3 ms·

> Just because someone is proposing something for a small slice of society, doesn’t mean they intend to propose something similar for all of society Yup, a "sm

by patrec 3y ago

> Just because someone is proposing something for a small slice of society, doesn’t mean they intend to propose something similar for all of society Yup, a "small slice of society" that's just proverbially eating the world. > remember that as Thatcher was saying capitalism/neoliberalism was natural, she did "nudge" things along by having the army pay a visit to workers on strike. Unfortunately things never happening at times gets in the way of me remembering them. > Even communism isn’t a monolith. It took various forms, which failed for various reasons [...such as] direct outside interference Similarly to how perpetual motion machines took various forms and failed for various reasons, including direct outside interference.

loup-vaillant 3y ago
> Yup, a "small slice of society" that's just proverbially eating the world. Software may be everywhere, but last time I checked very few of us actually write it. Something similar can be said about food: everyone has to eat, but relatively few people actually grow crops. And even if we were to implement UBI for everyone, it’s an idea that was around for quite some time, with weaker versions of it implemented for decades now. It didn’t kill capitalism, let alone spread communism (whatever that means) all over the world — or any single major Western country. > Unfortunately things never happening at times gets in the way of me remembering them. Sorry, my facts weren’t quite right: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/03/margaret-thatcher-secret-plan-army-miners-strike https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/03/margaret-th... Thatcher only planned to use the army and declare a state of emergency. Actual repression only used regular police forces… resulting in quite a few injuries, as well as trumped up charges (that turned out to have been fabricated by the police if my link is to be believed): https://www.history.com/news/margaret-thatcher-miners-strike-iron-lady https://www.history.com/news/margaret-thatcher-miners-strike... Also remember what a strike is: people stopping to work because they don’t want something. Something they reject so badly they’re willing to sacrifice their income to prevent it. So my main point remains: what Thatcher did was far from natural, not to mention contrary to of the will of her people. You could deny that if you want, but to be honest it would be more an expression of your allegiances than your actual beliefs. (Then again, people have an uncanny ability to tailor their beliefs to suit their allegiances…)

by patrec 3y ago

loup-vaillant 3y ago

> Yup, a "small slice of society" that's just proverbially eating the world. Software may be everywhere, but last time I checked very few of us actually write it. Something similar can be said about food: everyone has to eat, but relatively few people actually grow crops. And even if we were to implement UBI for everyone, it’s an idea that was around for quite some time, with weaker versions of it implemented for decades now. It didn’t kill capitalism, let alone spread communism (whatever that means) all over the world — or any single major Western country. > Unfortunately things never happening at times gets in the way of me remembering them. Sorry, my facts weren’t quite right: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/03/margaret-thatcher-secret-plan-army-miners-strike https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/03/margaret-th... Thatcher only planned to use the army and declare a state of emergency. Actual repression only used regular police forces… resulting in quite a few injuries, as well as trumped up charges (that turned out to have been fabricated by the police if my link is to be believed): https://www.history.com/news/margaret-thatcher-miners-strike-iron-lady https://www.history.com/news/margaret-thatcher-miners-strike... Also remember what a strike is: people stopping to work because they don’t want something. Something they reject so badly they’re willing to sacrifice their income to prevent it. So my main point remains: what Thatcher did was far from natural, not to mention contrary to of the will of her people. You could deny that if you want, but to be honest it would be more an expression of your allegiances than your actual beliefs. (Then again, people have an uncanny ability to tailor their beliefs to suit their allegiances…)