The Battle for the Internet: Open vs. Closed

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

The #OpenWeb

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

The #OpenWeb emphasizes the #4opens: open source, open data, open standards, and open process. It walks the path of creativity and collective creation, and is closely associated with “native geek culture” alongside radical/anarchist libertarian thinking. Social interactions are visible, promoting accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

The #ClosedWeb

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

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

The Internet’s “native” Potential

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

From the #OpenWeb perspective:

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

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

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

The Battleground for Openness

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

The #GeekProblem

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

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

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

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

Open vs Closed in Tech

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

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

The real fear of Closed Systems

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

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

Historical examples

Diaspora vs. RSS Networks:

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

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

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

Ideological Perspectives

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

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

Anarchism: Promotes the dismantling of hierarchical structures and champions radical #4opens with decentralization. Anarchists advocate for fully open systems, minimizing any form of “hard” centralized control.

Questions to Consider

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

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

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

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

The discussion about open versus closed is not only technical but rooted in sociopolitical ideologies and ideas of human nature. By understanding these perspectives and implications, we can advocate for the #openweb, to build up this vibrant, inclusive, and innovative space. This needs a thoughtful consideration of historical contexts, current challenges, and future possibilities, always with an eye toward preserving the #4opens that make our internet beneficial for society, not just the few greedy monsters that are destroying what we value, life.

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

#mainstreaming counter-cultures

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

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

Sustaining Cultural Integrity: The challenge lies in maintaining the native culture of these spaces while expanding their reach. The inclusion of diverse voices and broader participation is essential for growth, but it needs to be balanced with the preservation of #4opens foundational path for the value to have the maximum impact that we need.

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

Critical Stance: it should be obvious that #mainstreaming without holding the original #4opens and #DIY ethos in place is a bad path. There is growing need for vigilance and action to safeguard these spaces from being co-opted and over commercialized.

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

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

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

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

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

Tension, Open and Closed Web

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

The collaborative, #openweb: Rooted in #DNA of post apocalyptical internet code and culture, this vision is of a network for collaboration, sharing, and free exchange of information. Built for use in a world of abundance of information, free as in free beer. Emphasizes #4opens, creativity, and collective creation, associated with “native geek culture” and what can be understood as radical/anarchist libertarian thinking.

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

The Internet inherent democratization and egalitarianism allows everyone to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with the pushing of commercial control, to monetize user data and interactions. This #open path empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional gatekeepers. The web transforms education and information access to synthesizing vast resources needed for a different view of society. From the #closedweb prospective, you have fear, simply fear.

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

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

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

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

We need to compost the current culture of lying

The Fediverse is “native” to Anarchism

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

What is Anarchism?

There are forms of anarchism, some well-known:

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

This has a long and varied history, with roots in liberalism and socialism.

Anarchism in Action

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

History of Anarchism

Some old dead figures and movements include:

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

Arguments for Anarchism

Supporters of anarchism emphasize:

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

Arguments Against Anarchism

Critics of anarchism raise concerns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please keep this path #KISS

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

People think in groups, this is natural

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

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

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

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

Philanthropy, praising billionaires, underscores the mess

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

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

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

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

#Charity #poor #capitalism

Nuanced understanding of class, emphasizing shared interests and collective struggle

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

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

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

#KISS

Toxic Positivity

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

The Myth of the Temporarily Embarrassed Billionaire

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

The Rejection of Toxic Positivity

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

The Commodification of Purpose

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

The American Dream and Meritocracy

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

The Realities of the Corporate Grind

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

Conclusion

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

Utopia

Let’s try and reclaim some words, 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 #apocalyptic paths, given the current state of the world.

With the growth of #deathcult worshipping, the end of history was declared 40 years ago, equating our current social and economic 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 what should be obvious to any thinking person – #deathcult

However, we’re so deeply in to everyday “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 is a consensus, 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 sells 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 current system is a tiny step in human history, that human social 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 an 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 social 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, the #OMN is building real world #openweb native alternatives, together we can be this step.

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?

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.
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.
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.
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.
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

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

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

Money Spending

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

Hope and Motivation

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