Month: June 2024

Real Social Media is a Hard Balancing Act

Open social media is native to the #openweb it represents liberation, while closed social media is centred around control for profit. The balance between these two forms is nuanced, and understanding the implications and paths of each requires consideration. It is not “common sense” so you need to think outside your current limited view please #KISS

Open Social Media: Liberation

  1. Transparency and Accountability: Open social media operate with transparency, allowing people to see and understand the algorithms, policies, and decision-making processes. This transparency builds trust and accountability, as people feel responsible and empowered to be responsible for actions and content.
  2. Empowerment: At best, people and communities have control over their content and data. They shape experiences to take their own path, contribute to the platform’s development, and participate in governance. This builds ownership and engagement, it’s a feedback loop.
  3. Innovation and Collaboration: Open platforms grow through collaboration. Developers and users create features together, improving collectively. This collaborative building nurtures technological for people rather than only for profit.
  4. Information: Open social media provides unrestricted access to information, promoting affective and for filling speech and sharing of ideas. This supports progressive education, activism, and the basic democratization of knowledge.

Closed Social Media: Control

  1. Monetization and Profitability: Closed social media platforms are motivated by monetization, using people’s data and metadata to generate revenue through manipulative advertising and social control.
  2. Centralized Power: Control is centralized to the platform owners and administrators, in the end the state. This centralization limits people influence over the network, policies and progressive changes, creating vertical, top-down governance.
  3. Content Moderation and Censorship: Content moderation is core to building community and to prevent abuse, closed platforms exercise total, manipulative control, leading to #mainstreaming censorship and the shaping of agendas, and most obviously the suppression of dissenting voices. This control is used to shape public thinking and silence any real opposition.
  4. Data Privacy Concerns: Closed platforms collect and store vast amounts of people’s data and metadata without much transparency about how it is used. This lack of transparency highlights privacy concerns and risks of invertible data breaches.

The Complex Balance

  1. Finding the Middle path: Balancing open and closed social media involves finding a balance where people’s empowerment and creativity coexist with democratic controls and sustainability measures. This balance requires careful consideration of the trade-offs involved in both cases.
  2. Regulation and Governance: Effective democratic regulation and governance are crucial in maintaining this balance. Policies protects people’s rights, data privacy, and promotes transparency without stifling creativity by pushing only #mainstreaming agenda.
  3. Community Involvement: Building in community decision-making grows this balance. Platforms that have participatory governance are likely to achieve a harmonious equilibrium between openness and control.

Conclusion

The balance between open and closed social media is not straightforward and requires taking the path of reflection and adaptation. Open social media offers liberation through transparency, empowerment, and collaboration (#4opens), while closed social media focuses on control, centralization, and monetization (#dotcons). Walking a path that maximizes the benefits of both approaches involves navigating trade-offs, fostering community involvement, and implementing effective governance (#OGB).

You can support this path https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Security and trust are a part of the fluffy/spiky debate in activism

As dissent and protest are increasingly criminalized, it’s important for protesters and activists to protect themselves – to the degree possible – from surveillance. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (#EFF) offers a guide for surveillance defence. It’s useful to read this even if you aren’t a protester, because the right wing (and sadly, some of the left) are increasingly willing to trample on trust building in activism. Let’s hope for the best, but good to understand the possible bad outcomes.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/surveillance-defense-campus-protests

While the EFF’s guidance is useful, it’s important to acknowledge that the level of organized paranoia required for this to be effective is overwhelming and damaging to “trust” based activism. So It’s key to strike a balance, which is a lived challenge. It’s best to focus on the “fluffy spiky” debate—ensuring that spiky, direct activism uses this guide to inform their actions without dictating to more #mainstreaming and outreach “fluffy” activism.

The concept of (open data, open source, open standards, and open process) is integral in building trust, which is how and why these grassroots #DIY protests and movements can be effective. It is crucial for sustaining impactful activism.

By maintaining a balance between necessary security measures and open, inclusive activism, we can continue to protect our rights while promoting a more a “native” and importantly affective path to build an equitable society.

Feudalism, #FOSS native governance?

Interesting to see this metaphor take off

#Feudalism, in Free and Open Source Software (#FOSS) governance, is not inherently native but is often found due to structural and cultural factors inside the development communities.

Feudalism in FOSS

  1. Hierarchy and Control: In FOSS projects, a small group of core maintainers or a single benevolent dictator (often the project’s founder) holds power over decision-making processes. This creates a hierarchical structure where decision-making authority is concentrated.
  2. Dependency on Maintainers: Contributors depend on the core maintainers to merge their contributions and resolve issues. This dependency creates a power dynamic where the maintainers like courtiers have control over the project’s direction and priorities.
  3. Gatekeeping: Core maintainers act as gatekeepers, deciding which contributions are accepted and which are not. This leads to favouritism and exclusion, reminiscent of feudal lords controlling access to resources and opportunities.

Why?

  1. Volunteer Nature of Contributions: Since contributors are volunteers, there is no structure to ensure equal participation or accountability. Core maintainers emerge “naturally” based on their sustained contributions and expertise.
  2. Meritocracy Ideals: FOSS communities value meritocracy, people gain influence based on their contributions. However, this leads to entrenched power structures, as those who have contributed the most or the longest hold sway, sometimes stifling new contributors’ voices.
  3. Resource Scarcity: Many #FOSS projects operate with limited resources, leading to a concentration of control among those who dedicate the most time and effort. This result in a few individuals having outsized influence.

Manifestations

  1. Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDFL): Projects like Python had Guido van Rossum as a #BDFL, where his decisions are final. While this can lead to clear and consistent leadership, it also centralizes power.
  2. Core Team Dominance: In projects like Linux, the core team led by Linus Torvalds has control over the kernel’s development. This centralized control lead to conflicts within the community, as seen in the controversies around code of conduct enforcement and inclusivity.

Balancing Feudalism.

  1. Distributed Governance Models: Some FOSS projects adopt #NGO type democratic or federated governance models, such as Apache Software Foundation’s model, which emphasizes burocratic community-driven decision-making and a meritocratic process for becoming a committer or PMC member.
  2. Transparency and Accountability: Increasing transparency in decision-making helps to hold maintainers accountable through open process and community oversight plays a role in helping mitigate feudal tendencies.
  3. Community Practices: Promoting diversity and inclusivity helps balance power dynamics. Encouraging mentorship and lowering barriers to entry for contributors also helps distribute influence.

Conclusion

While feudalism is not inherent to #FOSS governance, structural and cultural factors lead to feudal-like power dynamics. Addressing these issues requires conscious effort to promote full transparency, accountability, and inclusivity within the community. Adopting balanced governance models and practices, like the #OGB, allow projects to mitigate the risks of feudalism and ensure a healthier development environment.

A wider picture of this mess

The Battle for the Internet: Open vs. Closed

Since its creation, the internet and World Wide Web have been shaped by two competing and overlapping paths:

The #OpenWeb

Rooted in the DNA of internet code and culture, we see the web as a platform for collaboration, sharing, and the free exchange of information. Built for use in a world where information is abundant and free, embodying the ethos of “free as in free beer.”

The #OpenWeb emphasizes the : open source, open data, open standards, and open process. It walks the path of creativity and collective creation, and is closely associated with “native geek culture” alongside radical/anarchist libertarian thinking. Social interactions are visible, promoting accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

The #ClosedWeb

On the other side, we have the approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates and late-stage Google, that focus on the monetization and commercial viability of the internet. This vision is fixated on control for profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a world based on artificial scarcity

The #ClosedWeb pushes interactions to private, monetized paths with the illusion of privacy and confidentiality are necessary. This approach seeks to lock down information and interactions, creating walled gardens that can be controlled and monetized.

The Internet’s “native” Potential

The inherent democratization and egalitarianism of the internet allow people to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with commercial interests that push for control to monetize user data and interactions.

From the #OpenWeb perspective:

  • Interconnectedness: Technology reflects human values and structures.
  • Empowerment: The internet empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional power politics gatekeepers.
  • Education and Information: The web transforms education and information access, linking vast resources to walking the path to a different society.

From the #ClosedWeb perspective, the dominant emotion is fear:

  • Fear of sustainability: Concerns about how to maintain and profit from online platforms.
  • Fear of losing control: Worries about people having too much freedom, undermining business models and #mainstreaming dogmas.

The Battleground for Openness

The #OpenWeb remains a battleground between the paths of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has democratized content creation and access, the economic models sustaining this ecosystem are often a toxic mess. This tension shapes society both online and offline, creating a complex and messy landscape to find a sustainable path.

The #GeekProblem

One barrier to addressing these issues is the #GeekProblem. On the web, those with technical expertise and control over resources bypass democratic processes and accountability, leading to a kind of “feudalism.” This problem is equally present in grassroots #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) communities and corporate #dotcons (dot-com companies), as both share the same #geekproblem mindsets regarding control and authority.

A part of the #openweb path involves re-evaluating the relationship between control, wealth, power, and social change in both technology and wider society. Currently, we lack clear ways to discuss the “problem” in geek culture, making it difficult to mediate the #closedweb problem. This is a growing problem, as groups who succeed in a capitalism are the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

The struggle between these visions is ongoing. For the #openweb to thrive, there must be a concerted effort to address the underlying issues of control and power within both the open and closed paths. By acknowledging and working on these problems, we maintain the internet’s potential as a force for democratization, creativity, and the needed social change.

Please “don’t be a prat” about this, thanks.

Open vs Closed in Tech

Open Systems: Emphasize transparency, inclusiveness, and shared power. Social interactions in open systems are visible, allowing for accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

Closed Systems: Reserved for private interactions, where privacy and confidentiality are necessary. Examples include personal conversations, private messages, and some business dealings.

The real fear of Closed Systems

Isolation and Control: Closed systems isolate people and groups, enabling power to exert disproportionate influence without any meaningful oversight. This leads to abuses of power, lack of accountability, and the perpetuation of harmful practices.

Stifling Innovation and Collaboration: When information and resources are locked away, collaboration is harder, and serendipity to build the trust for horizontal working suffers. Open systems encourage the sharing of ideas and collective problem-solving, driving trust and humane creativity.

    Historical examples

    Diaspora vs. RSS Networks:

    Diaspora: Promoted as a closed network, provide a privacy-focused alternative to Facebook. However, its closed nature limited its adoption and integration with existing #openweb web ecosystems.

    The 10-Year Gap: The decade-long gap between the initial promise of open standards like RSS and their reinvention (e.g., ActivityPub) underscores the challenges of maintaining momentum and community support for open systems. This gap is a huge-lost opportunity.

    RSS and ActivityPub: Open standards, facilitate interoperability and decentralized communication. The resurgence of interest in these technologies (e.g., ActivityPub) highlights the value of open systems to building trust based networks.

      Ideological Perspectives

      Conservatism: Emphasizes stability, tradition, and supports hierarchical structures. In the context of the #openweb, conservatives argue for maintaining closed systems to preserve order and control.

      Liberalism: Advocates for individual freedoms and freespeech ideals. Liberals support open communication systems as they align with values, but have a need for closed systems to facilitate the capitalist economics they so love.

      Anarchism: Promotes the dismantling of hierarchical structures and champions radical with decentralization. Anarchists advocate for fully open systems, minimizing any form of “hard” centralized control.

        Questions to Consider

        Balancing Openness and Privacy: How can we design systems that maximize openness while respecting some privacy and confidentiality?

        Sustaining Open Systems: What mechanisms can ensure the longevity and resilience of open systems, preventing them from being overshadowed by closed, proprietary alternatives?

        Addressing the #GeekProblem: How can we engage technologists and developers in conversations about the sociopolitical implications of their work, encouraging a commitment to the open path?

        Navigating Ideological Differences: How can we bridge ideological gaps to create a shared vision for the #openweb, recognizing the diverse motivations and concerns of different political and social groups?

          The discussion about open versus closed is not only technical but rooted in sociopolitical ideologies and ideas of human nature. By understanding these perspectives and implications, we can advocate for the #openweb, to build up this vibrant, inclusive, and innovative space. This needs a thoughtful consideration of historical contexts, current challenges, and future possibilities, always with an eye toward preserving the that make our internet beneficial for society, not just the few greedy monsters that are destroying what we value, life.

          How can we have this conversation without the normal “prat behaver” is a hard path to find.

          #mainstreaming counter-cultures

          The #mainstreaming of counter-cultures, like #openweb, #Fediverse, and #Mastodon, touch on issues in openweb culture and community sustainability. It should come as no surprise that we need action and community to hold together the culture, values and integrity of openweb digital spaces.

          Normalization and Dilution of Values: As counter-cultures like the openweb and Fediverse gain #mainstreaming acceptance, the values and ethos that created these spaces and technology they are based on get diluted, this is the normal. The community-driven, decentralized, and open-source principles are pushed over by commercial interests and mainstream norms.

          Sustaining Cultural Integrity: The challenge lies in maintaining the native culture of these spaces while expanding their reach. The inclusion of diverse voices and broader participation is essential for growth, but it needs to be balanced with the preservation of foundational path for the value to have the maximum impact that we need.

          Different Perspectives: The interpretation of #mainstreaming as good, bad, or indifferent varies depending on political and ideological perspectives. For some, mainstream acceptance represents success and broader impact. For others, it signals a loss of autonomy and a clear steeping away from the original path.

          Critical Stance: it should be obvious that #mainstreaming without holding the original and #DIY ethos in place is a bad path. There is growing need for vigilance and action to safeguard these spaces from being co-opted and over commercialized.

          Participation: Engaging “natively” in discussions on platforms like SocialHub is a path. This participation helps in shaping the future of these open’ish spaces and ensuring they remain relevant and on mission.

          DIY : The #DIY (Do It Yourself) is fundamental to the #openweb and #Fediverse. Emphasizing community control, self-reliance, and collaborative development. Promoting and practising this ethos to resist “common sense” #mainstreaming pressures is needed.

          Mobilization: Encouraging wide community involvement is essential. Whether it’s through developing new features, creating content, or moderating discussions, contributions sustain the “native” ecosystem, it is at best a “gift economy” path.

          The #mainstreaming of counter-cultures paths of the #openweb, #Fediverse, and #Mastodon is filled with challenges as well as opportunities. With native participation, a strong commitment to #DIY principles, and a collective effort to preserve this native culture, it is possible to sustain and grow these spaces without losing their original path of cultural integrity.

          You can find out much more about my thinking on http://hamishcampbell.com, and please try “not to be a prat” thanks.

          Tension, Open and Closed Web

          From its creation, the growing internet and World Wide Web has been shaped by two competing, often overlapping visions:

          The Collaborative, #OpenWeb: Rooted in #DNA of internet code and culture, this vision is of a platform for collaboration, sharing, and free exchange of information. Built for use in a world of abundance of information, free as in free beer. Emphasizes , creativity, and collective creation, associated with “native geek culture” and radical/anarchist libertarian thinking.

          The Commercial, #ClosedWeb: The approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates, and late stage google, focuses on monetization and commercial viability of the internet. Fixated on fear of sustainability, profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a scarcity based world.

          The Internet inherent democratization and egalitarianism allows everyone to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with the pushing of commercial control, to monetize user data and interactions. From the #openweb prospective: Interconnectedness, technology, reflects human values and social structures. The internet empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional gatekeepers. The web transforms education and information access to synthesizing vast resources needed for a different view of society.

          From the #closedweb prospective, you have fear, simply fear.

          The #openweb remains a battleground between these feelings, of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has worked to democratized content creation and access, the existing economic models to sustain this ecosystem are a toxic mess. The ongoing tension shapes society both online and offline, yes it’s a mess.

          Why we so often can’t see or do much about this mess, our #geekproblem have disproportionate control over societal resources and decisions, with this blinded “feudalism” bypassing democratic processes and accountability. This is equally a “problem” in grassroots #FOSS and corporate #dotcons, as they share the same mindset.

          A part of the #openweb path is a move to re-evaluate in technology and wider society on the relationship between “control”, wealth, power, and social change. But currently we have no clear way to talk about this issue from the “problem” in geek culture. So have little way to mediate the #closedweb problem of the groups who “succeed” in a capitalist being the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

          UPDATE https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/25/opinion_open_washing/ this is playing out here.

          We need to compost the current culture of lying

          The Fediverse is “native” to Anarchism

          Anarchism is a part of #FOSS governance, a political philosophy and social movement that shaped the foundations of the internet and #openweb to move from centralized power to decentralized, self-governing paths. This was a strong part of #web01 and a strong part of why it worked so well. #Anarchists believe that society and technology can be organized to build freedom, equality, and cooperation

          What is Anarchism?

          There are forms of anarchism, some well-known:

          • Anarcho-Communism: Advocates for the abolition of private property and the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on communal ownership and cooperation.
          • Anarcho-Syndicalism: Seeks to abolish the wage system and replace it with a system of workers’ self-management and direct democracy.
          • Individualist Anarchism: Emphasizes the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, and is associated with the writings of figures like Emma Goldman and Max Stirner.

          A long and varied history, with roots in liberalism and socialism.

          Anarchism in Action

          1. Direct Action: Anarchism emphasizes direct action over traditional protest. Instead of petitioning authorities to make changes, anarchists take matters into their own hands. For example, if a community lacks drinking water, anarchists would dig a well themselves rather than petitioning the government.
          2. Acting as If Free: Anarchism is about behaving as though one is already free, practising this directly.
          3. Democracy Without Government: Anarchism can be seen as democracy without the state, where people collectively make decisions without hierarchical structures. It is based on self-organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid.

          History of Anarchism

          Some old dead figures and movements include:

          • The French Revolution: Inspired many early anarchists with ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
          • Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: The first self-proclaimed anarchist, wrote the influential work What is Property? in 1840.
          • Mikhail Bakunin: A Russian revolutionary, was a key figure in the anarchist movement of the late 19th century.
          • Emma Goldman: An American feminist, anarchist, was a prominent in the early 20th century.

          Arguments for Anarchism

          Supporters of anarchism emphasize:

          1. Individual Freedom and Autonomy: Anarchism values individual freedom and autonomy, arguing that centralized systems of power limit personal liberty.
          2. Equality and Cooperation: Anarchism promotes equality and cooperation among people, envisioning a society where resources are shared, and the needs of all members are met.
          3. Direct Democracy and Grassroots Participation: Anarchism is associated with a strong commitment to direct democracy and grassroots participation in decision-making.
          4. Challenging Oppressive Systems: Anarchist ideasinspired many social movements to challenge and dismantle oppressive systems and hierarchies.

          Arguments Against Anarchism

          Critics of anarchism raise concerns:

          1. Unrealistic or Utopian: Critics argue anarchism is unrealistic or utopian, calling for the abolition of centralized power, many believe are necessary for maintaining order and protecting people’s rights.
          2. Overemphasis on Individual Freedom: Some forms of anarchism, such as individualist anarchism, are criticized for placing emphasis on individual freedom and autonomy at the expense of community and collective action.
          3. Association with Violence: Anarchism has been associated with violence and extremism, particularly in the form of bombings and assassinations carried out by anarchist individuals or small groups.
          4. Practical Implementation: Critics argue that anarchism is to hard to put into practice, as it calls for the overhaul of existing political and economic systems, which is a steep path to walk and difficult to achieve in the “real” world.

          Anarchism is at the heart of meany of our #openweb norms, its advantages and disadvantages depend strongly on assumptions and material conditions in the time and place where people try and enact it. The #openweb and #Fediverse with its strong flow of “trust” and “abundances” is a fertile place for “nativist” experiments. Though, as critics, argue this path is not easy or without its problems.

          The #OMN is mediated “native” https://opencollective.com/open-media-network join us if you would like to try walking this path.

          Anarchism challenges forms of authority and domination. The idea, rooted in classical liberalism and Enlightenment principles, is any exercise of authority or power must justify its legitimacy. This burden of proof applies universally, whether within a family, a state, or global institutions. If authority cannot demonstrate its legitimacy, it should be dismantled.

          The concept of legitimate authority is central to anarchism. Those in power must justify their actions and their right to hold power. If they cannot, their authority is considered illegitimate.

          1. Personal Example: Imagine walking with a granddaughter who runs into the street. If you pull her back, that is an exercise of authority. However, this action must be justified as legitimate, perhaps by arguing that it was necessary to protect her from harm.
          2. Broader Examples: The same principle applies in broader contexts. Men in patriarchal systems must justify their authority over women. Governments must justify their authority over citizens. Corporations must justify their control over workers.

          In democratic systems, legitimacy is supposed to be maintained through public debate, interaction, and struggle. If these mechanisms fail, the legitimacy is in question. In totalitarian or authoritarian systems, legitimacy is non-existent because these systems do not allow challenges to authority. People in positions of authority internalize the belief that their power is legitimate. This internalization makes it difficult for them to recognize or acknowledge the need to justify authority.

          Throughout history, systems of authority and domination have been accepted as legitimate by those who are subordinated. This acceptance is due to a combination of indoctrination, socialization, and the internalization of prevailing values.

          • Slavery: Many slave societies were stable because slaves accepted their subordination as legitimate.
          • Feudalism: In feudal societies, people accepted their roles within the hierarchy as natural and proper.
          • Modern Employment: Today, many people accept the necessity of renting their labour to survive, a concept that was once seen as wage slavery.

          People challenging the legitimacy of authority leads to social struggles, revolutions, and sometimes significant change. Anarchists take this challenge seriously and push questioning the illegitimacy of authority through active resistance and the promotion of #DIY self-governing structures. This path and philosophy has profound implications for how we build and work in technology and shapes our current #openweb reboot.

          Please keep this path #KISS

          More on this https://hamishcampbell.com/understanding-anarchism/

          People think in groups, this is natural

          Group thinking is human nature. As social grows, people naturally think and make decisions in the context of groups. This tendency has evolutionary roots, as it historically enhanced survival and cooperation. However, much of our current thinking, although not incorrect, is influenced by the prevailing #stupidindividualism mindset that is “common sense” in our messy world. This individualist “thinking” pushes personal autonomy and self-reliance at the expense of our collective well-being.

          Instead of questioning whether group thinking is inherently wrong, it is more useful to explore what we can make of this group-oriented way of thinking. Points to consider:

          1. Understanding Group Dynamics: Recognizing the tendency to think in groups allows us to better understand social dynamics, peer influence, and natural collective behaviour. This can help in addressing issues like groupthink, where in activism the desire for “formal” consensus often leads to poor decision-making.
          2. Leveraging Collective Intelligence: Group thinking is harnessed to achieve better outcomes through collective intelligence. Diverse groups, when open to outcomes, can generate innovative and useful solutions that isolated people working alone cannot.
          3. Promoting Inclusivity and Diversity: Be honest, by acknowledging the role of group thinking, we emphasize the importance of inclusivity and diversity within groups. Different perspectives and experiences enrich group discussions and lead to robust and well-rounded outcomes.
          4. Balancing Individual and Group Needs: While individualism has merits, we do need to find a balance between individual and group needs. Encouraging a sense of community and collective responsibility has better outcomes.
          5. Navigating Common Sense Myths: The #stupidindividualism mindset promotes a myth that individual success is only a result of personal effort, ignoring the social and structural factors that build social achievements. By challenging this story, we can build a more nuanced understanding of success and support systems.
          6. Cultivating Critical Thinking: Questioning the assumptions of “common sense”, especially those rooted in #stupidindividualism, promotes creative thinking. It encourages people to look beyond surface-level explanations and consider systemic issues.

          In summary, group thinking is a natural human behaviour. In this, it is important not to dismiss it as wrong, but to understand its implications and potential. By recognizing the limitations of the #stupidindividualism thinking and promoting a balanced approach that values both individual creativity and collective contributions, we can create more cohesive and healthier communities. The principle of “Keep It Simple, Stupid” (#KISS) guides us to build fundamental truths and practical solutions, avoiding the unnecessary complications that arise from extreme individualism in our worship of the #deathcult

          Philanthropy, praising billionaires, underscores the mess

          Philanthropy creates the illusion of greatness by pushing wealthy people as saviours while ignoring the root causes of poverty and suffering. This hides the systemic injustices and diverts attention from the #KISS structural changes needed.

          #Philanthropy is worshipping the #deathcult by reinforces the status quo. Philanthropy shifts blame to the poor, pushing the idea that they are responsible for their own situation. This story hides the influence that the wealthy class wield over economic systems, entrenching inequalities and fails to see the structural inequalities in the global economy, where wealth is extracted from poorer countries to richer ones.

          While honest capitalists prioritize personal prosperity over morals, more “progressive” philanthropists try to believe they are “saving the world” while giving back a fraction of what they take. This lack of transparency perpetuates the illusion of altruism. We need to challenge this, despite its charitable intentions, philanthropy hides the root causes of poverty and perpetuates a cycle of dependency.

          Philanthropy might sometimes offer temporary relief, but fundamentally perpetuates inequalities, reinforcing the current worship of the #deathcult. Social change requires addressing the root problems, rather than relying on the goodwill of the wealthy few. People, get off your knees, please.

          #Charity #poor #capitalism

          Nuanced understanding of class, emphasizing shared interests and collective struggle

          Let’s look at #class and how the use of the “middle class” obscures rather than clarify a useful understanding of society. Let’s question the “common sense” beliefs about the #middleclass and how this affects class consciousness and solidarity. The usual “common sense” understanding of the middle class as being based on wealth, education, lifestyle, and profession is a simplistic view.

          1. Marxist Perspective: A Marxist understanding of class is based on the relationship to the means of production. According to Marx, those who own capital and control the means of production (the bourgeoisie) and those who sell their labour for a wage (the proletariat) are the two classes.
          2. Class Identity and Solidarity: usefully, class identity is a tool to unite people across various backgrounds and lifestyles, based on their shared relationship to work and production. Regardless of profession or income level, if you depend on selling your labour to survive, you belong to the working class.
          3. Dangerous Precedent of Middle-Class Identity: The idea of a middle class is often divisive and serve the interests of the capitalist class by hiding the conflict between labour and capital.
          4. Managerial Class: While they may earn more or have different responsibilities, their relationship to work still places them within the working class.
          5. Class Consciousness and Struggle: Is a tool for social change and challenge. The importance of understanding class positions and engaging in class struggle for shaping a different society, better working conditions, fair wages, and collective empowerment.
          6. Unity and Solidarity: Unity among working people, regardless of superficial differences or divisions pushed by the capitalist system.

          It should be obvious that we need to challenge the use of Middle Class as representing a distinct and cohesive group separate from the broader working class. Instead, a more nuanced understanding of class that emphasizes shared interests and collective struggle is a better tool for the needed social change and challenge.

          #KISS

          Toxic Positivity

          Toxic Positivity in #mainstreaming, in the context of career and life choices, is about following “common sense” established paths deemed acceptable or successful by societal norms. Where an anti-corporate stance emerges from the frustration with rigid corporate structures and the hollow promises of career advancement through sheer dedication and hard work. That traditional jobs prioritize profit over people, should lead to a desire to break free from these confines is the criticism.

          The Myth of the Temporarily Embarrassed Billionaire

          Yes, this myth is stronger in the USA as a ideology that everyone has the potential to achieve immense wealth if they work hard enough. It pushes the belief that economic success is a result of individual effort, ignoring systemic inequalities and the role of luck, that only a tiny minority will make it to this exploiting class. This mindset leads to frustration and disillusionment when success remains elusive despite the hard work.

          The Rejection of Toxic Positivity

          Toxic positivity is the relentless promotion of a positive outlook regardless of circumstances, a path that is detrimental to personal and social health. It masks the realities of social realities, preventing people from addressing real issues and making the needed, meaningful changes. Simple fulfilment comes from creating one’s own social meaning and purpose, rather than blindly pursuing happiness or success defined by “common sense” societal norms.

          The Commodification of Purpose

          In the era of the #deathcult, capitalist societies, purpose and meaning are commodified, equating personal success with material wealth and career achievements. This leads to the dismissal of non-profitable passions and pursuits as hobbies, undermining the truer source of fulfilment in building more #DIY focused alternatives to the current mess. The pressure to conform to profitable career paths stifles humanism, leading to a deep malaise of dissatisfaction and unfulfilled potential.

          The American Dream and Meritocracy

          The belief in upward economic mobility is ingrained in American culture, with the idea that hard work and intelligence guarantee success. This meritocratic path leads to the stigmatization of those who do not achieve financial success, attributing their lack of wealth to personal failings rather than more systemic issues. This creates a culture of blame and shame, over alternative paths, further entrenching people in deadened careers and lives.

          The Realities of the Corporate Grind

          The narrative of endless hard work leading to success is a lie. The corporate grind is monotonous and unfulfilling. People sacrificing their dreams and passions for the promise of future rewards. Recognizing this, people can critically assess their career paths and seek fulfilment through means that align with their more humanistic aspirations.

          Conclusion

          The rejection of toxic positivity and the myth of the temporarily embarrassed billionaire is crucial for personal and social growth and meaning. By challenging these narratives, people can take paths that align with a more humanistic way, rather than conforming to societal expectations. Embracing the philosophy of creating one’s own social meaning, leads to a more fulfilling and authentic life. Be human not a slave as the hippies say