This presentation of the green alternative within capitalism. Recycling and doing better from mine wastes as a B company.
VC funding is flooding into this area.
A moral question, mining copper is a core part of allowing our current dysfunctional society to continue without the needed fundamental change. This is going to kill millions and displace billions of people over the next 50 years due to #climatechaos and ecological and social disintegration.
Question do you think you have moral and practical responsibility in this?
Bringing back the #Indymedia project is essential for several reasons, rooted in its historical significance, its potential for grassroots activism, and the need for independent media platforms. Why we need to revive and support the Indymedia project:
Historical Significance:
Indymedia played a pivotal role in the early 2000s as a decentralized network of independent media collectives. It provided a platform for activists, journalists, and citizens to share news, reports, and perspectives outside of mainstream media channels.
The principles of equality, decentralization, and local autonomy upon which Indymedia was founded are still relevant today. Reviving Indymedia would uphold these principles and continue the legacy of alternative media movements.
Counterbalance to Mainstream Media:
In an era of increasing media consolidation and corporate influence over information dissemination, independent media platforms like Indymedia are crucial for providing alternative narratives and perspectives.
Reviving Indymedia would create a counterbalance to #mainstreaming media narratives, offering diverse viewpoints, grassroots reporting, and coverage of marginalized communities and issues.
Grassroots Activism:
Indymedia empowered grassroots activists and community organizers by providing them with a platform to amplify their voices and share their stories. By reviving Indymedia, we can reinvigorate grassroots activism and support community-driven initiatives.
The principles of non-hierarchical organization and consensus decision-making embedded within Indymedia’s ethos serve as a model for participatory democracy and collective action in the digital age.
Media Democracy and Freedom of Expression:
Indymedia embodies the principles of media democracy and freedom of expression by promoting #4opens exchange of information, transparency, and accessibility.
Reviving Indymedia would contribute to the democratization of media production and distribution, empowering people and communities to create and share content on their own terms.
Resistance to Corporate Control and Surveillance:
In an era of pervasive corporate surveillance and control over online platforms, Indymedia offers an alternative that prioritizes privacy, autonomy, and community ownership.
By reviving Indymedia, we can resist corporate dominance over the digital public sphere and create spaces where rights and autonomy are respected.
Combatting Nihilism in Tech: The tech industry prioritizes individualistic implementations and profit-driven models over community-focused initiatives. By rebooting Indymedia, we can challenge this nihilistic approach to technology and instead prioritize community building, collaboration, and collective ownership of media platforms.
Preserving Digital Commons: Indymedia operated on principles of openness, decentralization, and non-hierarchical organization, creating digital commons where diverse voices could thrive. Rebooting Indymedia allows us to preserve and expand this digital commons, providing an alternative to corporate-controlled media landscapes dominated by profit motives and commercial interests.
Building Trust-Based Networks: Indymedia was built on principles of trust, collaboration, and solidarity among activists and media practitioners. By rebooting Indymedia, we can rebuild these trust-based networks and strengthen connections within and across communities, fostering solidarity in the struggle for social justice and media democracy.
Adapting to Changing Technologies: The original Indymedia project faced challenges and limitations due to technological constraints of its time. By rebooting Indymedia, we can leverage advances in technology to create more user-friendly interfaces, mobile-responsive designs, and robust backend systems that better serve the needs of modern activists and citizen journalists.
In summary, reviving the Indymedia project is not just about resurrecting a historical artifact but reclaiming a vision of media activism, grassroots empowerment, and alternative narratives. It’s about challenging the status quo, amplifying grassroots voices, and building a democratic and inclusive media ecosystem.
One thing that is missing from much of the unthinking #mainstreaming outreach and expansion is that the history of #ActivityPub and the #Fediverse is a grassroots collaboration, and an ongoing struggle between open and closed paths. To understand this history, we need to explore the origins of ActivityPub and its evolution within the broader #openweb movement.
The roots of decentralization, ActivityPub emerged as a response to the limitations of early social media protocols like #OStatus, which powered platforms such as #StatusNet (later GNU-social). While OStatus enabled some level of federation, it lacked robust privacy features and limited conversation dynamics. This pushed developers to seek alternatives that could better support native social interactions.
The early drafts of ActivityPub, initially called #ActivityPump, were an ambitious attempt to build a flexible protocol supporting rich, decentralized communication. Unlike OStatus, which used XML, ActivityPump adopted JSON, a more modern, lightweight, and developer-friendly format. This shift made it easier for platforms to adopt and extend the protocol.
The transition to ActivityPub, the move from ActivityStreams 1.0 to ActivityStreams 2.0, and ultimately to ActivityPub, reflected the need for a more comprehensive standard. ActivityPub introduced server-to-server communication, enabling platforms to share activities, like posts and follows, across different instances. This innovation laid the foundation for true federation, where separate platforms could interact seamlessly.
Key projects helped shape this evolution. Pump.io, created by #EvanProdromou (the developer behind StatusNet), was an early experiment with ActivityStreams, though it never achieved widespread adoption. But these experiments were stepping stones that informed the development.
Next is the role of #Mastodon and the rise of the #Fediverse, Eugen Rochko’s decision to implement ActivityPub as Mastodon’s primary protocol catalyzed the growth of the Fediverse. Mastodon offered a #openweb “native” but familiar Twitter-like experience with federation baked in, its rise attracted a wave of people disillusioned by #dotcons social media.
As Mastodon grew, other platforms joined the ecosystem, #PeerTube for video, #Pixelfed for images, #WriteFreely for blogging, and meany more. Each new platform enriched the Fediverse and reinforced the strength of a decentralized path.
There are challenges to openness, despite its successes, this journey of rebooting the #openweb with ActivityPub and the Fediverse hasn’t been without friction:
Commercial Capture: As the Fediverse gained traction, larger players began exploring it. #Threads’ integration with ActivityPub, for instance, raises concerns about whether the #dotcons might dilute the Fediverse’s grassroots ethos.
Technical Complexity: Implementing ActivityPub isn’t straightforward. the pushing of features like HTTP signatures for verifying interactions introduce technical hurdles that can create compatibility issues between platforms.
Centralization Drift: Even within the Fediverse, centralizing tendencies continue. Mastodon’s continuing dominance has concentrated influence, raising questions about how to prevent decentralized paths from replicating the “common sense” patterns of the #dotcons.
There is a constant need for guarding this open future, in which we need to balance the outreaching to the #mainstreaming with caring and supporting the native grassroots that created the value in the first place.
Looking forward, the future of ActivityPub and the Fediverse hinges on collective action. We need to resist the “common sense” commercial co-option from both friends and enemies to expand into building tools that make decentralized tech more accessible #OMN
The promise of the #Fediverse isn’t simply technological, it’s cultural and political. It’s about reclaiming the internet as public commons, where communities thrive on their own terms. On this path, by staying rooted in collaboration and community care, we ensure the Fediverse remains a beacon of hope in increasingly enclosed digital paths.
The #fediverse, promises decentralized social networking and democratic governance, stands as a light of hope for a native #openweb. However, as it navigates the terrain of politics, technology, and human behaviour, it faces challenges that threaten to undermine its #4opens civic potential. In this post, we delve into these challenges and explore potential pathways to realize the promise of the #fediverse.
At the heart of the fediverse lies the tension between its potential benefits and the risks of subversion by commercial interests and structural dysfunction. Commercial capture, driven by the allure of proprietary features and enhanced user experiences, poses a threat to the “open and decentralized nature of the fediverse native culture”. The current shift from distributed funding models to centralized and #NGO ones exacerbates this challenge, leading to a concentration of power and influence in the hands of a few people and entities. To counter this trend, developers, producers, institutions, and users can collectively work to uphold the #4opens principles of interoperability and openness.
Structural dysfunction, characterized by a lack of native governance approaches and a reliance on #DIY moderators and self-funded instances, poses another challenge. Without a “native” structure for governance, the fediverse risks succumbing to governance failures and reputational assaults. To address these issues, there is a pressing need to develop democratic governance structures (like the #OGB) that empower people and ensure accountability and transparency at every level of decision-making.
The fediverse is more than just a technical system; it is also a political structure. As such, it requires a nuanced understanding of the socio-political dynamics that shape its development and governance. Techno-Romanticism, which elevates simplistic views of technological progress and overlooks the labour and networks that underpin it, poses a threat to the fediverse’s sustainability. By fostering a culture of critical engagement and social action, we can mitigate this, to ensure that the Fediverse remains a space for civic discourse and collective action.
In summing up, nurturing the potential of the Fediverse requires a multifaceted approach that transcends technical considerations and delves deep into the socio-political paths. By addressing issues of commercial capture, governance dysfunction, and techno-Romanticism, we pave the way for a native inclusive, democratic, and sustainable Fediverse as an #openweb native network.
“All code is ideology solidified into action – most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this for a moment. Yes you can try and act on any ideology on top of this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogrammed… cant find any good links on this…“
The statement is a perspective on the interweaving of politics and technology, that too often both suffer from their own shortcomings when it comes to addressing complex social issues.
Political Arrogance and Ignorance: This is about political actors exhibiting overconfidence and a lack of understanding when it comes to technological matters. Politicians and policymakers make decisions about technology without comprehending its implications and limitations, leading to ineffective or harmful or simply dysfunctional policies. Arrogance in this context manifest as an assumption of authority without expertise or consideration of diverse perspectives.
Geek Naivety and Over-Complexity: On the other hand, this is about the tendency of technologists and developers (“geeks”) to approach problems with a narrow focus on technical solutions. The term “naivety” is about the lack of awareness or understanding of broader social, political, and ethical implications of their work. Additionally, the emphasis on over-complexity refers to the creation of unnecessarily intricate or convoluted technological systems, which hinder accessibility and usability for non-technical users.
Code as Ideology: This concept posits that all code, as the foundation of technological systems, embodies underlying ideological assumptions and values. In contemporary society, where capitalism is the dominant economic system, the code produced serves capitalist interests and reinforces capitalist structures. Thus, technological solutions are not neutral, they reflect and perpetuate the ideologies of the society in which they are created.
Preprogrammed Outcomes and Assumptions: The assertion here is that the ideological underpinnings of code shape its outcomes and assumptions, predisposing technological solutions to align with certain interests or agendas. While it is possible to layer additional ideologies on top of existing code, the fundamental framework and biases of the code itself remain unchanged, influencing the range of possible outcomes.
Overall, the statement is about the need for a more nuanced and critical approach to the balance of politics and technology, that recognizes the inherent ideological nature of code and address hard to shift biases embedded within technological systems. The problem we face is the endemic #geekproblem prat’ish behaviour that blocks this needed balance.
The #geekproblem is about the challenges and limitations that grow from the dominance of a particular “problem” geek culture in technology industry’s and #FOSS movements. This is characterized by a strong emphasis on technical expertise, at the expense of social, ethical, and democratic considerations. The geek culture pushes technical solutions and innovations over social paths, leading to problems in the development and deployment of #openweb technology.
Technical Bias: Geek “problem” culture favours technical solutions to problems without considering the broader social context or implications. This results in the development of technologies that are inhuman, inaccessible, exclusionary, and often harmful.
Meritocracy: Geek”problem” culture operates on the principle of meritocracy, where individuals are valued based on their technical skills and knowledge. This leads to the ignoring of voices and perspectives from non-technical backgrounds, contributing to a lack of diversity and inclusivity and functionality in #FOSS projects.
Lack of Empathy: The geek “problem” culture’s focus on technical excellence leads to a lack of empathy for people who are not as technically proficient. This results in user interfaces and experiences that are difficult to understand or navigate for non-technical people, further pushing digital divides and inequalities in the use of #FOSS code.
Resistance to Change: Geek “problem” culture is resistant to change, particularly when it comes to questioning established technical norms or practices. This resistance hinders progress in addressing social, ethical, and environmental challenges which require broader systemic changes beyond technical solutions.
Power Dynamics: The dominance of geek “problem” culture creates power imbalances within the tech industry, where certain individuals or groups hold disproportionate influence over decision-making processes. This results in the prioritization of technical interests over broader social or ethical concerns.
Overall, the #geekproblem highlights the need for a holistic approach to technology development based on the #4opens social, ethical, and democratic dimensions alongside technical considerations. Addressing the geekproblem requires challenging current social structures and promoting diversity, empathy, and more democratic decision-making within the development and #FOSS communities.
The growing influence of NGOs in social activism raises concerns, particularly in an online landscape dominated by centralized #dotcons platforms and gatekeepers. In contrast, the #openweb, rooted in the #4opens principles of decentralization, open standards, and inclusivity, represents a genuine path for progressive social change.
However, the rise of NGO-driven slacktivism exposes the limitations of centralized activism. While petitions and social media campaigns can raise awareness, they lack sincerity and fail to drive real change. This culture of low-effort engagement stands in stark contrast to the openweb’s ethos, where people have the autonomy to participate, create, and take meaningful action without the constraints of gatekeepers.
A key concern is that NGOs, despite claiming to serve communities, to often end up promoting their own interests and priorities. This marginalizes “native” voices and disempower grassroots movements. As attention shifts towards the #Fediverse, it is crucial to safeguard against NGO-style centralization and ensure that power remains distributed across diverse communities.
To resist coaptation, the Fediverse must uphold its decentralized, community-grown structure. Building trust, collaboration, and maintaining its native core will be essential in keeping the space free from corporate and institutional control.
In conclusion, the openweb and the Fediverse are critical tools for grassroots activism and collective action. By resisting centralization and embracing the #4opens, we can ensure that these spaces remain truly progressive, participatory, and free.
In the landscape of the #openweb and the emerging #Fediverse, trust is the currency that binds meaningful interactions and collaborations. Yet, amidst the cacophony of voices and divergent perspectives, building trust can feel like navigating a minefield. In this post, we’ll explore the importance of trust in the #openweb and the Fediverse, examine the challenges to building trust, and propose strategies to foster a culture of trust within these communities.
Trust is the bedrock upon which communities thrive, enabling people to engage in meaningful exchanges, share resources, and collaborate on common goals. In the decentralized ecosystem of diverse voices converge and interact, trust becomes more essential. Unlike centralized #dotcons platforms, where trust is bestowed upon a single authority, the “native” openweb relies on distributed networks of trust relationships between people and communities.
However, despite the inherent value of trust, the landscape of is fraught with challenges that hinder this cultivation. One of the primary obstacles is the prevalence of #blocking and resistance to new ideas or approaches. While blocking may be necessary in certain circumstances, such as to protect against harmful actors or preserve the integrity of a community, it can also impede constructive dialogue and collaboration. Without trust, with too much #blocking communities become fragmented and isolated.
To address these challenges and foster a culture of trust, several #4opens strategies can be employed:
Transparency: Transparency is key to building trust within communities. Open and honest communication about intentions, decisions, and actions fosters a sense of accountability and reliability. Projects and peoples should strive to be transparent in their operations, sharing information openly and engaging in dialogue with stakeholders.
Inclusivity: Inclusive communities are more likely to cultivate trust among their members. By seeking out diverse perspectives and voices, and creating spaces where people feel welcome and valued, communities can foster a sense of belonging and trust. Inclusivity also involves addressing power imbalances and amplifying silent voices.
Consistency: Consistency in actions and behaviour is essential for building trust over time. Communities should strive to uphold their commitments, follow through on promises, and maintain integrity in their interactions. Consistency breeds reliability and reliability breeds trust.
Empathy: Empathy is the foundation of trust in human relationships. By empathizing with the experiences and perspectives of others, communities can build mutual understanding and respect. Empathy involves active listening, acknowledging the feelings and concerns of others, and responding with compassion and kindness.
Collaboration: Collaboration fosters trust by creating opportunities for people to work together towards common goals. By engaging in collaborative projects, sharing resources, and supporting each other’s efforts, communities can build bonds of trust and solidarity.
In conclusion, trust is the cornerstone of a thriving #openweb and the building of the #fediverse community. We need to create environments where trust flourishes, enabling people to engage in meaningful interactions and collaborations. Remember that trust is not a destination but a journey—one that requires ongoing effort, dialogue, and commitment from all #4opens stakeholders.
The issue of branding in the #openweb and #fediverse is currently a mess that touches on both technical and social thinking. We need to address this:
Barrier to Community Adoption: Strong branding in #openweb codebases is a barrier for communities to adopt and customize the technology for their collective use. It limits the ability for different communities and groups to collaborate and share resources.
Centralization of Power: Project branding centralizes power in the hands of developers and funders, rather than the communities that are using and running the instances. This leads to decision-making processes that do not represent the diverse needs and perspectives of users.
Stifling Innovation: A focus on project branding stifles innovation and creativity within the #fediverse. Communities that can feel constrained by the predefined branding and unable to express their identities and values through their #openweb spaces.
Inequality in Representation: Branding perpetuates inequalities in representation within the #openweb ecosystem. Communities that lack the resources or technical expertise to customize branding feel marginalized or excluded from #geekproblem and #mainstreaming discussions and initiatives.
Resistance to Change: Strong project branding creates resistance to change within the community. People become accustomed to the existing branding and are thus reluctant to embrace new ideas or alternative approaches that challenge this often ossified status quo.
To address these challenges, it’s important to shift the focus from strong project branding to instance branding to empower communities to make their own #openweb spaces for collaboration and collective action. This involves:
Rethinking the traditional #NGO concept of branding and finding ways to communicate the values and mission of projects without relying on dominating #mainstreaming, project branding.
Creating better user experiences for community members to shape the look and feel of their spaces and actively participate in decision-making processes.
Encouraging open and honest dialogue about the role of branding in the #fediverse and its impact on community participation and representation.
Promoting a culture of responsible branding/templating that prioritizes inclusivity, diversity, and empowerment of people and projects.
By adopting these principles and practices, we can create a decentralized ecosystem within the #openweb and #fediverse, where communities have power over their tools to nurture their community, this is what matters
The last 40 years of technological development (from open to closed) and its impact on society, coupled with the growing urgency of addressing #climatechange, highlight the need to fundamentally shift the way we approach technology back to open.
Key points:
Environmental Impact: The rapid growth of technology over the past few decades has come with a significant environmental cost. From the production and disposal of electronic devices to the energy consumption of data centres and digital infrastructure, the tech industry has contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. As we face the reality of #climatechaos, there’s a pressing need to develop and adopt technologies that minimize harm to the planet.
Social Inequality: While technology has the potential to connect people and empower communities, our embrace of the #dotcons has exacerbated social inequalities. Access to digital technologies, information, and opportunities, widening the gap between the privileged and marginalized. Moreover, #dotcons tech platforms are criticized for perpetuating discrimination, bias, and exclusion, further entrenching systemic injustices. Addressing these issues requires building “native” #openweb technology that prioritizes equity, inclusivity, and social justice.
Corporate Control and Surveillance: The dominance of large tech corporations raises concerns about corporate power. These companies wield immense influence over digital ecosystems, shaping the flow of information, controlling social access to platforms, and monetizing people’s data and metadata. To counteract corporate control and protect the #openweb, there’s a need for decentralized, community-driven alternatives.
Innovation and Collaboration: The current paradigm of technological development prioritizes profit-driven innovation over basic social and environmental responsibility. This mindset stifles collaboration, stifles open innovation, and limits collective problem-solving. To address complex challenges like #climatechange, we need to foster a #4opens culture of collaboration, knowledge sharing, and open-source development. By democratizing access to technology and promoting participatory design processes, we harness the collective intelligence and creativity of communities.
Political and Cultural Shifts: The intersection of technology, politics, and culture shapes societal norms, values, and behaviours. Over the past years, we’ve seen a growing awareness of the political implications of technology, from concerns about online disinformation and algorithmic bias to debates over platform governance and digital rights. As grassroots movements like Extinction Rebellion (#XR) mobilize to address #climatechange, there’s an opportunity to leverage technology as a tool for social and environmental activism. By challenging mainstream narratives, engaging in grassroots #openweb organizing, and amplifying community based voices, we harness technology to advance progressive causes and catalyse the needed systemic change and challenge.
The disaster that is #climatechaos necessitate a radical reimagining of technology and its role. By building sustainability, equity, collaboration, and activism, we can push the resilient and inclusive #openweb future that serves people and the planet. And yes this shift challenges entrenched power, confronts corporate interests, so we will need to mobilize collective action to create this more sustainable world.
The #dotcons are designed for greed and selfishness, everything about them feeds this and in turn feeds off this negative path. This is coded deep into them, they cannot be fixed, and we cannot reboot alternatives to this by simply copying them in #FOSS as we have done too much in the #Fediverse.
The rebooting of the #openweb is the path we have taken, this copying worked well for the first step, for the next step we need to move past this, simply copying of the current #mainstreaming mess. The next step needs to be more “native” to the #4opens path that we have started down. Let’s thank the people who copied, give them the gifts of statues and security, they did us all a service, they deserve thanks for this first step not hatred.
To understand why let’s look at the #dotcons mess, an example, is the devolution of #Twitter from a neoliberal space to one with growing fascist tendencies under Elon Musk’s, this is a stark reminder of the pitfalls of unchecked corporate #dotcons and the susceptibility of these platforms to authoritarian control.
One aspect is the complicity of #neoliberal actors in pushing the rise of fascism. #Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on deregulation and market-driven solutions, pushes for the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. This concentration eventually leads to the erosion of democratic norms and the rise of authoritarianism, as seen in the case of Twitter’s transformation. Thus, the intertwining of neoliberalism and fascism underscores the need for vigilance in combating both economic inequality and the erosion of “native” #openweb democratic projects we try and build and sustain.
Moreover, the reaction of neoliberal peoples “common sense” to the shift towards fascism on the #dotcons like Twitter is instructive. Despite the platform’s descent into authoritarianism, many #mainstreaming users continue to engage with it, clinging to nostalgia for its earlier, more liberal incarnation. This phenomenon highlights the tendency of #mainstreaming to adapt to life under oppressive regimes, often out of a desire for self-preservation or a misguided sense of normalcy. It serves as a sobering reminder of the dangers of complacency and the importance of resisting authoritarianism, aspesherly in its early stages.
In essence, the transformation of Twitter from a neoliberal to a fascist space underscores the interconnectedness of economic and political systems and the need for collective action to safeguard “native” #openweb democratic values and the paths we take. By recognizing the warning signs of authoritarianism and refusing to acquiesce to its normalization, people can prevent the erosion of the #openweb
Centralization of Power: The dominant platforms in the #dotcons era and #closedweb are centralized, controlled by a handful of corporations.
Monopolistic Practices: The dominance of a few major players led to monopolistic practices that stifled “native” #openweb culture. These monopolies limit people choice and hindered the development of alternative paths that could offer more diverse and community-centric life.
Surveillance Capitalism: The #dotcons relies on business models built around surveillance capitalism, where data and metadata is harvested, monetized, and exploited for targeted advertising and social purposes without consent and transparency. This exploitation of people’s data undermines “society” and creates significant ethical concerns.
Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The algorithms employed in the #dotcons are designed to prioritize content based on user engagement metrics, leading to the formation of filter bubbles and echo chambers. These push people to beliefs and preferences that limit exposure to diverse perspectives and contributing to growing and entrenching polarization and disinformation.
Erosion of Public Discourse: The rise of social media in the #dotcons facilitated the spread of misinformation, hate, and extremist right ideologies. These platforms prioritized engagement and virality over the quality and accuracy of content, leading to the erosion of public discourse and trust.
Data Concerns: The collection and exploitation of user data by #dotcons raised significant concerns. People have limited to no control over their social data and metadata.
Digital Divide: Access to the internet and digital technologies remained unevenly distributed during the #closedweb era, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Marginalized communities, faced barriers to access our #openweb reboot, limiting their ability to participate in our native paths and thus the wider digital economy and society we need to build.
To sum up, the dominance of centralized platforms, surveillance capitalism, algorithmic biases, erosion of social norms, and inequalities have been some of the most pressing issues associated with the #dotcons and #closedweb over the last two decades. Addressing this requires concerted efforts to promote decentralization, #4opens and “native” #openweb infrastructure and culture. You can help with this by working on projects like #OMN#OGB#makinghistory and #indymediaback
The landscape of alternative projects, or Alt-projects, is an evolving path where people with diverse motivations and backgrounds walk and converge to push shared goals. Over the course of more than 20 years of direct involvement in meany Alt-groups, I’ve seen recurring patterns and dynamics that shape the trajectory of these paths and projects. In this undated post from 2007, I provide insight into this and offer a frame for understanding the roles of different participants during stages of an Alt-project’s path.
Firstly, let’s define the terms used to think about (categorize) participants:
1. Getting Things Done People: These individuals and communities are driven by a desire to see real results and are focused on action rather than process. While they are instrumental in initiating projects, they may eventually transition to other roles as things progress.
2. Working People: Often overlooked, these people form the backbone of any alt-project, contributing tirelessly to its execution and maintenance. Despite their contributions, they receive minimal recognition for their efforts.
3. Bureaucrats: In a positive sense, bureaucrats are people skilled in creating and navigating structures within alt-projects. They play a crucial role in sustaining the project, but inadvertently perpetuate dysfunction when influenced by other groups.
4. Theorists: These people bring theoretical perspectives to alt-projects, often challenging/pushing conventional wisdom and advocating for alternative approaches. However, they struggle to find their voice within consensus decision-making processes, leading to marginalization.
5. Life Stylists: Emerging from the periphery of alt-projects, life stylists are drawn to successful initiatives but lack a clear commitment to sustained involvement. While some integrate into other roles, others contribute to a burgeoning lifestyle aspect within the project.
The evolution of an alt-project unfolds across several stages:
1. Initiation: Driven by “getting things done” people, projects begin with a burst of energy and enthusiasm.
2. Expansion: As projects grow, a mix of working people and bureaucrats join the effort, providing stability and structure.
3. Specialization: With the project’s scope widening, “getting things done” people branch out into parallel initiatives, placing greater responsibility on working people and bureaucrats.
4. Consolidation: Burnout among initial instigators leads to a shift in focus towards sustaining the project, with bureaucrats and working people assuming central roles.
5. Peak and Decline: At its zenith, the project faces the dual challenges of maintaining momentum while grappling with internal dynamics. Lifestyle groups emerge, exerting influence and potentially alienating new participants.
6. Reactivation Attempts: Recognizing signs of decay, a coalition of remaining “getting things done” people and long-standing bureaucrats seeks to revitalize the project. However, debates among theorists and lifestyle groups tend to stall progress.
7. Renewal Efforts: The Gathering is called to address project stagnation, participants confront the challenges of consensus decision-making. Despite goodwill, the exclusion of key voices perpetuates underlying issues.
This cyclical process underscores the complexities of alt-projects and the importance of practical action in sustaining engagement. As burnout and disillusionment set in, parallel initiatives emerge, drawing in fresh energy and redirecting the focus of participants. Ultimately, understanding these dynamics empowers people to make informed decisions about involvement in alt-projects, contributing to a more sustainable and effective activist landscape.
