Good evening. Tonight, we wrap up our series on free trade and the left. To recap where we were, I started by retelling the story that free trade improves overall productivity, but expressed reserves about the way in which it does so: plant closures and threats thereof, regulatory arbitrage, and so on. Then we went back in history, discussing the progressive roots of free trade as a cause of the peace-and-justice crowd, in the 19th century. Then we looked at the leading exponents of free trade in the 20th century, the neoliberals , ending in an odd place: instead of free trade being a means for the end of peace and prosperity, neoliberalism turns this on its head, instead holding that war, immiseration, apartheid, dictatorship, ecological disaster, all are justified if they serve the ends of the “free market”, of which free trade is a component.
When I make this list of evils I find myself back in 1999, that clearly “we” were right then to shut down the WTO meetings in Seattle. With the distance of time, I start to wonder, not about then, but about now: for all the evil of our days, Trump at least has the virtue of making clear that trade barriers have a positive dot-product with acts of war. As someone who lives in the banlieue of Geneva, I am always amused when I find myself tut-tutting over the defunding of this or that institution of international collaboration.
I started this series by calling out four works. Pax Economica and Globalists have had adequate treatment. The third, Webs of Power, by Starhawk, is one that I have long seen as a bit of an oddball; forgive my normie white boy (derogatory) sensibilities, but I have often wondered how a book by a voice of “earth-based spirituality and Goddess religion” has ended up on my shelf. I am an atheist. How much woo is allowed to me?
choice of axiomConventional wisdom is to treat economists seriously, and Wiccans less so. In this instance, I have my doubts. The issue is that a neoliberal is at the same time a true believer in markets, and a skilled jurist. In service of the belief, any rhetorical device is permissible, if it works; if someone comes now and tries to tell me that the EU-Mercosur agreement is a good thing because of its effect on capybara populations, my first reaction is to doubt them, because maybe they are a neoliberal, and if so they would literally say anything.
Whereas if Starhawk has this Earth-mother-spiritual vibe... who am I to say? Yes, I think religion on the whole is a predatory force on vulnerable people, but that doesn’t mean that her interpretation of the web of life as divine is any less legitimate than neoliberal awe of the market. Let’s hear her argument and get on with things.
Starhawk’s book has three parts. The first is an as-I-lived-it chronicle, going from Seattle to Washington to Prague to Quebec City to Genoa, and thence to 9/11 and its aftermath, describing what it was like to be an activist seeking to disrupt the various WTO-adjacent meetings, seeking to build something else. She follows this up with 80 pages of contemporary-to-2002 topics such as hierarchy within the movement, nonviolence vs black blocs, ecological principles, cultural appropriation, and so on.
These first two sections inform the last final 20 pages, in which Starhawk attempts to synthesize what it is that “we” wanted, as a kind of memento and hopefully a generator of actions to come. She comes up with a list of nine principles, which I’ll just quote here because I don’t have an editor (the joke’s on all of us!):
Now friends, this is Starhawk’s list, not mine, and a quarter-century-old list at that. I’m not here to judge it, though I think it’s not bad; what I find interesting is its multifaceted nature, that when contrasted with the cybernetic awe of late neoliberalism, that actually it’s the Witch who has the more down-to-earth concerns: a planet to live on, a Rawlsian concern with justice, and a control of the economic by the people.
which leaves usFormer European Central Bank president Mario Draghi published a report some 18 months ago diagnosing a European malaise and proposing a number of specific remedies. I find that we on my part of the left are oft ill-equipped to engage with the problem he identifies, not to mention the solutions. The whole question of productivity is very technical, to the extent that we might consider it owned by our enemies: our instinct is to deflect, “productivity for what”, that sort of thing. Worse, if we do concede the problem, we haven’t spent as much time sparring in the gyms of comparative advantage; we risk a first-round knockout. We come with Starhawk’s list in hand, and they smile at us condescendingly: “very nice but we need to focus on the economy, you know,” and we lose again.
But Starhawk was not wrong. We do need a set of principles that we can use to analyze the present and plot a course to the future. I do not pretend to offer such a set today, but after having looked into the free trade question over the last couple months, I have reached two simple conclusions, which I will share with you now.
The first is that, from an intellectual point of view, we should just ignore the neoliberals; they are not serious people. That’s not a value judgment on the price mechanism, but rather one on those that value nothing else: that whereas classical liberalism was a means to an end, neoliberalism admits no other end than commerce, and admits any means that furthers its end. And so, we can just ignore them. If neoliberals were the only ones thinking about productivity, well, we might need new branches of economics. Fortunately that’s not the case. Productivity is but one dimension of the good, and it is our collective political task to choose a point from the space of the possible according to our collective desires.
The second conclusion is that we should take back free trade from our enemies on the right. We are one people, but divided into states by historical accident. Although there is a productivity argument for trade, we don’t have to limit ourselves to it: the bond that one might feel between Colorado and Wyoming should be the same between Italy and Tunisia, between Canada and Mexico, indeed between France and Brasil. One people, differentiated but together, sharing ideas and, yes, things. Internationalism, not nationalism.
There is no reason to treat free trade as the sole criterion against which to judge a policy. States are heterogeneous: what works for the US might not be right for Haiti; states differ in the degree that they internalize environmental impacts; and they differ as regards public services. We can take these into account via policy, but our goal should be progress for all.
So while Thomas Piketty is right to decry a kind of absolutism among European decisionmakers regarding free trade, I can’t help but notice a chauvinist division being set up in the way we leftists are inclined to treat these questions: we in Europe are one bloc, despite e.g. very different carbon impacts of producing a dishwasher in Poland versus Spain, whereas a dishwasher from China belongs to a different, worse, more sinful category.
and mercosur?To paraphrase Marley’s ghost, mankind is my business. I want an ever closer union with my brothers and sisters in Uruguay and Zambia and Cambodia and Palestine. Trade is a part of it. All things being equal, we should want to trade with Chile. We on the left should not oppose free trade with Mercosur out of a principle that goods produced far away are necessarily a bad thing.
All this is not to say that we should just doux it (although, gosh, Karthik is such a worthy foe); we can still participate in collective carrot-and-stick exercises such as carbon taxes and the like, and this appreciation of free trade would not have trumped the campaign to boycott apartheid South Africa, nor would it for apartheid Israel. But our default position should be to support free trade with Mercosur, in such a way that does improves the lot of all humanity.
I don’t know what to think about the concrete elements of the EU-Mercosur deal. The neoliberal play is to design legal structures that encase commerce, and a free trade deal risks subordinating the political to the economic. But unlike some of my comrades on the left, I am starting to think that we should want free trade with Bolivia, and that’s already quite a change from where I was 25 years ago.
finEmily Saliers famously went seeking clarity; I fear I have brought little. We are still firmly in the world of the political, and like Starhawk, still need a framework of pre-thunk thoughts to orient us when some Draghi comes with a new four-score-page manifesto. Good luck and godspeed.
But it is easier to find a solution if we cull the dimensionality of the problem. The neoliberals had their day, but perhaps these staves may be of use to you in exorcising their discursive domination; it is time we cut them off. Internationalist trade was ours anyway, and it should resume its place as a means to our ends.
And what ends? As with prices, we discover them on the margin, in each political choice we make. Some are easy; some less so. And while a list like Starhawk’s is fine enough, I keep coming back to a simpler question: which side are you on? The sheriff or the union? ICE or the immigrant? Which side are you on? The question cuts fine. For the WTO in Seattle, to me it said to shut it all down. For EU-Mercosur, to me it says, “let’s talk.”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
I wanted to dip my toes into Kubernetes for my homelab, but I knew I would need some flexibility to experiment. So instead of deploying k3s directly on my server, I
Proxmox supports several storage plugins. It allows me to create LVM Local Volumes for the VM disks for example.
This setup allows me to spin up fresh VMs for my experiments, all while leaving my production k3s intact. This is great, but it came up with two problems:
The situation looks like the following.
On the LVM disk of the host, I create a VM for k3s. This VM has a virtual disk that doesn't rely on LVM, so it can't create LVM Logical Volumes. The local provisioner can only create volumes on the virtual disk, because it can't escape the VM to create volumes on the Proxmox host.
Because the volumes are created on the virtual disk that doesn't rely on LVM, I can't use LVM snapshots to take snapshots of my volumes.
[!question] Why not LVM Thin?
One solution to address the massive disk requirement could be to use LVM Thin: it would allow me to allocate a lot of space in theory, but in practice in only fills up as the VM storage gets used.
I don't want to use LVM Thin because it puts me at risk of overprovisioning. I could allocate more storage than I actually have, and it would be difficult to realize that my disks are filling up before it's too late.
My colleague Quentin mentioned the Proxmox CSI Plugin. It is a plugin that replaces k3s' local path provisioner. Instead of creating the kubernetes Persistent Volumes inside the VM, it calls the Proxmox host, asks it to create a LVM Logical Volume and binds it to a Persistent Volume in kubernetes.
Using the Proxmox CSI volume, the situation would look like this.
It solves the two problems for me:
Setting up the Proxmox-CSI-Plugin for k3s can be a bit involved, but I'm writing a longer blog post about it.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
When open source nonprofits ask for donations, one common answer is "I only want to fund code, I don't want to fund anything else." GNOME has created a Fellowship Program to fund direct work on GNOME, a program entirely funded by donations. This is a testament to the Foundation's maturity, as it becomes a direct contributor to the project it stewards.
Let's take a step back to address the code-only argument. It is a misguided reaction, but I can see where its proponents are coming from. In the world of proprietary software, you pay to get your software. You don't realize that this bundles the marketing, accounting, legal, and even HR costs.
In the open source world, everyone can see who contributes code and how that code is built and packaged to create a software solution. A lot of things are not shown in git commits though. A few of them are:
GNOME, like many other open source projects, is first and foremost a community. This is a group of people with diverse backgrounds, diverse opinions, who try to find common ground to solve problems. They don't always agree on how to solve problems, nor necessarily on what even is a problem in the first place.
The role of The GNOME Foundation is to provide a place to support its community. Its role is to help its contributors find common ground. Its role is to give them the tools and opportunities to do so.
Some people still don't value this, and want The GNOME Foundation to be a vendor for GNOME. They want to fund developers to produce code, because that's a very visible metric.
For them, and for everyone who's ever wanted to give back to GNOME without knowing how, The GNOME Foundation has created a Fellowship Program. It will directly fund a person to work on what few people want to do in their spare time: maintenance.
Round one focuses on sustainability: improving tooling, build systems, test infrastructure, automation, documentation, developer productivity, and ongoing maintainability. We are not funding feature development: the goal is for each fellowship to leave the project in a more efficient and sustainable state.
This is only fueled by our donations. If you want a direct pipeline between your money and GNOME development, this is it. Donate to GNOME, we can't afford not to have them when Big Tech has so much influence on our lives.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.