uoou / is on Nostr

Hello, I'm Drew.

I'm agoraphobic so I live in my computer.

Interested in people making and sharing things, political economy, unixy stuff, history, art, games (board and computer), coding shitty things in bash.

:comm:

web: http://drew.monster/
email: uoou@posteo.net
pronouns: any

Last Notes

2024-09-04 05:31:58

- reply

Yeah it's been on my mind that a cynical centrist Labour government could nationalise something, intentionally run it poorly (as per 70s & 80s) and use that to tank the idea of nationalisation again for a generation or two.

2024-08-13 08:24:23

- reply

I'm inexpert so this is just a kinda gut response.
But I assume the revenues we'd get from taxing the super-rich would be significantly less than what we'd get from increasing corporation taxes and closing tax loopholes?
If so, I suspect that's why the tide may be turning on this.

2024-08-13 08:16:32

- reply

Too many of the narratives around climate change lead to doomerism and broader pessimism. Capitalism and the state of geopolitics and the climate crisis have conspired to encourage people to believe that humanity is evil, and that's, if you care about our survival, a real fucking problem.
I think, like so much else, part of the problem is there is no left (there are only left*ists*) offering an optimistic view of what humanity *could* be.
I mean the fact that replies assumed that you meant *individual* rather than *collective* self-interest says a lot.

2024-08-13 06:08:03

- reply

Aha! Thank you! Been wondering for ages but thought it might just become apparent.

2024-08-13 06:06:14

- reply

This seems like as good a time as any to ask:
What's "h/t FT"?

2024-06-16 02:02:59

- reply

Ahhh, now that makes more sense!
They are fucking *enormous* though. That’s quite the mouth you have there.

2024-06-16 01:54:03

- reply

Also I *suspect* the soup spoon actually has a smaller volume. But science would need doing to be sure.

2024-06-13 23:37:18

- reply

We should rename them punishment spoons.

2024-06-13 23:32:58

- reply

Oh no I get that, but even a broth or consommé I would not want to sip from a spoon. I want to shove it in my mouth and gulp it down. Sipping is not an enjoyable way to eat soup!

2024-06-13 23:32:58

- reply

Oh no I get that, but even a broth or consommé I would not want to sip from a spoon. I want to shove it in my mouth and gulp it down. Sipping is not an enjoyable way to eat soup!

2024-06-13 23:27:10

What the fuck is the point of soup spoons.
(I’ve run out of other (actual) spoons and soup spoons are just worse spoons. Am I missing out on some middle class secret?)

2024-05-14 23:49:58

- reply

I don’t disagree with that.
Making the world more just/fair/safe etc. is an inherently moral proposition. And some will be onboard *because* it’s morally right.
I don’t think we should sacrifice self-interest to the right either though - someone genuinely struggling to even survive is probably going to be motivated more by that than moral concerns, in that moment. And that’s fine too (since if what you’re promoting is morally right then that should align with such a person’s self-interest).
I agree that both morality and self-interest are mechanisms for getting people on board. But I don’t think they’re mechanisms for change - billionaires are never going to do the right thing just because it’s the right thing.

2024-05-14 23:33:59

- reply

From the point of view of a voter, I agree. Though you’ve very much got to look at what people *do* rather than *say*.
But I do also appreciate that one of the innovations that Marx made was to kinda take the morality out of it. Socialism before Marx had a tendency to look to convincing the rich to stop abusing the poor because it was the right thing to do.
But a billionaire doesn’t do evil things because he’s a nasty, vindictive person. He just does what’s in his class interests. He protects his position within his class and, importantly, protects the position of his class relative to the others.
He might, during times of plenty, think “Hey, I could pay my workers more/give them a stake/etc.”. But doing so would weaken his position and the position of his class.
So, rather than asking/expecting elites (who are always going to end up class-aligned with capital) to intercede and convince the billionaires to act morally, the working class should *act* as a class and force change (through withholding their labour).
Obviously working class solidarity and sites of collective action have been massively eroded over the decades, but I do think we fall into a bit of a trap when we frame things in purely moral terms (spiralling lesser-of-two-evilism).
I apologise if this is unwelcome!