bourgeois if they dont have productive property
Wrong. Engels said the worker who owns a little house to the value of a thousand talers is certainly no longer a proletarian.
>owning a house that you live in isn't the same as owning capital.
Wrong. Engels demonstrated that under capitalist dictatorship, home-ownership is bourgeois. Let us assume that in a given industrial area it has become the rule that each worker owns his own little house. In this case the working class of that area lives rent free; expenses for rent no longer enter into the value of its labor power. Every reduction in the cost of production of labor power, that is to say, every permanent price reduction in the worker’s necessities of life is equivalent “on the basis of the iron laws of political economy” to a reduction in the value of labor power and will therefore finally result in a corresponding fall in wages. Wages would fall on an average corresponding to the average sum saved on rent, that is, the worker would pay rent for his own house, but not, as formerly, in money to the house owner, but in unpaid labor to the factory owner for whom he works. In this way the savings of the worker invested in his little house would certainly become capital to some extent, but not capital for him, but for the capitalist employing him.

Therefore, under the actual conditions of capitalist dictatorship, where the vast majority of workers are denied home-ownership and remain at the mercy of landlords, home-ownership drives down real wage, the proletarian further immiserated in direct proportion that the home-owners and the capitalists exploit them with capitalist home-ownership.

>another barista thread on /tech/
Wonder what OP is trying to slide

>>30240
wrong. nothing is being slid here. The actual sliding is going on in the iran thread by the libtards and anti-communist.

>>30238
>meaningless nitpick.
its really not. capitalists own capital not property.
>i just said enough reserves can be invested.
literally the first time you mentioned it
>if you can earn from revenue (reserves)
also the first time you brought that up. reserves generally means savings not investments. you didn't distinguish between the amount of reserves you just said "reserveless". its entirely possible to have reserves and not have a significant amount that it is worth investing(ie you would lose more on flat fees than the profit)
>the same class background
didn't say that either, labor aristocracy and petit bourgeois both have incentives to keep capitalism, and both are the first to be effected during an economic crises and pushed into the working class, and both tend to be reactionary. but only one owns capital.
a labor aristocrat with enough reserves to make a return on investment is by definition a petit bourgeois - they both own capital and have to work.

>>30239
>Engels said the worker who owns a little house
Most workers who "own" their house dont actually own it the bank does.

>>30243
Just as most small business owners take on commercial debt to get their business space

>>30243
hurr durr

>>30242
we are clearly talking about substantially valorizable property dumbfuck. goes to show the state of leftoids that this even needs to be spelled out

>>30240
>comparing baristas to programmers
kill yourself dipshit

>>30246
>we are clearly
no you are not clear at all
>substantially valorizable property
oh so like productive property?

>>30242
>>30247
>join communist discussion
<erm property is not capital
is this faggot really gonna do that "private vs public property" libtard debate?

fuck me this bullshit reminds me of retards asking me if a couch makes one petit bourgeois because they think theyre one of the things communists refer to when talking about reserves and this is when i know theres just no saving leftists

either people are lying about reading marx or theyre so bafflingly retarded they dont really understand what they read. the whole point of the proletariat is that theyre revolutionary and distinguished as a class because of their severance from property or reserves that can be capitalized

also i just noticed this shit thread is on /tech/ for some reason. no wonder the replies are specially stupid

>this thread
How can your weal and woe depend solely on the sale of your commodified abstract labour thus giving you impetus to struggle against bourgeois society if you're well off?

>inb4 if you quit or get fired you aren't well off anymore
Proletarians aren't well off even when they sell their labour. They don't have any privilege accrued from bourgeois society. These people y'all are speaking of struggle to maintain their privilege in society. Proletarians on the other hand struggle to survive.

im not even really disagreeing with you at all your just being mega autistic

unemployed/perpetual college student/tenured academic aka people with guaranteed source of income's thread.

>you OWN the means of production, you have a LAPTOP
Yeah and people own a hammer, the reason why artisan manufacturers become proletarians is because of the capital the bourgeoisie can invest into mass manufacturing that prices out and out produces artisans. If anyone is suggesting a freelance programmer is of the same class as the board at Microsoft or Google, then it sounds like a chapped ass because lrn 2 code actually worked out for some people, briefly, before they all got shitcanned after COVID.

>>30252
>>you OWN the means of production, you have a LAPTOP
this uygha is arguing with a single reply that everyone ignored and pretending its the whole thread lmfao

>freelance programmer
LMAO fucking retard bringing up the #1 example of a petit bourgeois, a god damned freelancer

>>30253
Owning a tool and possessing the skill to use it is not intrinsically petit bourgeoisie. Petit bourgeoisie involves possessing capital, the ownership of tools you either don’t have the skills to use or enough hands to use, the employment of for-sale labour, it’s everything the bourgeoisie have except the amount of capital to live off of the investment of.

>>30254
freelancers were the original petit bourgeois you illiterate fucking moron

>Petit bourgeoisie involves possessing capital
whats with ignorant amerifats and conceiving capital as literal factories and nothing else LOL

>>30254
>everything the bourgeoisie have except the amount of capital to live off of the investment of
What a stupid fucking definition. The petit-bourgeois simply don't have competitive proportions of land or property. Almost 20 years later and we're still ridden with "we are the 99%" vibes-based idiocy.

>>30255
>factories and nothing else
Nowhere in what I said makes that suggestion, it’s you who is trying to reduce class relations down to whether you have a boss or not.

>>30255
right. the hotdog stand proprietor is bourgeois. The computer toucher produces no value, but the hotdog stand proprietor does. The computer toucher is bourgeois.

>>30256
What’s with the angry posting
>Petit bourgeoisie don’t have enough capital to live off the investment of (meaning they still have to work to maintain the profitability of their property(ies)”
<Erm what a stupid fucking definition you cunt, ackshually it’s when their properties aren’t competitive
If their properties aren’t competitive, they go out of business, sell their properties and become proletarians.

>>30259
>and become proletarians
so call them proletarians when they become proletarians, not before lol

>>30257
>proletarians are only the reserveless propertyless wage workers
<reduce class relations down to whether you have a boss or not
not beating the illiterate allegations rofl

>>30259
>they still have to work
Again with the stupid fucking definitions. If working is all that's needed, then CEOs are petit-bourgeois or even proletarian too now.

>>30260
Yeah but if we’re defining property are something you invest in with the expectation of a greater return that you further invest, then a laptop someone does freelance coding on to earn a living, isn’t a property.

Unless you’re suggesting they’re using their laptop to acquire the capital to afford squatting in Starbucks by investing in the purchase of caffeine for greater labour power from themselves.

>>30257
If you're honestly trying to argue that artisans, freelancers, etc. are proletarians despite being the go-to example of the petit-bourgeois during the early development of capitalism then you might genuinely be braindead.

>>30262
-> >>30248
<fuck me this bullshit reminds me of retards asking me if a couch makes one petit bourgeois because they think theyre one of the things communists refer to when talking about reserves and this is when i know theres just no saving leftists
-> >>30236
>whats with pseuds and their obsession with saying "means of production" in the abstract
>they just own considerable reserves that could be put into capital (whether they do or not is irrelevant to class analysis), its that simple
unironically kill yourself

>>30261
They don’t have to work though, do they? Whatever salary they command, it’s never greater than the total value and return of and on their investments.

>>30262
like youre such a fucking retarded ape despite repeatedly pointing to the reserves you can accrue from this example of an educated profession with high wages you keep bringing up the fucking laptop example AND keep pretending freelancers of any kind can ever be considered proletarian

>>30265
>its not real work because uhh they earn more from investing (?) than their literal wages
if i were this retarded id kill myself asap tbh

>>30266
>educated profession
Oh okay so your pol pot.
>with high wages
Oh okay so your definition depends on whether you’re jealous of the subject or not
>freelancers of any kind can ever be considered proletarian
Oh okay so they still have to sell their labour to survive, they work in an industry that is dominated by capital and mass production with whom they can only compete on a contract basis, but you hate educated people, are jealous of higher salaries and presumably thinking not having a boss places you as economically privileged enough to receive an invitation to Epstein’s island

>>30267
>Growing number of middle classes
Lmao

>Microsoft sacks 10,000 employees in response to a downturn in the market
>MSFT price goes up in return
>Salaries falling across the industry in direct response to the growing reserve of unemployed labour
<Erm yes but they once earned more money than me and their jobs required reading a book at some point so fuck them, I’m enjoying the schadenfreuder of class conflict applied to them too much to have class solidarity.
Yes, it’s over-compensated brogrammers that at the sole obstacle to revolution here.

>>30270
Wrong. Class solidarity means solidarity within a class. You preach explicit inter-class solidarity. You are a fascist technocrat computer toucher apologist. When the keyboard toucher works on the line they can have solidarity.

>>30271
>when everyone is poorer than me, then they’ll get solidarity from me
In which case they will have learned a lesson from you and consider you petite bourg for having a job at all.

There are swaths of "freelance" programmers that are basically gig workers with even more precarious conditions than local workers with benefits. This form of modern agile and global exploitation that relies on the instantaneous communication and that obscures labor relations making everyone seem like a partner/contractor with no bosses. Many programmers are firmly planted in that new global internet powered workforce. I feel uneasy calling them petty bourgeois, yet with the distances and atomized inhuman interaction between coworkers, I also fail to see them ever organizing or becoming revolutionary in any capacity. What would they even revolt against? How would they hinder production with a strike? Also notably, because of already present international exploitation, a below-minimum wage makes some of them comfortable earners in their respective countries.