In this set of essays we read Paul Graham discuss his theory on innovation as a source of wealth, freedom, and perhaps even social good. Does forming a startup really liberate the working hacker? Do startups and their wealth provide social good? Is taking the “reliable way to get rich” consistent with the rest of Graham’s vision as a Hacker?
There were two really good points Graham made romanticising startups in “How to make wealth.” The first was the startups are a “reliable way to get rich.” The second was that joining a startup was stating “I want to work faster.” he’s not wrong about startups cutting through red tape, moving faster and producing products at blinding speeds. However, when Graham suggests that hackers naturally tend toward startups, or that startups are the place for all innovation, I’m less convinced that Graham has a consistent vision of a hacker.
In earlier essays hackers were people who saw the world differently, and refused to conform with the ideas everyone else seemed to hold. Now this natural nonconformity leads to the world of startups, but is a startup really nonconformist? Or is it a profiteering tool in the business life cycle that Graham discussed a few essays ago? Are hackers really escaping red tape when they join a startup, because for the average developer, the need to cover business ownership in the company actually creates more things to worry about that I would call “un-hacker-like.”
Graham’s references to hackers in his previous essays were too broad what he’s always meant to say about hackers is that they’re the perfect startup wiz kids. They’ll produce code at a breakneck pace, implement new features as fast as you ask for them, and look just the right amount of nerdy to convince everyone they’re good at computers. The perfect little venture capital punching bags. Graham’s “hackers” are only artists if producing minimum viable products quickly is an art. And I can’t help but find something sad in that. Graham has so conflated the ideas of “beautiful” and “profitable” that there is no beauty without profit.
I hate this implicit belief that nothing in code is beautiful if other people don’t care about it. That’s not how art works. That shouldn’t be all that people who create are measured by and to try and have it both ways: hackers as money machines and creatives, doesn’t work. Yes code that is efficient and readable is beautiful, but that doesn’t mean someone who toils away to piece together an operating system with patchy source code is less of an artist or a hacker.
This isn’t the first time Graham and I have disagreed on what makes hackers great. I don’t even think we agree on what makes computers great. But with every cycle it becomes more clear that Graham is married to the cycle of Silicon valley. There is no other game to play, there is no other way to be, and anyone who doesn’t fit in with this profiteering vision doesn’t have a place in Graham’s hackers.
Sorry Graham, but I want more. I want a standard of brilliance that isn’t married to the dollar. I want to celebrate hackers for something more than their economic value.
“How disgraceful is the lawyer whose dying breath passes while at court, at an advanced age, pleading for unknown litigants and still seeking the approval of ignorant spectators.” (Seneca)
Decryptic 