Utopia

in the current mess of #mainstreaming, #Utopia is a dirty word. #Dystopia is not. The story that imagines a future of continual decline feels more reasonable, even inevitable. It’s easy and kinda enjoyable to picture #postapocalyptic paths, given the current state of the world.

With the growth of our #deathcult worshipping, the end of history was declared 40 years ago, equating our current societal organization as the pinnacle of human achievement. The prevailing #neoliberal system —markets, competition, a gladiatorial struggle for personal betterment—was seen as the only viable one. The myth that individual success trickles down to benefit everyone persists, despite now widespread disbelief and distrust in this #deathcult

However, we’re so deeply in to “common sense” worship that imagining alternatives feels impossible now Utopia has become a dirty word, while dystopia is accepted.

Reflecting on our childhood wonder at human progress—pilotless planes, robots, space exploration, flying cars—we now see these advancements as threats. Military drones, job-stealing automation, space as a private escape, and flying cars are all tinged with dread.

It’s the system. Whether you support or oppose it, the consensus is that the future under this system is rarely viewed with optimism. The promises of market-driven utopia have led to repeated crises like 2008, not the envisioned social prosperity. Even so, we cling to this system, its power inescapable, much like the divine right of kings once was.

Individualization of Collective Imagination

Capitalism’s sales us as a personalized, isolated package. Unlike divine rights or blood-bound royalty, it promotes the idea of control over one’s destiny. This creates a stark divide in experiences, making collective betterment less achievable. Pursuing a better life individually, rather than collectively, becomes the normal path. This social “blindness” stops us from seeing ourselves as we are, as a part of a larger human social experiment.

Even those aware of the system’s flaws live by its tenets, striving for personal success. The fear of revolution or change is partly because of the effort already invested in this individual progress. The idea that there’s an alternative to struggle is overshadowed by the pursuit of these personal goals, leading to a narrowed view of possibilities. We all still blindly worship this #deathcult in our everyday lives.

Capitalism is internalized as the natural way of life. Imagining beyond it is seen as insanity. The greatest progress arises from dire circumstances, where the alternative to suffering is non-existence. Today, comfort smothers the drive for change. Yet, dystopian media normalizes bleak futures, projecting what #climatechaos and social break down will eventually make happen.

Fictional literature and media have always been vital in exploring human futures. The contrast between grim dystopias and hopeful utopias illustrates our capacity for imagining different worlds. Yet, creating believable, relatable utopias is challenging in a world where the status quo dominates. Characters proposing radical change are cast as antagonists, reinforcing the idea that reform, not revolution, is the only path.

The Room for Optimism

Despite this, the fact we’re discussing these issues means there’s hope. Remembering that this system is a tiny step in human history, that human societal organization is dynamic and changeable. Reflecting on past norms—such as ancient philosophers, fascist regimes, or the lack of modern conveniences—shows how transient and idiotic we can be in the belief in a single “static” path.

Rejecting the idea that our pinnacle achievement is building bigger shopping malls is basic. Utopia isn’t a dirty word; it’s a aspiration made dirty by those who fear its potential. Utopias aren’t meant to be achieved, but to serve as light guiding us forward. Embracing utopian thinking means daring to imagine better futures, challenging the status quo, and recognizing our capacity for taking different paths to profound societal evolution.

So, let’s reclaim utopia, not as an endpoint, but as a direction, an ideal to strive towards, illuminating our path through the darkness of the present mess.

Be part of this path https://opencollective.com/open-media-network you can hold the light, with the #OMN lets build real #openweb native alternatives together so we can walk hand in hand.

Why We Can’t Enjoy life

There is a #mainstreaming story that progressives are incapable of enjoying anything and are easily offended, wildly over-analytical, snobby, pretentious, and injecting politics into everything. There is some truth to this, many left-leaning people would admit, reluctantly, that we can be pretty crap and insufferable at times. But it’s important to see the difference between the self-critical view leftists have of themselves not being able to enjoy anything and the propagandist one coming from the right or centre of politics.

Rage Against the System

The right-wing shouts at us that left #fahernistas can’t enjoy anything because they are soft, overthink things and are easily offended, “woke”. They forget that it’s not only a weakness, but more often inarticulate rage and anger, a rage towards an insufferable world people just can’t swallow and accept. Anger that builds up with every minute people have to spend pretending everything’s all right.

Anger, in reality, comes bursting out at the worst or most absurd of times. But think for a moment, it’s not the anger that is the problem. The anger is fine; it’s more that it is often misplaced. Many young, progressive learning, anti-status quo people are just that: angry, confused, and thus lost. Rightfully angry, confused, and lost, but with a social created, unfortunate, lack of vision on when and where to channel this anger.

The Curse of Awareness

So why do leftists find it so hard to enjoy things?

  1. The News: The way #mainstreaming news works is you pick a tribe and only watch what the people from your tribe show on the #dotcons and TV. You foam at the mouth with a pitchfork in hand, go online with a burning touch to shout and complain about either the illiterate rednecks or the college graduate cross-dressing paedophiles. From the grassroots activist sidelines, this seems equally weird and entertaining because we don’t currently have a news cycle backing anyone like us. Our understanding of how privately owned media works makes most news indigestible. No matter how “objective” this tries to be, when news is a business, it will never cross certain boundaries. Boundaries like questioning the system or pitching an alternative to the status quo.
  2. National Identity: We might be proud of our heritage and culture, but #class consciousness makes us understand that we have far more in common with workers of all nations than we do with the #rulingclass of our own country. Patriotism without class consciousness feels wrong and is wrong. We cringe at hyper-patriotic empty gestures because we understand that 9 out of 10 times, if we get sent to the front line in the next war, we’ll be shooting other working-class comrades while the sons of our presidents sit comfortably on a far away beach.
  3. Self-Help and New Age Philosophy: These are the two deep fake philosophies out there. The self-help military-industrial complex implies that everything can be solved if you figure out the puzzle which is the world economy and use a special cheat code to get yourself out of any mess. The latter idea, quasi-spiritual enlightenment, pitches internalizing the world and creating a world of your “own” as a coping mechanism. We can’t enjoy either of these because they are commodified beyond recognition and based on an unrealistic #stupidindividualism that we can and should handle everything on our own.
  4. Our Jobs: We struggle to enjoy our jobs because we understand that at the end of the day, we’re being exploited. No matter what industry or position, your boss does not pay you even close to how much you make them. This fact makes all the talk of purpose, family, and a cause sound like pathetic, childish gesturing.
  5. Mindless Consumption: We can’t fully enjoy consumerism because we know that the high of a purchase is followed by the hangover realization that we’re still as lost as we were before. The lie that we can find purpose in mindless consumption is the greatest epidemic of our time.

The Price of Seeing Clearly

The main takeaway of all these examples is simple: the progressive activist understands that in the current system, whether it’s mindless shopping, new chauvinism, job unfulfillment, or quasi-philosophy, there is a struggle between our wants to see the world and constant manipulation steering us away from this. This awareness is why life feels so miserable. Yes, we see the Zombies behind the masks of the puppets, and it’s hard to enjoy the show when you know it’s death dancing behind the #mainstreaming illusion.


Q. “WHAT ABOUT HUMAN NATURE?” That simple question posits an even simpler view of human consciousness and decision-making. It says man is flawed—through his greed, jealousy, and selfishness—and that as such, he would destroy and corrupt any system which doesn’t utilize those very flaws. The way capitalism, for example, does with greed, by throwing us in the gladiatorial arena, or to be more realistic, a children’s sandbox, of the free market—where the greediest win. Yes, it’s a mess.

Living in the Current Mess

  1. Seek Joy, Not Misery: Wanting a better world doesn’t mean living in misery. Prioritize our social well-being and happiness is the path we need to take together.

If you are stuck in the world of Work

  1. Understand Employer Dynamics: Employers prioritize profit and can’t afford to #pay you the true value of your work. Recognize this systemic issue.
  2. Work Strategically: Don’t overwork yourself in hopes of a promotion. Instead, work just enough and oversell your contributions.
  3. Embellish Your Resume: Enhance your work experience during interviews. In today’s competitive job market, this is a basic necessity.
  4. Take Opportunities: Accept management positions if offered. A radical manager is better for workers, but avoid getting power-hungry in this new space.
  5. Learn on the Job: Don’t be intimidated by new roles. Most skills can be learned as you go, except for highly specialized fields like medicine or engineering.
  6. Realize Everyone is Winging It: Most people, including #managers, are improvising. Don’t assume others know more than you do.
  7. Share Salary Information: Discuss wages with colleagues. This transparency helps address pay disparities.
  8. Unionize: Join or organize a #union, but do so discreetly to avoid retaliation.
  9. Maintain Health Over Work: Never sacrifice your health for a job. No job is worth long-term damage to your well-being.

Money Spending

  1. Avoid Brand Obsession: Focus on the true value and quality of products rather than their #brand status.
  2. Limit Consumption: Differentiate between needs and wants. Avoid unnecessary purchases driven by #consumerism.
  3. Sustainable Living: While there’s no ethical consumption under #capitalism, strive for sustainability when possible.
  4. Rent vs. Buy: If you can afford it, buying a home is more stable than renting, which leaves you vulnerable to exploitation.
  5. Use Public Transportation: It’s often cheaper and faster than driving.
  6. Support Socialist Projects: Donate time and resources to causes you believe in. Participate in mutual aid and direct action.

Hope and Motivation

  1. Stay Motivated: Remaining a radical activist is challenging but rewarding. Embrace your knowledge and use it to find purpose and elegance in navigating the system to change and challenge it.

Summary

Live strategically within the system, see its flaws while prioritizing your communities health and happiness. Seek joy and purpose beyond the job, and most importantly, support movements for systemic change like the #OMN

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Would Socialism Work?

There are meany, messy paths, but let’s look at ideas. Whenever #socialism is discussed, there’s a flurry of objections, claiming it’s unworkable and impractical. Many of these objections stem from misconceptions or outright falsehoods. One common misconception is that socialism lacks the capacity for #innovation. Let’s walk this path to see what we find.

Socioeconomic Systems and Innovation:

Firstly, let’s clarify something: capitalism, socialism, or any other “-ism” don’t inherently produce anything. Workers are the ones who create products and innovations. These “-isms” shape who gets paid and how resources are distributed. Under capitalism, the driving force for “innovation” is profit. If something isn’t profitable, in the end it won’t get funded, even if it is need to save lives or benefit wider society.

Socialism’s Driving Factors for Innovation:

In contrast, socialism builds for human need and creativity over profit. While some social surplus must be accounted for, it can be done without the profit-seeking motive. In a socialist system, innovation is driven by the #humanist desire to build social meaning and to meet simple societal needs to improve the quality of life in general, rather than lining the pockets of a few exploitative shareholders.

Public Sector and Innovation:

Not surprisingly, many of the innovations we rely on today came from government-funded projects, not the private sector. From touch screens to the internet, satellites to vaccines, much of the foundational research and development is done with public funding. This demonstrates that innovation isn’t something exclusive to capitalism; in fact, it happens in spite of it of the current mess.

Education, Innovation, and Profit:

Education is a crucial factor in fostering innovation, yet under capitalism, access to quality education is limited by financial barriers. In contrast, socialist policies prioritize free education at all levels, ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to develop their creative potential and shared #humanism.

Automation and Capitalism:

#Automation, while promising greater productivity, poses a threat under capitalism. As machines replace human labour, workers are laid off, made poor, to cut costs and maximize profits. This leads to a paradox where increased productivity doesn’t benefit the people, as they lose their jobs and thus the purchasing power that drives capitalism in the first place, a mess.

Automation and Socialism:

In a socialist system, automation is used to reduce the need for human labour without displacing workers. Instead of working long hours, people enjoy shorter workdays while automation picks up the productivity slack. With human needs prioritized over profit, automation serve to benefit society as a whole.

Conclusion:

Socialism offers a historical, viable alternative to capitalism’s shortcomings. By prioritizing human needs, fostering innovation through social investment, and ensuring horizontal access to education and resources, socialism lays the groundwork for a sustainable and prosperous future. Rather than succumbing to the limitations of capitalism, let’s explore the possibilities of a different world and work towards a society where innovation serves humanistic ends, not only profit for a few exploitative assholes.

To be a part of building this different world https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Composting #TechShit: Planned Obsolescence

We are surrounded by piles of #techshit why are we in such a mess. Imagine buying a new car to find out that you can’t replace the tires when they wear out. Instead, you’re forced to pay an exorbitant amount to get them fixed at an authorized repair shop. Sounds ridiculous? Well, this scenario isn’t far from reality when it comes to tech products like smartphones, printers, or household appliances. This is the world of planned obsolescence.

Cartels and Monopoly:

Planned obsolescence isn’t a random occurrence; it’s a strategy employed by tech companies to keep us perpetually consuming. It’s a story as old as #capitalism itself to maximize profits at any cost.

Why Things Break More Often?

Have you ever wondered why your new printer is dirt cheap, but the ink cartridges cost a fortune? Or why your smartphone seems to slow down just before the latest model is released? It’s all part of a scheme to make you buy more frequently. Planned obsolescence ensures that products break down faster, become obsolete quicker, and push us into a cycle of constant consumption.

Strategies for Reducing Product Lifespan:

Repair locking, software limitations, and compromised durability are a few tactics used to ensure that our gadgets don’t last as long as they should. Ever noticed those tricky screws in your smartphone that prevent easy repairs? Or the sudden software updates that render your device sluggish? It’s all part of this plan.

Environmental Impact and Political Consequences:

The consequences of planned obsolescence are deeper than personal consumer frustration. It leads to overproduction, waste, and environmental degradation. The mountains of e-waste generated by discarded gadgets are a testament to the unsustainable nature of our consumption habits. Moreover, planned obsolescence fuels imperialist domination and conflicts in resource-rich regions.

Perceived Obsolescence:

It’s not just about making things break; it’s also about making perfectly usable items seem outdated. Fashion industries thrive on perceived obsolescence, constantly churning out new trends to keep people buying. It’s a never-ending cycle of consumption driven by manufactured insecurities.

What’s the Solution?

Reformism simply won’t cut it. Repairing items yourself or pushing for right-to-repair legislation helps, but won’t touch the systemic issue. Fundamental social change, socialism offers a real alternative where production is based on need, not profit.

Do you have a shovel?

In conclusion, we need to compost #TechShit by challenging planned obsolescence and pushing hard for a system that prioritizes sustainability, environmental and social over profit. I talk a lot on this blog, https://hamishcampbell.com

#KISS

A Story of Ordinary Women Doing Extraordinary Things

In the early 1980s, the Cold War tensions reached new heights, reviving fears of nuclear annihilation among the public. It was during this time, in a small village in southwest Wales, that a group of women decided to elevate their local protest to an international level. This story is about the creation of the Greenham Common Peace Camp, a testament to the power of grassroots activism and the spirit of ordinary women.

The inspiration for this movement was deeply personal for many of the women involved. They were mothers and grandmothers, worried about the future of their children in a world where nuclear war seemed increasingly inevitable. Thalia Campbell, an artist and banner maker, was one of the original marchers and co-founder of the peace camp, she played a pivotal role in coordinating the sculpture project, the subject of this video, that became a symbol of their struggle.

The video is about the sculpture, which commemorates the march that started the camp. The sculpture itself was a significant endeavour, starting with small donations and gaining momentum after receiving the Transport and General Workers Union Peace Prize. Thalia Campbell spent ten years consulting with women around the world, and eventually, a life-size clay original was created. This original was made into a plaster cast and shipped to a foundry in Wales to be cast in bronze, creating a durable public monument.

The march to Greenham Common began on August 27, 1981. Thirty-six women, accompanied by their children in pushchairs, and six men, gathered outside City Hall in Cardiff to walk the 110 miles to Newbury in Berkshire. This group of women, who started as strangers, became a tribe as they walked together, slept in village halls, and shared their fears and hopes for a nuclear-free future.

The marchers carried with them a pamphlet showing a deformed child born after the Hiroshima bombing, highlighting the horrific consequences of nuclear radiation. They planned to deliver their petition against nuclear weapons upon reaching Greenham Common. However, upon arrival, they were ignored, prompting them to stay.

In a spontaneous decision inspired by the suffragettes, the women decided to chain themselves to the fence of Greenham Common. This act of defiance, initially met with confusion and humor by the local police, quickly gained attention. The women’s determination to make their voices heard led them to stay at the site, setting up an encampment despite having no initial plans to do so.

The camp grew as local supporters provided food and supplies. Over time, it became clear that this was not a temporary protest but a long-term commitment. The camp evolved into a women-only space, not out of sexism, but as a practical decision to avoid manipulative tactics by the police that could provoke violence. This decision also created a safe space for women to express their views and experiences without fear.

The Greenham Common Peace Camp faced internal and external challenges. Leading to the formation of different groups and camps around the site. The presence of women with various personal problems, as well as significant numbers of lesbians, brought both strength and complexity to the movement.

Growing from these challenges, the Greenham Common Peace Camp became a powerful symbol of non-violent protest and women’s activism. The sculpture, created over a year, stands as a testament to the untold stories of the women who gave birth to this remarkable movement.

The Greenham Common Peace Camp left an indelible mark on history, demonstrating the impact of collective action and the courage of women to dared to challenge the status quo. Their story is one of resilience, solidarity, and the unwavering belief in a peaceful future.

The film is by #hamishcampbell

#greenhamcommon #peace #women #scupture #makeinghistory

We worshipped a #deathcult for 40 years

Our shared #mainstreaming for the last 40 years has been built on the path of #neoliberalism a political and economic ideology that advocates for minimal state intervention in the economy, emphasizing free markets, deregulation, privatization, and a reduction in government spending on social programs. It emerged as a dominant force in the late 20th century, particularly from the 1980s onwards, under the influence of #MargaretThatcher in the UK and #RonaldReagan in the US.

Historical Context

After World War II, many European countries adopted social democratic policies, influenced by the pressure of strong socialist movements and the existence of socialist states like the #USSR, these provided extensive social benefits, full employment, free healthcare, and education. To avoid potential revolutions and maintain stability, European nations implemented social welfare programs internally while still engaging in exploitative economic practices externally in their former colonies.

Emergence of Neoliberalism

By the 1980s, the capitalist system faced renewed crises, including economic recessions, a decline in profitability. In response, the old fundamentalism of #classicliberalism renamed as #neoliberal pushed for a drastic reduction in government intervention and social spending. This shift was driven by the belief that previous social democratic concessions (the social safety net put in place due to communism) were no longer sustainable or needed and were hindering economic growth and profit margins.

Definition and Principles

Neoliberalism is a set of policies and ideas focused on:

  1. Deregulation: Removing government regulations to allow businesses total freedom in how they operate.
  2. Privatization: Transferring public services and assets to the private sector.
  3. Reduced Public Spending: Cutting government expenditures on social programs like welfare, healthcare, and education.
  4. Tax Cuts: Lowering taxes for corporations and the wealthy to encourage investment and economic growth.
  5. Free Markets: Promoting the idea that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources and solve social problems.

Ideological Dogma

Neoliberalism “common sense” asserts that the market, left alone, will “naturally” regulate itself and provide the best outcomes for society. This belief extends to all areas of life, including education, healthcare, and social services, which should be subjected to market forces rather than people driven state control.

Consequences

Social and Economic Impact

  • Increased Inequality: Neoliberal policies lead to income and wealth disparities as the rich benefit from tax cuts and deregulation while social safety nets are dismantled for the poor.
  • Reduced Worker Protections: Labour unions and pro-labour legislation are weakened, leading to lower wages and worse working conditions.
  • Privatization of Public Services: Essential services like healthcare and education become more expensive and less accessible to the poor.
  • Environmental Degradation: Deregulation leads to pollution and environmental harm as companies prioritize profit over sustainability. We have pushed #climatechaos hard with this mess.

Global Impact

  • IMF and World Bank Policies: Developing countries are subjected to structural adjustment programs by international financial institutions, which require them to implement neoliberal policies in exchange for loans. This leads to severe social and economic hardship in the developing world
  • Exploitation of Developing Countries: Neoliberalism perpetuates global inequalities by maintaining exploitative relationships between wealthy and poorer nations.

Criticism and Opposition

Critics show that neoliberalism prioritizes the interests of the wealthy and corporations at the expense of the environment, working class and the poor. Undermining democracy by concentrating economic and political power in the hands of a few, leading to increased social unrest and current right-wing shift and resulting political and environmental instability.

Conclusion

The people pushing #neoliberalism, lied about economic efficiency and growth and the associated significant social costs, including increased inequality, reduced public welfare, and environmental degradation. Their focus on market solutions for all problems disregards the realities of social and economic life, leading to widespread criticism and calls for alternative approaches that prioritize social equity and sustainability.

In the era of #climatechaos, this shift to Neoliberalism was obviously a #deathcult that continues to shapes our “common sense” and has been central to our lives for the last 40 years. We can’t keep going down the path, you can find different paths here https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Liberalism – is not for you

The Myth of the Middle Class:
The so-called “middle class” is a constructed concept that never truly existed. If you work for a boss and earn wages or a salary, you are a worker, a member of the working class, and should take pride in that identity. The term “middle class” was created to isolate more privileged workers, serving the interests of the powerful by dividing the working population. This division prevents unity among workers and keeps them from collectively challenging the institutions and power structures that maintain their oppression.

A critique of #liberalism from a #Marxist perspective.

1. Marxist Analysis of History

  • Class-Based Analysis: Marxists analyse history based on class struggles and material conditions, rather than simple “common sense” ideas or metaphysical concepts.
  • Material Conditions: Ideas, including those of influential thinkers like Marx, are shaped by the material conditions of their time.

2. Historical Context of Liberalism

  • Western European Phenomenon: Liberalism developed primarily in Western Europe within a feudal background.
  • Urban Centres and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie: Economic and technological developments in urban centres led to the rise of the bourgeoisie (burghers), who eventually clashed with feudal landlords.
  • Guilds and Standardization: The formation of guilds standardized production methods, leading to increased productive capacity and economic power for the bourgeoisie.
  • Class Struggle and Political Power: The #bourgeoisie eventually overthrew the #feudal order, leading to bourgeois democratic revolutions in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries.

3. Ideological Tenets of Liberalism

  • Individual Liberty: Claimed to support individual freedom, but in practice, this freedom can be suspended at will.
  • Anti-Concentration of Power: Advocates for a plurality of power to prevent tyranny, but often consolidates power when necessary to protect capitalist interests.
  • Constitutionalism: Constitutions serve to protect capitalist relations and private property, often disregarded when inconvenient for the ruling class.
  • Pro Minority Rights: Initially meant the rights of property owners (bourgeoisie), not class, racial or ethnic minorities.
  • Sanctification of Private Property: Private property is central to capitalism and liberalism, and its protection is paramount for maintaining bourgeois power.
  • Capitalism: Liberalism supports capitalist economic structures, often contradicting its own ideals of freedom and equality to do this.

4. Critique of Liberalism

  • Contradictory Philosophy: Liberalism claims to champion individual liberty and anti-tyranny, but primarily serves the interests of the bourgeoisie.
  • Superficial Plurality: The appearance of multiple parties and democratic plurality is a façade, with fundamental capitalist interests remaining unchanged.
  • Constitutional Limitations: Constitutions are tools to maintain capitalist order, with true reforms (like abolishing private property) being impossible within liberal frameworks.
  • Selective Minority Rights: The protection of minority rights under liberalism prioritizes property owners.
  • Economic Supremacy: Liberalism’s main function is to protect the economic supremacy of the capitalist class, and it can easily and quickly transition to #fascism when capital feels threatened.

Conclusion

Liberalism, according to a Marxist, is a tool for maintaining bourgeois power and protecting capitalist interests. It presents itself as a philosophy of freedom and equality, but is contradictory in implementation to serving the ruling capitalist class.

#KISS our “common sense” is a problem on this path.

“Tanky” is a derogatory term for vertical factions within the left

The term #tanky is a colloquial and derogatory label used to describe some vertical factions within the left, particularly those who defend authoritarian socialist states and their historical actions. Origins of the Term, “tanky” is within the British left-wing circles, initially used to describe those who supported the Soviet Union’s intervention in Hungary in 1956. This intervention involved the use of tanks to suppress an anti-government uprising, hence the term “tanky.”

Evolution of the term, over time the use of “tanky” has broadened, and its meaning has become more nebulous. It is often used to describe people who:

  1. Support Historical and Current Socialist States: This includes those who have a positive view of the #USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, and other socialist nations, seeing value in their experiences and lessons.
  2. Defend or Clarify Misconceptions: Some “tankies” are seen as defending the actions of socialist states or providing nuanced explanations for their controversial actions. This can be interpreted as running defence for perceived inexcusable acts.
  3. Marxist-Leninist and Adjacent Ideologies: The term is also used more broadly to label those who support Marxist-Leninist principles like the dictatorship of the proletariat, democratic centralism, and economic planning.
  4. Dismissive Label by Opponents: It is often used by liberals and others to dismiss and ostracize those who are further left without engaging in their arguments. This usage is prevalent among those who adopt radical liberal stances without theoretical engagement.
  5. Caricature: Finally, it is used to create a straw man of a person who uncritically supports everything a socialist nation does, a figure that rarely exists in reality.

In Contemporary usage and messy discourse, “tanky” is used online to label and dismiss leftists without an understanding of the ideological nuances involved. It is employed by those who want to avoid engaging in debates about socialist theory and history. The term carry connotations of anti-Americanism, as those labelled as “tankies” criticize U.S. foreign policy and support anti-imperialist movements.

Implications of the use of the term, reflects a superficial engagement with leftist theory and history. It is an attempt to infantilize or discredit #Marxist analysis and reduce complex historical events and theoretical discussions to simplistic binaries. The term is about shutting down dialogue, rather than fostering an understanding of socialist movements and their legacies.

The term “tanky” has become a catch-all phrase with a variety of meanings, used to discredit and marginalize the more dogmatic factions of the left. Understanding its origins and the context of its use can help in evaluating when and why it is employed in online “debates” and public discourse.

“Don’t be a prat” comes to mind.

Faults of former socialist experiments

Building a different economic system in one country with hard opposition is a steep path to climb. We can learn a lot from the interesting mess left by past attempts

  1. Competition with the West: The #USSR’s framing itself as a direct competitor to American capitalism, rather than a unique system, led to perceptions of being outclassed in some areas. This competitive stance with vastly different starting points made the USSR seem inadequate in some respects.
  2. Military Overspending: Excessive focus on military parity with the U.S. detracted from the USSR’s ability to improve civilian life and scientific progress. This allocation of resources, driven by historical security concerns and international threats, was necessary but ultimately detrimental.
  3. Lack of Economic Diversity: Smaller socialist countries, and even some Soviet republics, had undiversified economies, relying heavily on single burocratic industries or resources. This lack of diversity made these nations vulnerable to economic instability and dependent on larger, dogmatic socialist allies.
  4. Inadequate Light Industry: The focus on heavy industry over light industry led to shortages and lower quality in consumer goods. This affected the everyday satisfaction of citizens, due to the availability of personal and household items being limited.
  5. Limited Democratic Participation: While socialist nations like the USSR had forms of proletarian democracy, there was still significant room for improvement in workplace democracy and political participation. The burocratic centralization and rubber-stamping within the system lead to ossification and hindered any real democratic engagement.
  6. Restrictions on Cultural Expression: Over time, the USSR shifted from promoting local cultures to a subtle #russification process, causing cultural homogenization and dissatisfaction among non-Russian ethnic groups. Similar repressive policies existed in other socialist states like Albania.
  7. Deportations: The forced relocation of ethnic groups during World War II was a severe and unnecessary measure. While intended to prevent collaboration with the enemy, these actions fermented long-term harm and discontent.
  8. Purges: The purges in the USSR, aimed at eliminating a fifth column, were based on social paranoia and a flawed assessment, this led to widespread fear and instability. The failure to initially prevent the formation of such internal threats was a significant oversight.
  9. Limitations of Planning: Early economic planning in the USSR was hampered by the lack of advanced computational tools, limiting the complexity and effectiveness of this planing. Despite the advent of computers, the potential of democratic planning systems was not realized.
  10. Profit Reorientation: Transitioning enterprises to a profit-based system under Khrushchev led to a shift in priorities that confused socialist principles. This move fostered a capitalist mindset and contributed to the growing inefficiencies and corruption.
  11. Ossification of Party Leadership: The “power politics” of the ageing leadership within the Soviet government stifled innovation and responsiveness. More horizontals, younger, more dynamic paths were needed to maintain the vitality and adaptability of this socialist experiment.
  12. The Comintern: The centralized and bureaucratised coordination of international socialist movements by the Comintern had its drawbacks, such as imposing strategies that were not suitable for all member nations. A more horizontal and flexible approach could have mitigated these issues.
  13. Over-Bureaucratization: Bureaucracy and ossification within socialist states led to inefficiencies and resistance to change. Healthy grassroots #DIY culture could have streamlined administrative structures and reducing redundant positions that would have improved governance and responsiveness.
  14. Sovietization of Socialist Experience: The replication of burocratic Soviet methods in other socialist countries led to inappropriate policies and practices. Each nation needed to critically assess and adapt strategies to their unique contexts.

This vertical path has much to tell us if we are interested in taking a more horizontal path. Let’s try not to simply repeat this history, “don’t be a prat” comes to mind on taking this path.

This post was inspired by this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSZRkhynXU worth a watch and informed from this https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1eb8hby/what_can_we_learn_from_the_actual_history_of/ its needs some more updating, comments please.

We need pathways to sustainable, equitable and just societies

The idea of mixing capitalism and socialism in a “fluffy” path is proposed as a solution to the shortcomings of both systems. This notion is especially popular among well-meaning liberals who point to European social democracies as examples of successful mixed economies. However, any deeper examination reveals contradictions and challenges inherent in attempting to merge these fundamentally opposing systems.

Capitalism vs. Socialism: The Fundamental Contradiction

Capitalism is characterized by private property, markets, and the private ownership of capital. It operates on exploitative wage labour, where workers sell their labour power to capitalists, who, in turn, use this labour to create commodities sold in capitalist markets. The primary goal is profit maximization, this leads to class divisions: the capitalist class (a small, wealthy minority) and the working class (the huge majority who sell their labour).

Socialism, on the other hand, advocates for the communal ownership of the means of production, such as land, resources, and factories. It emphasizes worker control and management of enterprises, aiming for a society where economic decisions are made democratically to serve the needs of the majority. Socialism seeks to abolish wage labour and private property in favour of collective ownership and cooperative management.

The Mixed Economy Myth

Proponents of a mixed economy argue that integrating elements of both systems can harness the benefits of capitalism (such as innovation and efficiency) while mitigating its downsides (like inequality and exploitation) through socialist policies (like social safety nets and public services). However, this view is blind to the deeper ideological and practical conflicts between capitalism and socialism.

  1. Incompatibility of Goals: Capitalism thrives on competition, profit, and private ownership, which inherently leads to inequality and exploitation. Socialism eliminates these foundations by promoting equality, collective ownership, and cooperation. Trying to mix these systems results in a compromised form of capitalism rather than any genuine blend.
  2. Social Democracy: Often cited as successful examples of mixed economies, European social democracies (e.g., Scandinavian countries) actually represent capitalism with extensive welfare states rather than hybrids of capitalism and socialism. These countries maintain capitalist structures of private ownership and markets while providing comprehensive social services funded through taxation. Historically, the rise of social democracy was influenced by the threat of socialism, leading capitalist states to adopt welfare measures to appease the working class and avoid revolutionary upheaval.
  3. Sustainability Issues: The concessions of social democracy are unsustainable in the long run within a capitalist framework. As capitalism requires constant growth and profit maximization, social programs are frequently under threat of cuts, especially during economic downturns. The capitalist class has a vested interest in reducing welfare spending to increase profits, leading to a erosion of social benefits over time.

The Role of Imperialism

An often overlooked aspect of social democracies is their reliance on imperialist exploitation. Wealthy nations frequently sustain their high living standards and social programs through economic relationships that exploit poorer countries. This global inequality allows rich nations to enjoy the benefits of capitalism and socialism-like welfare simultaneously, but it perpetuates global injustice and dependency.

Moving Beyond the Mixed Economy

For those who seek to address the issues of capitalism, the solution lies not in a superficial mix but in a fundamental restructuring towards socialism. This involves:

  • Democratizing the Economy: Shifting control of enterprises from private owners to workers and communities.
  • Abolishing Wage Labour: Ensuring that all workers benefit directly from the fruits of their labour, rather than enriching a small capitalist class.
  • Prioritizing Human Needs: Redirecting economic activity to meet the needs of the majority rather than the profit motives of a few.

Conclusion

While the idea of mixing capitalism and socialism might seem appealing to our more progressive #mainstreaming crew, it ultimately fails to address the root contradictions between these systems. Socialism involves a profound transformation of economic and social relations, to build a path to a society based on equality, cooperation, and democratic control.

They are different projects, we need pathways towards this equitable and just society https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

#spiky #fluffy # socialdemocracy #MixedEconomy

A radical view of the Palestine

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is messy and complex. Let’s look at this from a radical perspective, where it is seen as a struggle against settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, with ongoing systemic injustice.

The Radical View of the Palestine Story

  1. Historical Context
    • Colonial Legacy: The establishment of Israel in 1948 was a settler colonial project. This is likened to European colonialism in Africa and the Americas, where indigenous populations were displaced by settlers.
    • Ethnic Cleansing: The Nakba, or “catastrophe,” tells the story of the mass displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel. Over 700,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes, a process of ethnic cleansing.
  2. Ongoing Occupation
    • Military Occupation: The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in Israel occupying the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. This occupation is illegal under international law.
    • Settler Expansion: Israeli settlements in the West Bank are a continuation of the colonial project, with land being taken from Palestinians to build homes for Israeli settlers. This agen is illegal under international law.
  3. Systemic Injustice
    • Apartheid: Radicals describe the situation as apartheid, with separate legal systems and rights for Jewish Israelis and Palestinians, akin to South African apartheid.
    • Human Rights Violations: Regular reports of human rights abuses, including home demolitions, arbitrary arrests, and restrictions on movement, highlight the ongoing systemic oppression.

Key Points of Advocacy

  1. Education and Awareness
    • Understanding the history and current realities is crucial. This includes debunking myths perpetuated by #mainstreaming media agendas.
  2. Active Participation
    • Demonstrations and Protests: Being present at demonstrations shows solidarity and helps raise awareness. “Spiky” direct action on the economic supports for the occupation is also a needed and affective strategy.
    • Join Organizations: Support or join “Fluffy” organizations that work towards Palestinian liberation and human rights, such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
  3. Support and Solidarity
    • Charity and Aid: Donate to grassroots organizations helping Palestinian refugees and those affected by the conflict. Work in this area.
    • Political Advocacy: Pressure governments to hold Israel accountable for human rights violations and to support Palestinian self-determination.

Conclusion

The radical view of the Palestine story emphasizes the importance of understanding the conflict through the daily reality of colonialism and systemic injustice. From this view, education, direct action, active participation, and support for Palestinian self-determination are key to contributing to the movement. That arming yourself with knowledge and standing in solidarity, people can help combat the ongoing crimes against humanity in Palestine.