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

The West’s Climate-Catastrophe is “native” to the mess we are in

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.

The current mess making, media coverage, of tribal struggles in the Middle East

What Should New Leftists Do?

This is a guide for more vertically inclined activists to work with more horizontal activism, for an active fluffy/spiky debate to become a part of communities of action.

1. Pursue an Education

  • Technical Focus: Aim for education with a technical edge. History shows that post-revolutionary societies often face a “brain drain” where technical specialists are in short supply. Your expertise in fields like engineering, data management, or medical professions can significantly contribute to building and sustaining socialist structures.

2. Read Theory

  • Start with the Classics: Familiarize yourself with foundational texts. This provides a grounding in revolutionary theory, essential for understanding and contributing to socialist movements.
  • Expand Your Scope: Include the wider ideological views and analyses to understand broader socio-political contexts and avoid the pitfalls of blinded dogmatic thinking.
  • Keep Updated: Marxism is a good place to start, as this should evolve with material conditions. Engage with contemporary economic analyses and critiques to stay informed and engaged.

3. Join an Organization

  • Collective Action: Alone, your impact is limited. Joining an affective organized affinity group and more formalised structures allows for effective mass work, community organizing, and political activism.
  • Emulate Successful Models: Look to historical “spiky” examples like the #BlackPanthers, #climatecamp, #indymedia for strategies in organization and community support. Build from this working past rather than what is transitory #fahernista agenda of the moment.
  • Be Theoretically Grounded: Having a solid theoretical understanding ensures you maintain a coherent line to avoid the sway of #fahernista and less radical, “fluffy” groups.

4. keep fit

  • Practical Skill: Learn affective on the ground direct action skills. This isn’t about lifestyle aggressive posturing but understanding the practicalities and being able to act affectively when the need arises.
  • Productive Hobby: Engaging in activities like climbing and outdoor skills can be both fun and provide a basic understanding of tactics and having the ability to actually fallow through.

5. Tone Down the Zeal

  • Stay Calm and Reasoned: Activism’s power lies in its reasonable analysis of capitalism. Be a good representative by engaging calmly and constructively.
  • Avoid Overzealousness: Focus on productive activities, grassroots alternatives, focus on reading and community work rather than getting into the “deaf” heated debates that will alienate potential allies.

6. Left Unity

  • Critical Approach: Unity isn’t always feasible or desirable. Avoid “blindly” uniting with groups like social democrats who aim to reform rather than dismantle capitalism.
  • Strategic Alliances: Work with groups sharing fundamental goals (e.g., Marxist, anarchists) on common issues, but recognize and respect theoretical differences.
  • Class Unity: Emphasize class consciousness and solidarity over broad political unity. Focus on practical collaboration on issues like green alternatives, aiding the homeless, fighting fascism, and exposing corruption ect.

Conclusion

The journey of a new leftist involves continuous education, practical engagement, and strategic organization. Balancing zeal with reasonableness and focusing on class unity help effective contributing to the activist and socialist movement. Always be prepared to adapt and learn, as the struggle for a fairer world is complex and ever-evolving. A good thing to remember is “don’t be a prat” and you should be able to hold to an affective path.

Activist History: A Balanced Approach

Activist history is often marred in sectarianism. This fragmentation means that often the most contentious and least effective voices dominate the narrative, overshadowing the efforts of those who were diligently work on the ground.

Addressing the Challenges

To tell the story of activist history accurately and fairly, we need to work to overcome the following challenges:

  1. Sectarianism and Ideological Divisions: Recognize and address the ideological differences that have historically divided movements. While acknowledging these differences, it is important to focus on the common goals and achievements of all the activists.
  2. Visibility of Voices: Ensure that the voices of those who are/were actively engaged in the work are heard. Often, these individuals are too busy with their activism to document their contributions, resulting in a skewed historical record contributed by the academics and #fahernistas who do have the time.
  3. Comprehensive Documentation: Create a balanced and inclusive archive that captures the diversity of experiences and contributions within the movement. This includes documenting the perspectives of those who were on the frontlines, as well as those who played supporting roles.

Strategies for a Balanced Historical Record

  1. Inclusive Archiving: Encourage all activists, regardless of their role or prominence, to contribute to the archive. This can be facilitated through workshops and training sessions on how to document and share their experiences.
  2. Oral Histories and Podcasts: Record oral histories and podcasts with activists who may not have had the time or resources to document their contributions. These recordings can provide valuable first-hand accounts and insights into the movement.
  3. Decentralized Storytelling: Allow multiple narratives to coexist within the archive. By decentralizing the storytelling process, we can ensure that no single faction or ideology dominates the historical record.
  4. Focus on Issues: Highlight the issues and achievements rather than the personalities within the movement. This helps to shift the focus from individual egos to the collective goals and successes of the movement.
  5. Community Involvement: Involve the community in the archiving process. By engaging a diverse group of people in the documentation effort, we can capture a more holistic and representative history.

By addressing the challenges of sectarianism and ensuring the inclusion of diverse voices, #MakingHistory can create a rich and balanced archive that accurately reflects the efforts and achievements of past and present activists. 

We have a #OMN tech project for this https://opencollective.com/open-media-network/projects/makinghistory

A Positive View Of Current Trends

The challenges we face today: #climatechaos, inequality, and the social impacts of #dotcons technology are a creating a very real social mess. However, there is a potential for a positive transformation if we push the power of #openweb and technology and align it with progressive and radical grassroots politics.

Addressing Climate Change with Technology and Revolutionary change

  • Renewable Energy: Solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources are becoming more than cost-effective and widespread. With strong political will, we can transition to a carbon-neutral economy. By reducing consumption and shifting this energy balance, we take a step to mitigating some of the effects of climate change.
  • Climate Resilience: Investment in both physical and social climate resilience infrastructure, flood defences and mediation, sustainable agriculture. This will shape and can protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems as we weather this transition. On the digital side, federation is a big step towards more #p2p native infrastructure, which will help to mediate the failing of our overly centralise #dotcons world.

Leveraging Automation for Social Good

  • Reducing Work Hours: Automation reduces the need for human labour, allowing for shorter work weeks and more leisure time without reducing productivity. This leads to improved quality of life and wider social and mental health benefits.
  • Universal Basic Income: #UBI provides a financial base for building sustainable alternatives, ensuring that wider groups benefits from increased productivity and technological advancements, rather than a few.

Ensuring Equitable Access to Resources and Services

  • Universal Basic Services: By providing free and universal access to essential services such as healthcare, education, housing, and public transport, can create a more equitable society where people has the opportunity to thrive and build social good.
  • Socialized Finance: Redirecting financial resources from speculative markets to socially beneficial projects ensures that investments are made in areas that improve public well-being and infrastructure.

Fostering a Culture of Innovation and Inclusion

  • Inclusive Policy Making: Ensuring that marginalized communities have a voice in policymaking leads to more equitable and just outcomes. Participatory democracy and community-led tech initiatives like the #OGB drive inclusive development and the needed social change.
  • Education and Retraining: As the job paths shift, providing education and retraining opportunities helps workers transition to new roles, ensuring that fewer people are left behind.

Utilizing Technology for Global Collaboration and Problem-Solving

  • Global Cooperation: Harnessing digital technology for international collaboration to address global challenges more effectively. Federated platforms for knowledge sharing and joint initiatives leads to real solutions for climate change, health, and economic development.
  • Data for Good: Using #openweb data analytics to address social issues leads to more effective public planing, policies and resource allocation.

Conclusion: A Vision of Hope, In Tech

There is a potential for a positive future when we combine technological innovation with radical progressive politics and a commitment to social equity. By addressing #climatechange, leveraging automation, ensuring food security, and providing universal access to essential services, we could build a wider world of opportunity and basic justice.

This vision needs us to reimagine our current systems and prioritize human well-being over profit. With the right policies and collective action, we can turn today’s challenges into opportunities for basic survival and a better global society.

You can support one technological project for this here https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Why We Need the Open Media Network (#OMN)

The Challenge of Mainstream Media

#Mainstreaming media is dominated by establishment interests that have perfected the art of propaganda. This media landscape is highly effective at brainwashing the public, making it difficult to foster a social and political change and challenge. Without altering this media ecology, progressive movements stand little chance against the overwhelming influence of #traditionalmedia.

#openweb “native” progressive media plays a crucial role in countering this propaganda. It empowers people by amplifying their voices and holding those in power accountable.

The Necessity of Alternative Media

  1. Independent Reporting: Progressive media platforms operate without the influence of corporate forces, advertisements, or outside money. This independence allows them to challenge the prevailing narratives and offer alternative perspectives.
  2. Amplifying Voices: These #openweb platforms provide a space for voices that are ignored or suppressed by mainstream media. This inclusivity is vital for a healthy democratic discourse.
  3. Fighting Misinformation: By breaking the media narrative that fosters fear and conflict, progressive media helps to create a more informed and engaged public.
  4. Empowering Movements: For progressive movements to succeed, they need a media infrastructure that supports their goals. Progressive media acts as a crucial pillar in this infrastructure, offering the tools, networking and platforms necessary for advocacy and change.

The Role of the Open Media Network (OMN)

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is essential for building a new media ecosystem that supports progressive change. Here’s why:

  1. Decentralized Control: OMN aims to create a decentralized media network, reducing the control of media oligopolies and increasing the diversity of voices and perspectives.
  2. Community-Driven: OMN empowers communities to produce and share their content, fostering a democratic and participatory media landscape.
  3. Transparency and Accountability: By adhering to principles like open data, open source, and open processes, OMN ensures transparency and accountability in media production and distribution.
  4. Sustainability: OMN can provide a sustainable model for progressive media by leveraging community support and funding mechanisms. This financial independence is crucial for maintaining editorial integrity.

The current media environment is heavily skewed towards establishment interests, making it difficult for progressive movements to gain any traction. Progressive #openweb media outlets are crucial in challenging this status quo by offering independent, accountable, and inclusive reporting. The Open Media Network (OMN) is pushes to building a, decentralized media ecosystem that empowers communities and fosters genuine democratic discourse. Supporting these initiatives is vital for the success of progressive movements worldwide.

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

Why Mainstreaming Politics is Crap

Today’s left-wing politics, represented by figures like Biden, Stammer and Macron, has devolved into a form of centrism that tries to balance market interests with bureaucratic oversight. This blend results in policies that are neither here nor there, failing to inspire or facilitate any genuine change or challenge. The only real appeal of this kind of politics is that it’s “better than the alternative,” often perceived as extreme right-wing or fascist ideologies.

This centrist approach, sometimes referred to as the “extreme centre” is fundamentally immoderate. Moderates, or centrist politicians, lack positive arguments and real vision. They focus on pragmatism and compromise, reducing politics to a series of performative acts rather than any democratic outcomes. This lack of compelling vision makes centrism unappealing and devoid of substantive change.

Figures like Obama and Tony Blear were “successful” because they projected an image of visionary leadership, though, in reality, their vision was about maintaining the status quo through pragmatism and compromise. This kind of leadership is a performance of having a vision rather than the actual implementation of transformative ideas we need.

There is a symbiotic relationship between centrist politicians and right-wing populists. Right-wing leaders like Trump, Farage and Johnson adopt a persona of being a “yokel” or an “idiot,” which elicits scorn from the educated classe. This dynamic appeals to those who resent the cultural #mainstreaming, creating an “us vs. them” mentality. Voters feeling marginalized by the #mainstreaming mess and disdain find solace in supporting these populist figures as a #blinded form of “rebellion”.

Right-wing populists perform a caricature of fascism or idiocy to appeal to their base, while centrist politicians push a veneer of moral superiority. This dynamic creates a dichotomy, where voters feel compelled to choose between two unappealing options. Both sides thrive on this manufactured conflict, ensuring their ongoing mutual dominance in the political paths.

The media plays a significant role in this flawed system. The upcoming UK election demonstrates that mainstream media is not a reliable ally for the public. There is a pressing need for alternative media that amplifies diverse voices and present genuine political options outside the false dichotomy of centrism and right-wing populism.

Mainstream politics today, dominated by a centrist approach, lacking vision and substance, is inherently flawed. The symbiotic relationship between centrist politicians and right-wing populists creates a political landscape that stifles progress and any needed change and challenge. To compost this mess, it is crucial to foster alternative media like the #OMN alongside social and political movements that offer real, transformative paths and solutions.

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

#KISS

The Urgent Need for Climate Action

The mess we build when public’s attention is being deliberately diverted by those in power. They want us to focus on national borders and other divisive issues, preventing us from addressing the real crisis #climatechange. This distraction tactic is designed to benefit the class who continue to profit from the destruction of our planet.

As we approach, another election, the insidious #deathcult ideologies offered by the main political parties have gutted life for the majority, while vile conmen exploit our ignorance and anger, distracting us with racism and hate. To hide the underlying economic warfare waged against us by predatory capitalism.

We are at the most perilous point in human history. Future generations, if they survive the coming decades, will look back and think us insane for not having climate scientists and progressive agenda leading our countries. Instead, we allow fossil fuel agendas to dictate our policies.

Figures like Farage are human smoke bombs, generating clouds of xenophobia and culture wars to hide the economic exploitation pushed by the capital that funds their campaigns. Farage’s vision of a future is filled with labour shortages, crumbling public services, and deepened societal divisions.

The fight against climate change is fraught with challenges, from powerful economic interests to political distractions. However, the voices of activists, scientists, and concerned people highlight the urgent need for action.

By pushing #KISS core issues and building grassroots #DIY alternatives as seeds to prioritize the planet, we can try to mitigate/weather the worst impacts of this growing global crisis.

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