Bad conversations in #FOSS and tech

A lot of our public discourse has reached the stage where it might be worth thinking about it as a mental health issue, and that after the “common sense” worshipping of the #deathcult for 40 years, this becomes escalating hard to mediate. This post is about a summing up of this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/foss/comments/1e5vhif/crisis_of_governance_in_foss_medieval_politics/ on Reddit where I posted the text of one of a blog posts on #FOSS and the need to move away from medieval governance.

The is very little if any constructive dialogue, instead we have #blocking, simply ignoring, participants selectively address certain points while neglecting others. This creates an incomplete dialogue and fails to engage with the actual scope of the argument. Example: If someone ignores the historical context and current challenges within FOSS governance structures, they miss why the proposed changes are necessary. Belittling involves dismissing or undermining arguments or concerns, which shuts down dialogue and discourage participation. Example: Dismissing the discussion of governance in FOSS as “unreadable” or “spammy” without engaging with the substance or argument. Nitpicking, focusing on minor details and errors rather than engaging with the main points, derails the conversation and prevent meaningful discussion. Example: focusing on correcting typos or minor factual errors without addressing the argument for the need for governance changes in FOSS projects. StrawMan, misrepresenting the argument to make it easier to attack, distorts the discussion and leads to unproductive debate. Example: Suggesting that advocating for more structured governance in FOSS is equivalent to demanding strict corporate-like control, which misrepresents the argument for more democratic and community-driven governance.

Reasons for these messy behaviours: Ideological Differences: People have strong beliefs about what is “common sense” and react defensively to suggestions that change/challenge this. This misunderstanding grows the lack of understanding of the historical context and the specifics of the proposed changes that feedbacks misinformed critiques that that keeps building resistance to change. Yes, change is uncomfortable, and people resist it by dismissing or undermining new paths, ideas please? Communication Style: The style of communication can be off-putting and confusing for in and out groups, leading to reactions that focus on form rather than addressing any substance.

Why this matters: There is a crisis of governance in #FOSS, Aristocratic Hierarchies and Monarchical Leadership pushes the concentration of power among a few maintainers and leaders, this lowers community building and buy in. Medieval Governance structures are medieval political systems, It’s obviously unfit for the modern world, let’s look at why we have this mess: #Neoliberal individualism and its failures, #stupidindividualism breeds the focus on individualism, which undermines collaboration and community-driven efforts in FOSS. This fixation with market-driven development rather than community needs result on one hand in less innovative and user-friendly software, and on the other in #dotcons control and exploitation. Feeding the #techchurn and #geekproblem insular and exclusionary culture.

Addressing issues of ignoring, belittling, nitpicking, and straw man arguments push back productive dialogue. Solutions to this current path, democratizing decision-making, the path of transparent and inclusive governance models like the #OGB to build community-concentric approaches, like #indymediaback and #makeinghistory. To make this work, let’s try shifting to focus on to community needs over individuals ambition and market demands. Cultivate an inclusive culture that values diverse perspectives and considers different social, cultural, and economic paths.

Why the pushing of #AI is more #techshit

The #stupidindividualism of the Silicon Valley’s ideology, around tech-driven libertarianism and as our chattering classes say “hyper-individualism”, is spreading social mess and #techshit, we need shovels to compost. It’s now clear that these anti #mainstreaming ‘solutions’ create more problems than they attempt to solve, particularly in terms of social breakdown and environmental damage. The utopian nightmares of tech billionaires collapse under the weight of on rushing real-world challenges. This should make visible to more of us the #geekproblem, the limits of technocratic fixes. The lies under the once-promised technological mediated future of freedom and innovation has been shown to be control and chaos, this should make it obvious that we need to take different paths away from the Silicon Valley’s delusion.

A podcast from of our weak liberals on the subject of #AI https://flex.acast.com/audio.guim.co.uk/2024/07/15-61610-gnl.sci.20240715.eb.ai_climate.mp3 a #mainstreaming view of the mess we are making on this path. The big issue is not the actual “nature” of AI, though that is not without issues. What I am covering here is that #AI is reinforcing existing power structures and socioeconomic realities, #neoliberal ideology and historical bias. This is driven by the goals of enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and maximizing profits by increased surveillance, this in itself should raise ethical concerns about privacy and freedoms, that the #geekproblem so often justifies under the guise of security.

We need to think about this: AI systems trained on data from the past 40 years are inherently biased by the socio-political context of that period, perpetuating what are now outdated and obsolete beliefs. This historical bias locks in narrow ideological paths, particularly those associated with #neoliberalism and our 40 years worshipping at this #deathcult. This is not only a problem with AI, its a wider issue, we continue to prioritize economic growth over social and environmental paths, with the resent election victory in the UK, the Labour Party’s is pushing the normal #mainstreaming established during the #Thatcher era, in this we see past ideologies continue to shape current #mainstreaming political paths, the tech simply reinforces this.

It’s hard to know what path to take with this mess. Ethical frameworks like the #4opens and regulatory oversight to guide the responsible use of AI might help. By addressing the current mess and challenges, we might be able to work towards an AI path that reflects diverse perspectives and serves a more common good rather than reinforcing narrow #deathcult litany and hard right ideological paths this grows, which is the current default path. Recognizing and addressing the challenges in AI development is the first step towards the change we need to challenge, us, to compost this social mess and heaps of #techshit we have created, that shapes us.

A Critique of “fluffy” Leftist and Progressive #AI Paths

UPDATE: An academic talking about this has just come out https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.18417

Communication barriers, lead to a lack of awareness

The #fashernista-driven path pushes aside grassroots and #openweb movements due to misalignment agendas. The #fashernists are driven by #mainstreaming agendas that end up co-opt grassroots initiatives, then systematizing them in ways that dilute their “original native” paths, intent and value. This mess leads to #techchurn and a continuous cycle of superficial innovation that does nothing to address real issues at all.

This #blocking of communication leads to a lack of awareness of people involved in these movements, understanding of the history and principles underlying the #KISS grassroots and #openweb paths. With the #fediverse, decentralization is a core principle, though it often leads to difficulties in coordination and collective decision-making. This in hand with the “common sense” #mainstreaming people resistances to adopting new models of governance and cooperation like the #OGB pushes the current mess and #techcurn mess we live in.

Proposed solutions to this path, build and support authentic projects, like the #OMN and #OGB etc. To foster collaborative governance and inclusive decision-making, start with small-scale pilot projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of collaborative governance and build “test” decentralized development. Then use these projects (with federation) as models for larger initiatives, rinse and repeat, it’s a #KISS path. This leads to the cultivation of a community of resilience and nurtures infrastructure that is robust and adaptable, capable of withstanding pressures and disruptions.

Part of this path needs to challenge #mainstreaming narratives with alternative progressive media (#indymediaback) providing a counter-story, pushing this feedback loop to highlight successes and innovations within the grassroots and #openweb movements.

Also using the #4opens as a path to encourage critical engagement with #geekproblem and #dotcons projects, questioning their alignment with grassroots values and pushing for accountability and transparency to move people off these paths.

Let’s start embracing the composting of #techshit to turn the current mess into fertile ground for new #openweb growth and innovation. Let’s pick up our shovels and building the change and challenge that is so obviously needed, and please try not to be a prat, thanks.

“The work of the anarchist is above all a work of critique. The anarchist goes, sowing revolt against that which oppresses, obstructs, opposes itself to the free expansion of the individual being.”
— Emile Armand

Crisis of Governance in FOSS: Medieval Politics and Neoliberal Failures

Silicon Valley influence is significant and with the globe hegemony of the #dotcons every where, the concentration of power and resources among a few #dotcons raises issues about democracy, equity, and control. With this in mind, we need a strong push and for meany people a fundamental rethink and restructuring of how we approach technology, governance, and real community building.

The open-source and free software communities, despite their progressive foundations, are marred by outdated governance structures that are at base medieval aristocracy and monarchy. This, compounded by the problematic mediation attempts through #neoliberal individualism, results in a stagnation of innovation and collaboration that highlights the #geekproblem within these communities.

Medieval governance in modern tech, aristocratic hierarchies are the core in most open-source projects, decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of a few “maintainers” or “core developers.” These individuals hold their positions for long periods, leading to a de facto aristocracy, with the same people in control and influencing the paths of projects big and small. Monarchical leadership is core to meany, led by “charismatic” leaders whose word becomes law. This monarch-like leadership stifle dissent and discourage fresh contributors, as the projects revolves around the vision and whims of a single individual, in the #fediverse an example is the #Mastodon codebase.

Neoliberal Individualism and Its Failures

#StupidIndividualism is a part of #neoliberalism, which promotes a form of individualism emphasizesing self-interest and competition over collaboration and community. This mindset infiltrates open-source communities, leading to fragmented efforts and a lack of cohesive or even any vision. This “common sense” market-driven development infects open-source projects that are pushed by market demands rather than community needs. The results are software that prioritizes “control”over usability and any innovation.

The #techshit and #geekproblem

#techshit, a term that reflects the use of #dotcons and #FOSS which proliferates, poorly designed, unmaintained, and redundant software projects that clutter the open-source paths.
#geekproblem, refers to the insular and exclusionary culture within tech communities. It includes issues like poor communication, lack of diversity, and a focus on technical prowess over collaborative skills.

Moving Towards Modern Governance

Democratizing Decision-Making: Shifting from aristocratic and monarchical structures to more democratic governance can help. This includes implementing transparent decision-making processes, rotating leadership roles, and widerning voices that are heard.

Community-Centric Approaches: Prioritizing community needs over individual ambitions and market demands leads to more sustainable and impactful projects. This involves active engagement with users and contributors to understand their needs and incorporate their feedback.

Embracing Diversity: Cultivating an inclusive culture that values diverse perspectives address the #geekproblem. This means actively working to include wider groups in tech and fostering a collaborative rather than competitive environment.

Holistic thinking: Moving beyond the neoliberal framework requires a holistic approach to mediation that considers social, cultural, and economic factors. This includes spaces for dialogue, conflict resolution mechanisms, and support systems for contributors.

Conclusion, to move forward, we need to shed the medieval political structures and #neoliberal individualism to make space to embracing democratic governance, community-centric paths, diversity so that communities can mediate the #techshit and #geekproblem, paving the way for a more collaborative and native #openweb.

Grassroots in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths

The discussions surrounding grassroots movements within tech communities should be entwined with social themes, such as #neoliberalism and #postmodernism. As these ideologies shape what is considered “common sense” and create real barriers to introducing alternative viewpoints and practices that we need. Within this conversation, progressive grassroots initiatives need to counteract these dominant paradigms, but instead they frequently face challenges both from within and outside their communities.

The concept of #mainstreaming refers to the process where dominant ideologies and practices become the accepted norm, marginalizing alternative perspectives. This current mainstreaming is driven by the forces of neoliberalism, emphasizes market-driven solutions and (stupid) individualism, and (zombie) postmodernism, that both foster a sense of scepticism and relativism. Together, these forces create a “common sense” that is actively hostile to grassroots progressive initiatives.

Let’s look at a few of the “surface issue” faced by Grassroots Movements:

Perception of Spam: As highlighted in #socialhub experiences, grassroots advocates face accusations of spamming when they consistently share links and resources to support #KISS arguments. This perception can stem from a purposeful misunderstanding of the intent behind sharing information, which is actually to provide context and facilitate basic understanding.
Resistance to Alternative Views: When #mainstreaming ideas are challenged, the response is often, hostile, defensive and then dismissive. This resistance is rooted in cognitive dissonance and the threat to personal and collective identities that alternative viewpoints need to pose.
Governance Issues: Effective governance within tech communities is crucial for fostering inclusivity and legitimacy. However, governance processes become contentious, particularly when there are differing visions for the community’s direction and priorities. This is a problem with much of the #feudalism in #FOSS thinking.

Some projects that are designed to mediate these issues

The Open-Media-Network (#OMN) and its associated projects, such as the Open Governance Body (#OGB) and the #4opens framework, represent grassroots efforts to address these challenges. These initiatives aim to create a more democratic and inclusive “trust” based internet by emphasizing transparency, open governance, and community-driven development.

Open Web Governance Body (#OGB): Project focuses on creating governance structures for horizontal projects using simple online tools. By promoting open and inclusive governance, the OGB mitigates the issues caused by #mainstreaming and ensure that grassroots voices are heard and valued.
The #4opens Framework: Advocates for open data, open source, open standards, and open processes. By adhering to these principles, grassroots movements can grow robust defences against co-optation to maintain autonomy and integrity.

What can you do to help:

Build Community and Solidarity: Strengthening ties within the community and fostering a sense of shared purpose to help counteract the fragmentation often caused by dominant ideologies.
Educate and Inform: Providing accessible and compelling information about the benefits of alternative viewpoints and practices to shift perceptions and reduce resistance.
Engage in Dialogue: Creating spaces for open and respectful dialogue can help bridge divides and foster mutual understanding.
Leverage Technology: Utilizing #openweb tools and platforms like the #OMN and wider #Fediverse empower grassroots movements to organize effectively and promote their message to escape the #dotcons echo chambers.

The struggle to establish and maintain grassroots movements within tech communities is ongoing and very messy. By understanding the dynamics of #mainstreaming and employing strategies to counteract its effects, these movements can create more inclusive and democratic spaces. The initiatives by the Open-Media-Network offer real grassroots frameworks and tools for achieving these goals, demonstrating that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can indeed change the world.

Become a part of this movement https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The mess of our “common sense” hard shift to the right – Ukraine

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine exacerbates the influence of far-right groups. The Russia narrative highlights the presence of far-right elements in Ukraine to justify its actions. However, this narrative is used politically rather than in any way sincerely addressing the issue. Western support for Ukraine, primarily aimed at countering Russian aggression, overlooks the rise of far-right groups, this creates a messy dynamic where far-right groups use the conflict to legitimize their actions.

The mess of Ukraine’s socio-political landscape is deeply intertwined with historical legacies, geopolitical tensions, and the resurgence of far-right movements. The far-right in Ukraine traces back to fascist movements such as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its split factions, OUN-B (led by Stepan Bandera) and OUN-M (led by Andriy Melnyk). These groups were terrorist and collaborators with Nazi Germany during WWII. In the post-Soviet turmoil, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, Ukraine, like many post-Soviet states, faced corruption, organized crime, and economic instability. This environment has been fertile ground for far-right ideologies’ growth.

The far-right in modern Ukraine gained significant influence, particularly since the #Euromaidan protests in 2014. Azov Battalion: Initially a paramilitary unit, has become a formal part of the Ukrainian National Guard, with its political wing, National Corps, active nationwide. Azov runs youth programs and community centres, blending patriotic education with far-right ideology. Right Sector: Another prominent far-right group, involved in paramilitary activities and political violence. It has substantial influence despite its relatively small size. Other Groups: Organizations like Centuria and Tradition and Order contribute to the far-right landscape, with Centuria focusing on militant training and Tradition and Order blending ultra-nationalism with Orthodox Christianity.

Political and Social Implications of the integration of the far right into state structures: Far-right groups like Azov have integrated into Ukrainian state structures, receiving state resources and influencing government policies. Youth Mobilization: These groups actively recruit and indoctrinate youth, creating a new generation aligned with their ideologies. Political Violence and Intimidation: Far-right groups regularly engage in political violence and intimidation, targeting minorities and political opponents.

Future Prospects, the entrenchment of far-right groups in Ukrainian politics and society poses significant risks: Without a any left-wing alternative or meaningful efforts to counteract far-right influence, the possibility of a fascist takeover in Ukraine increases. This feeds a dangerous precedent to inspire similar movements globally.

To address these issues, there needs to be a focus on democratic values, countering #fascist ideologies, and fostering political and social alternatives that prioritize humanistic paths. In the digital world, the principles of #4opens (open data, open source, open standards, and open processes), #OGB (Open Governance Body), and #OMN (Open Media Network) are designed to pay a role in mediating mess like this. They are designed to creating a transparent, inclusive, and resilient society. We should actually make technology like this work, you can help https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The Hydrogen Path is #techchurn

Hydrogen is heralded by our conservative crew as a miracle fuel, offering a clean and carbon-free source of energy. By combining hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen, we produce water and energy, a blinded “perfect” solution for fantasy energy needs. However, hydrogen has drawbacks that make its large-scale adoption a #geekproblem dysfunctional fantasy.

Challenges with Hydrogen: Hydrogen needs to be stored under high pressure, requiring expensive infrastructure. It also degrades this infrastructure, the materials it contacts, in use, necessitating specialized storage solutions. Hydrogen is highly volatile and very prone to leaks. Its tendency to evaporate and explode make it difficult to manage safely for any #mainstreaming widespread use.

Energy Conversion Efficiency: The biggest issue with hydrogen is its inefficiency. Energy conversion processes inherently lose energy at each stage. Generating electricity, converting it to hydrogen, storing it, and then converting it back to electricity results in an efficiency of around 30-40%. This is a very bad ecological path to go down, as a significant portion of the original “green” energy is wasted.

Hydrogen as Energy Storage, Hydrogen is pushed as a solution to the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. By using excess renewable energy to produce hydrogen, it can be stored and later converted back to electricity when needed. However, the inefficiency of this process poses a major obstacle. The loss of energy at each conversion stage means that using hydrogen as a storage medium is far less efficient than direct use of the electricity generated. Changing lifestyle to reflect this shifting of energy supply is a much more sensible and sustainable path to take. The pushing of the economic feasibility of hydrogen energy storage is adding to the current mess.

Governmental Strategies and Investments, despite this mess, some countries, like the USA, the UK, and Germany, are pursuing hydrogen strategies. However, much of the progress remains theoretical, with plans significantly outstripping current capabilities. For instance, the International Energy Agency’s data shows a massive gap between existing hydrogen production capacity and future targets, with only a small fraction of these plans having secured funding.

Procrastination and Continued Fossil Fuel Use, one of the most #mainstreaming reason for the hydrogen push is procrastination. By planning to use hydrogen in new power plants, governments can appear to be moving towards greener energy solutions while continuing to rely on fossil fuels. Many of these new plants are designed to run on both hydrogen and natural gas, meaning that in the absence of sufficient hydrogen, they will continue to operate on gas. This approach allows for the continuation of fossil fuel use under the guise of transitioning to green energy.

Conclusion, the current push for hydrogen as an energy solution is adding to the current mess, it’s plagued by challenges and inefficiencies. While hydrogen has potential in specific applications, such as industrial processes, its role in large-scale energy storage and production is limited by practical and economic constraints. The hydrogen economy, in its present form, primarily serves as a way to justify the continued use of fossil fuels rather than an any genuine transition to cleaner energy.

Let us please stop with the lies, thanks.

Beyond Consumerism: Building Trust Through Openness and Action

This pervasive influence of ideology and consumerism in modern society, illustrating how even well-intentioned actions can be co-opted by the systems they aim to resist. It emphasizes the need for genuine, systemic change rather than superficial actions that offer a false sense of contribution.

The problem we need to mediate is everyday consumer choices are framed as meaningful activism, which dilutes real efforts for change. This creates a sense of complacency and false satisfaction, preventing any real systemic challenges that are so obviously needed.

Historical Parallels, the analogy of medieval serfs accepting their lot illustrates how people historically and presently conflate social structures with natural order. Today’s complacency is like the acceptance of feudal systems.

Commodification of values, modern advertising and consumer culture commodify values and identities, making it hard to distinguish genuine activism from consumerist pseudo-activism. This commodification extends to political and social movements, diluting their impact and sincerity.

Real activism requires more than symbolic acts; it demands substantial engagement and thus sacrifice. The #mainstreaming system is designed to neutralize and commodify this dissent, making it difficult for genuine movements to maintain any integrity.

Necessity for radical change, fluffy incremental changes and consumer choices are insufficient to address any deep-rooted systemic issues. A more radical “spiky” collective approach is necessary to challenge and transform the status quo.

Applying These Insights to #OMN projects: Encourage deeper, more meaningful participation from members, beyond just consumer choices or symbolic actions. Promote activities that foster real community building, skill sharing, and collective action.

Maintain ideological integrity, consistently foreground the #4opens principles (Open Process, Open Data, Open Licence, Open Standards) to ensure basic transparency and accountability. Resist the pressure to dilute these principles for broader appeal and convenience.

Educate and raise awareness, use the #OMN platforms to educate about the pitfalls of commodified activism and the importance of genuine systemic change. Highlight historical and contemporary examples of successful radical movements to inspire and inform the crew and wider social groups.

Core to the #OMN is facilitating and support collective actions that address systemic issues, rather than just individualistic or consumer-oriented solutions. Resist commodification, be vigilant against the commodification of the movement that overshadows the core mission. Foster a culture of scepticism towards consumerist solutions and emphasize grassroots, community-driven approaches.

Slogan for #OMN “Beyond Consumerism: Building Trust Through #4opens and Action”

Slogan for #openweb: “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place”

Definitions can be loose; making things overly rigid is a #Geekproblem that fosters conflict.
This is why the #4opens is about interpretation and judgment. The #Fediverse is a vibrant and active #openweb project, currently one of the healthiest “native” parts of this path.

Some “native” examples we are working on:

Principles for #OGB (Open Governance Body) Consensus and Engagement: Decisions are valid only if a wide range of people are involved, ensuring that the collective is the consensus. This prevents any single individual from overpowering the group. Power resides in trust groups, which likely use their influence positively. This #KISS is needed to maintain trust that ensures better outcomes.

Solving technology problems with trust and #4opens: These principles provide a flexible and resilient approach to technological challenges. To repeat, the key role of technology is to maintain trust. To do this, let’s focus on the social path, an example of this would be #PGA (People’s Global Action), that keeping this as a checkpoint helps block #mainstreaming attempts and maintain polite engagement.

Building and maintaining projects needs strong social defaults and hardcoding #4opens. Consistency, keep the #4opens principles at the forefront to prevent dilution during outreach. Building tech from the grassroots level, horizontally, avoids #mainstreaming “common sense” which always leads to burnout and friction. While outreach is essential, the core principles should not be compromised. Focus on community and consensus to ensure broad engagement to maintain trust and effective governance.

These guidelines provide a structured approach to developing and maintaining technology projects that are open, transparent, and community-driven. By emphasizing trust and the #4opens principles, we create a resilient and sustainable path for technological and social change and challenge that is so needed in the era of #climatechaos.

#NGI #NLnet #EU

The European Union: A “spiky” view

As a first step, it’s enlightening to look at the origins of the EU, in post-World War II. The US emerged relatively unscathed and wealthy, where much of the rest of the western world was in ruins. For the USA action was needed to maintain allies and markets against the growing Soviet “threat”, the solution was to clear the “rubble” to push back at this “threat”, the Marshall Plan, pumping over $15 billion into rebuilding European capitalism, to create an anti-Soviet, anti-communist capitalist bloc in Western and Southern Europe.

Rebuilding European Imperialism: With the Marshall Plan, Western and Southern Europe rebuilt capitalism, leading to the formation of cartels, trusts, and syndicates. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), established in 1951, was a precursor to the EU, created to regulate coal and steel industries across borders for maximum profits. This was a monopolist capitalist path, not a progressive internationalist path. This expanded into the European Economic Community (EEC), established in 1957

The Anti-Democratic #EU: The EU, established by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, institutionalizes #neoliberal economic policies that make it impossible for member states to transition towards socialism. These treaties enforce a fundamentalist free market economy, prohibiting state aid, public monopolies, and nationalizations.

It’s important to see the #EU as a product of the “Cold War” rather than only as the progressive force it paints itself as. It should be obvious that this temple to the #deathcult leads “naturally” to privatization and profit maximization and undermining public services and workers’ rights, that creates the messy world we live in today. For balance, there is a “fluffy” side to this https://hamishcampbell.com/tag/eu/

Yes, it’s a mess, ideas please?

Understanding Left-Wing Anti-Communism

In sectors of the left, particularly within the Western left, there’s a trend to deride or outright dismiss socialist experiments, at best these critics debate whether these experiments were “true” socialism. However, the point remains that these experiments attempted to organize society differently from capitalism and succeeded to some extent. They stood as significant threats to global capitalism, which is why the priests of the #deathcult, and its worshippers, demonizes them. Yet, left-wing anti-communists often reject these experiments, dismissing them as perversions of their idealized socialism and claiming there’s nothing to learn from them.

The trend of left-wing anti-communism is supported by “approved” leftist academics and writers like Noam Chomsky and George Orwell. The capitalist establishment supports this with glowing reviews of books that condemn socialism, backed by #mainstreaming institutions. For example, progressive literature on the Bolshevik Revolution tends to glorify its early years but condemns the period afterward, romanticizing the shift and condemning the troubling steps taken to consolidate the revolution in reaction to the very real and strong backlashes.

These left-wing anti-communists lack nuance in their criticisms, they ignore the complexities and harsh “spiky” realities that revolutionary movements faced in the early 20th century. The Bolsheviks, for example, had to build a strong army and internal security apparatus in reaction to our invasions, ration due to our sanctions. Criticizing these actions, while valid, is not helpful without understanding the context, doing this shows a lack of appreciation for the recurring challenges we will face.

The “fluffy” left lionize revolutions that failed because these revolutions never had to contend with the practical challenges of building a stable alternative. This glorification ignores the hardships that successful socialist experiments had to endure and the real, tangible benefits they provided to their societies.

It’s essential to criticize socialist experiments with evidence, good faith, and an understanding of the circumstances. Honest progressives engage in nuanced criticism, unlike those who blankly condemn these movements. It’s worth defending some of the heritage of socialism, while acknowledging its flaws and learning from its lessons. At best, Marxist spaces provide the most scathing and honest criticisms of socialist experiments, aiming for constructive dialogue and improvement rather than wholesale rejection. This balanced approach is infinitely better than denouncing these experiments under superficial pressure from capitalist propaganda.

Left-wing anti-communism is a trend to dislike and disregard almost every socialist experiment. Over the last 40 years the neoliberal world-view replaces trust with fear, when discussing solutions, it’s essential to challenge common sense neoliberal views and advocate for nuanced, evidence-based perspectives. Let’s learn from this history, please.

This post was inspired by this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC2ajsvr0I worth a watch.

A messy job, but with the right tools and approach, we can make progress

The neoliberal world-view is designed to replace trust with greed as the social motivator. Of course, all successful societies are based/built on trust, so neoliberalism is building a #deathcult. The current #climatechaos and social decay are simple to understand outcomes. If you’re wondering why this is useful, it’s an important part of a conversation and an obvious statement that many can agree with. When they do, ask them for solutions. When they inevitably come up with common sense neoliberal mainstream views, you can then gently dismiss these as #deathcult.

For the last 40 years, #neoliberalism and #postmodernism have shaped “common sense” in #mainstreaming society. This has led to behaviours that become hostile when challenged. These behaviours are especially entrenched in our communities, both online and offline, as we are building from activism it’s a challenge to mediate this behaviour to foster better outcomes.

Composting the mess requires empathy, patience, and strategic mediation. By creating activist spaces for dialogue, showcasing success stories, leveraging #4opens tools and principles, and managing defensive reactions effectively, we foster a culture of sustainability, justice, and collaboration.

In the tech, path, the world is so different and so BROKEN now that I have to re-watch and re-read to talk about #OMN stuff now. We forget how broken things have become over the last 40 years… we are all lost in the “common sense” muddle, it’s a mess.

From the #openweb: “A Silicon Valley VC-funded startup succeeds or fails based on how fast it can grow. At the start, it needs YOU to grow. It will put its best face forward and promise to be nice. Once it has grown enough, and it no longer needs you (see: network effects), you have little to no power to affect its behaviour. That’s when you get screwed. Maybe not all at once (see: slowly-boiling frogs) but eventually, sure enough.”

So exercise your power when you have it. At the start. By looking the other way.

Strategies for Effective Mediation

Building Empathy and Patience from the understanding that many people’s world-views have been shaped by decades of dominant #deathcult ideologies. Balance “spiky” confrontational and “fluffy” non-confrontational Language.
Gradual Introduction of Alternative Views: from the “fluffy” path soft prodding, introducing alternative perspectives gently. Use relatable examples and stories to illustrate points, promote small, manageable changes rather than radical shifts. Incremental changes are more likely to be accepted and adopted.
From the “spiky” prospective, it’s sometimes needed to break things to clear space, this activism is a core to this path. We do need space for people to express their views and explore new ideas.
Highlight success stories of grassroots and alternative projects that have achieved real life positive outcomes. Emphasize the visible benefits of these projects in terms of community well-being, environmental sustainability, and social justice.
Leveraging Tools and Principles: #4opens can be used to build tools for community engagement, to mobilize communities around principles of mutual aid, collaboration and shared knowledge.

In conclusion, composting the mess created by 40 years of #neoliberalism and #postmodernism requires empathy, patience, and strategic mediation. By creating activist spaces for dialogue, showcasing success stories, leveraging #4opens tools and principles, and managing defensive reactions effectively, we foster a culture of sustainability, justice, and collaboration. It’s a messy job, but with the right tools and approach, we can make progress. Now, let’s pick up our shovels and get to work.

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