A frog who wants the objective truth about anything and everything.

Admin of SLRPNK.net

XMPP: prodigalfrog@slrpnk.net

Alt lemmy account: Cafefrog@lemmy.cafe

  • 18 Posts
  • 493 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle

  • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.nettoMemes@lemmy.mlLemmy libs never can 😁
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    EDIT: Ah, I found that he was indeed at least open to the idea to centralize the militias.

    He then met with Cipriano Mera, who proposed that all the confederal militias in Madrid be unified under Durruti’s single command; this would prevent an army from being formed, while also relinquishing the democratic control the rank-and-file had over the command structure. Mera and Durruti then agreed to meet the following morning

    At the meeting, Mera said “for people to carry out their mission and not budge from their assigned position—in a word, so that they obey—there is no choice but to use the tool that we’re afraid to even mention: discipline.”

    Mera recorded Durruti’s response: “OK, Mera, we’re mostly in agreement about this. I agree with the core of what you’re saying, and also with your idea of joining our forces. Mine have to be relieved because they’ve suffered heavy blows in the last few days. We’ll see comrade Val at 4:00 and can discuss all this together.”

    It looks like he still wanted to hash some things out, but as far as I can tell, that meeting with Val never occurred due to his death the next day.

    End of edit.


    Could you share your source which details that Durruti created specifically a top-down centralized militia? From the sources I’ve read, he created a bottom-up militia with the ability to recall poorly performing elected leaders. As an example, from Chapter 7 of Paz Abel’s ‘Durruti in The Spanish Revolution’:

    The volunteers decided among themselves how to organize themselves, and all opposed anything that suggested a resuscitation of the militarist spirit or hierarchies of command. The structure and organization of the militias, which lasted until the general militarization in March 1937, emerged from the discussions among the future combatants. It was simple: ten men constituted a group, which nominated a representative; ten groups formed a centuria, which elected a representative of its own; and five centuries would form an agrupación. The leader of the agrupación and the centuria delegates made up the agrupación committee. [540]

    Pérez Farràs, the Durruti Column’s first military advisor, objected to this organizational structure and cast doubts about its feasibility in combat. Durruti quickly realized that Pérez Farràs would not make a good advisor and replaced him with artillery Sergeant Manzana, who had a better grasp of the anarchists’ anti-authoritarian psychology. Durruti entrusted Manzana and Carreño (a school teacher) with equipping the Column with artillery, munitions, as well as doctors, nurses, and an emergency operating room. Manzana didn’t need many explanations. He immediately understood what Durruti wanted from him and did a wonderful job carrying out his mission. He knew several soldiers who had joined the column, as well as some officers, and planned to have the military men instruct the others. All these people integrated themselves into the Column, fraternally and without conflict.

    One day Pérez Farràs stated his criticisms to Durruti directly: “You can’t fight like that,” he declared. In reply, Durruti said:

    I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: I’ve been an anarchist my whole life and the fact that I’m responsible for this human collectivity won’t change my convictions. It was as an anarchist that I agreed to carry out the task that the Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias entrusted to me.

    I don’t believe—and everything happening around us confirms this— that you can run a workers’ militia according to classical military rules. I believe that discipline, coordination, and planning are indispensable, but we shouldn’t define them in the terms of the world that we’re destroying. We have to build on new foundations. My comrades and I are convinced that solidarity is the best incentive for arousing individual responsibility and a willingness to accept discipline as an act of self-discipline.

    War has been imposed upon us and this battle will be different than those we’ve fought in Barcelona, but our goal is revolutionary victory. This means defeating the enemy, but also a radical change in men. For that change to occur, man must learn to live and conduct himself as a free man, an apprenticeship that develops his personality and sense of responsibility, his capacity to be master of his own acts. The worker on the job not only transforms the material on which he works, but also transforms himself through that work. The combatant is nothing more than a worker whose tool is a rifle—and he should strive toward the same objective as the worker. One can’t behave like an obedient soldier, but as a conscious man who understands the importance of what he’s doing. I know that it’s not easy to achieve this, but I also know that what can’t be accomplished with reason will not be obtained by force. If we have to sustain our military apparatus with fear, then we won’t have changed anything except the color of the fear. It’s only by freeing itself from fear that society can build itself in freedom.[541]

    Durruti had expressed himself with extreme clarity. His goal was to unite theory and practice. As an anarchist, he intended to remain faithful to libertarian ideals while leading a workers’ column that would soon fight important in Aragón, on the frontlines as well as among the peasants in the rearguard. [542]


  • I don’t see the need for daylight savings either way

    In practical terms, people like to be able to do their own personal, non-work outdoor activities while the sun is out. Daylight savings is intended to make it so that people on a normal day-shift have access to more sunlight during their personal activities after they get off work (or out of School), since work hours do not change or account for the reduced amount of time the sun is out for certain seasons. You can read more of the rationale on why it was created here.

    Except for the places that dont really lose much morning or evening, should that have to do this too?

    I would say yes. It would be unfair to punish people living in areas with more sunlight with more work hours, and would remove a potential cause for logistical issues.

    Besides, working less and having more free time is healthier for a population anyway.


  • They get the same work length either way.

    Daylight savings only shifts when a work day begins and ends, it does not alter the total number of hours worked.

    To put it another way, a job that is 9:00am to 5:00pm means you will work 8 hours total. If everyone shifts their clock 1 hour back for daylight savings, you will still work a total of 8 hours, you just start and end those 8 hours shifted 1 hour earlier in comparison to non-daylight savings time.

    My proposal is to change the total number of work hours seasonally, meaning in areas where it gets darker sooner, they would work 1 hour less than they normally would for same amount of pay.

    So in the winter, businesses could be mandated by law to change work hours from 9:00am to 4:00pm. Or if you want to be really radical, remove 2 whole hours by making them 10:00am to 4:00pm.

    This removes the need for daylight savings entirely, as then people can simply sleep in a bit more until the sun comes out, and head home earlier while the sun is still out.

    The businesses won’t like that idea, as they don’t want workers to work less total hours at their businesses, even if it likely would result in higher profits from happier, more rested workers being more productive. Businesses would push for daylight savings instead of reducing work hours, because they are assholes.


  • I consider it pro-corporate because companies generally prefer if workers worked more hours, even if it doesn’t result in financial gains. This is evidenced by the fact that 4-day work weeks increase productivity and thus profits, but corporations a generally very against the idea regardless.

    Corporations are usually bottom-line/profit focused, but they have some weird exceptions when it comes to improving worker conditions. Work from Home decreases operating costs and increases worker health, yet many corporations fight it tooth and nail.

    Another examples is when Eastern Airlines was on the verge of bankruptcy. As a last ditch effort, the CEO (Frank Borman, previously the Commander on Apollo 8) decided to make a deal with the workers that gave them a fairly radical amount of horizontal control.

    Doing so drastically increased productivity and profits, but Frank Borman was given tons of shit by other business owners for essentially not keeping the workers under his foot, telling him he should just let the company fold rather than give the workers that much power, just on a matter of principle.

    I think reducing working hours slightly to account for less daylight makes sense from a humanistic perspective, but I believe that concept would be heavily opposed by corporations, since they would prefer to waste money and have a more tired work force than to normalize reducing work hours.



  • Changing the clock itself alters the amount of light left when people get off work.

    We could’ve just left the clocks alone, and instead made it mandatory that businesses reduce working hours by an hour or two in the winter, while maintaining the same pay. But since the government is corporate captured, that would never pass.

    In our current system of daylight savings, corporations get the same amount of work hours, while all the workers are forced to adjust. It’s a pro-corporate compromise.

    It’s similar to how studies show that 4-day work weeks boost mental health and productivity, but corporations don’t like the idea, so a law mandating 4-day work weeks without a reduction in pay would never pass, despite it benefitting society.










  • GrapheneOS is great, and it’s what I currently use, but it is ultimately a hardened Android fork. One downside of that is it is completely reliant on manufacturer updates to continue to support a phone. Once a manufacturer drops support, the Graphene team must also drop support, as they are reliant on the closed source GPU/hardware drivers that are tied to specific android kernel versions.

    PostmarketOS is not based on Android whatsoever, it’s a Mobile focused Linux distro using the mainline Linux kernel. It uses open-source drivers for the GPU and hardware which can be maintained and supported for decades, and is completely independent of Google’s influence. However, it’s still currently rough enough around the edges that it isn’t ready as a daily driver, which is why it’d be so helpful for us to donate to it so they can hire more developers to polish it up, as they recently did to improve the audio support of Qualcomm devices.