Bells_On_Sunday

3

Bells_On_Sunday wrote

I think that's a good measured response but there's another side of course. Major record labels are owned by the same corporations that manufacture arms and fuck the world over in general. If you don't share their values, why work for their profits? You've got a choice about being part of something like that just like you've got a choice about whether or not to work for a bank. Given the existence of the Internet there's absolutely no need to anyway.

2

Bells_On_Sunday wrote

Alright, I see you just wanted clarification...Yes, I should certainly say that it's capitalists that drive down wages, and a vulnerable migrant workforce that gives them the opportunity. They are much less able to do that when faced with well-established self-organising communities of workers who have been fighting for their rights for centuries. By no means should one group of workers turn on the other, you're right in saying both groups should know the real enemy.

In many cases highly educated migrant workers with in-demand skills are the privileged ones taking advantage of globalisation -- they can choose where to go to optimise their living conditions and go somewhere else if things change. Some people certainly do well out of globalisation. But I think that's normally if they come deliberately from a stable country - there are also many such people arriving without the means to re-establish their privileged position and end up driving a taxi when they were doctors at home or whatnot, so these two groups of migrants aren't mutually exclusive.

In explaining what I was trying to say, it sounds like I have a more fixed position on it than I do. The above is the more or less traditional argument that I said I can sympathise with, one of the objections the left of the UK Labour party used to have against the EU for instance. It's not that I think we should therefore limit immigration. I also sympathise with your position that borders only divide us and workers can have solidarity wherever they come from. Either way, the current situation seems to be that the genie is out of the bottle and the right are exploiting people's fears successfully in every Western country. Sorry to be on the fence, I started by saying I'm not sure what I think and I'm still not.

2

Bells_On_Sunday wrote

That's a disappointing attempt to put words in my mouth - by integration I mean things like the provision of language education and opportunities to meet your neighbours. I don't have answers to geopolitical problems from the safe harbour of my armchair but that doesn't make me a xenophobic reactionary. As I said, I don't consider these probems to have simple solutions. My own anarchism is a modest thing directed towards deliberately small intentional communities that encourage other people to do the same if and when they want to, rather than sorting out the global stage in one fell swoop and certainly not at the barrel of a gun. Leaves me open to accusations of narrow minded parochialism and false consciousness, but there we are. Enjoyable discussion anyway :)

2

Bells_On_Sunday wrote

You're right, I'm sure it is debatable. I think that because I think it's part of a process of exploiting workers by driving down wages and removing work in arbitrary ways. The same process that led many of the migrants to up sticks in the first place. That isn't to say I think it's the migrants' fault and they should have stayed at home.

I think there are also social problems, and that some people find them hard to acknowledge. Integrated, harmonious communities don't spring up overnight. When people on the bottom rung are given a target for their frustration with their own lack of housing etc we know what tends to happen. Of course more needs to be done to help those people in the first place and to foster integration. Yes, the owner class should be paying for this, as they should be paying to alleviate the problems they cause in the countries people have to flee. But I can sympathise with those who want controlled migration (not talking about refugees) for those kinds of reasons.

2

Bells_On_Sunday wrote

Maybe when the person is known to be a definite malign influence in some way? I know that raises the question of who gets to decide but I don't mind notorious fascists whose only intention is to spread hate being denied entry, for example. Neither am I bothered about being denied the company of violent antisocial characters such as unreformed serial killers and other psychopaths.

These are mostly irrelevant edge cases. My question wasn't rhetorical and I don't have a fully formed opinion about it. I share the desire to do away with nation states but mainly because they would be redundant if economic conditions were equal around the globe. Shouldn't the goal then be to help improve conditions in the countries people are driven out of? Safe havens around war zones, provision of housing and employment, etc. People would generally rather stay at home if they could be safe and provide for their family. Migration is driven by globalisation, people being another form of capital to move around the world. I'm not anti-immigration by any means, in case I'm giving that impression, I welcome it. The fact is that enormous numbers of people have been uprooted and driven around the world, so they should be supported, but it also seems undeniable that it causes big problems in host countries, especially for the poorest people there. It seems to be far from a binary issue to me.

2

Bells_On_Sunday wrote

migration as a fundamental and undeniable human right

I'd like to hear what people think about this. Does someone have the right to migrate regardless of whether they are fleeing oppression, violence, starvation? There are other ways of showing solidarity after all. If they only bear this right contingent on some other condition (eg the violence) then do they no longer have it if the cause is removed? Zizek caused controversy by saying the Left was disingenuous/virtue signalling in supporting absolutely open doors and that it leads to the stuff going on in parts of Germany right now. Is he wrong and is uncontrolled migration the medicine the West has to take? (These questions have been somewhat overtaken by events - EU buying off Turkey to shut down borders and so on, but of course it isn't really going away.)

1

Bells_On_Sunday wrote (edited )

The Gospel According to St Matthew, a superb and very moving film made with non-actors and with a strong anarcho-communist message. The blurb describes it as presenting Jesus as "a Marxist avant la letter". It is raw, transcendent film making and Pasolini's best, IMO. Though I'm an atheist I'm fascinated by this story of a guttersnipe tramp and his radical emancipatory message directed primarily at the other poor and powerless people around him, fascinating also to consider how it was twisted into forms of violence, hierarchical control and brainwashing.

2

Bells_On_Sunday wrote

Just to reply to title of the post, I'm happy with the Linux kernel, basically. There isn't a problem with its licensing or anything, so I don't have any motivation to experiment with HURD (though I absolutely understand people who would do that for the fun of tinkering, as a sometime Plan9 user). Microkernels were a research topic in the 90s but at this stage the design space has been explored and they have been shown to be much more complex and difficult to pull off than people realised at first, mainly because of all the inter-process communication required. Torvalds was very outspoken on this, insisting that code that needs to be very fast needs to run in the same address space, and he was right as it turned out. The other side of the argument is about security, but Linux shows that monolithic kernels can be made secure if the engineering is good enough. The fact that Torvalds just got on with it in the tried and trusted monolithic style is a classic case of Worse is Better.

3

Bells_On_Sunday wrote

Yeah, there's no real reason it should be but KDE was always a hog like that IME. Could definitely be worth trying again and maybe seeing if you like any of the more minimal desktop envs/WMs (XFce, iceWM, XMonad etc). I love how blazingly fast a minimal linux setup can be even on old kit, and battery life is correlated to that.

7

Bells_On_Sunday wrote

The main way I do this is by not believing the rubbish spouted by my bosses (corporate mission speak and that sort of thing) and apparently lapped up by my peers, and by acting on that disbelief when I'm asked to do something that contradicts it. I know not everyone has a job where they can get away with telling the boss "I would prefer not to". It didn't happen overnight and in most of the jobs I've had I'd have been shown the door pretty quick if I said I had no respect for my boss' values. Working for yourself would be even better that way.

Anyway, this is rather passive form of sabotage keeps me sane-ish.