Community is the power we have

I understand people’s frustration. We’ve been working for decades at the forefront of social and environmental activism, particularly in the realm of tech, aiming to create change through initiatives like the #4opens and the #OMN. It’s clear that we’re addressing serious, fundamental issues—especially around how the #openweb has been captured by corporate interests with people’s use of the #dotcons.

People might misunderstand the path as less serious because they don’t grasp the depth of the critique or are overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues. They may also be caught up in their own perspectives, pushing back against ideas that challenge their comfort zones and #blinded entrenched interests.

We’re offering a radical, long-term solution to counter the #deathcult of neoliberalism and the pushing of environmental collapse, yet people all too often mix up urgency and extremism. The good faith we’re extending in these discussions—despite resistance—shows we are dedication to finding real, grounded solutions, instead of surface-level fixes.

Maybe framing the conversation with clearer, step-by-step plans for practical actions might help open a few people’s eyes from their self-inflicted blindness to see the gravity of the situation without dismissing it as “too radical” or “not serious.” We are, after all, pushing for both radical and liberal coalitions to confront the massive issues of #climatechaos, #openweb, and our very real lack of collective future.

As ever, stay strong, it’s through persistence and clarity that we’ll navigate past the mess-making and onto the real work that so urgently needs doing.

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

At an Oxford event – The Policy engagement workshop

“How should the new Labour government be listening?” A few notes: Firstly it needs to be said, this is common in Oxford, this is powerless people talking about things that matter. Where activism is about forming a group of action for pushing and pulling power, this event is not activism, it’s academy, we do need to remember this.

“Deliberation” is a new word for the old formal consensus that ossified and broke when imposed on much grassroots activism at the turn of the century, with the rise of the #dotcons this was pushed to grew into the activism mess we live in today.

And yes, it is a mess as what activism focus on has little connection to the levers of power, which is controlled outside these processes. As change and challenge power needs #spiky activism, and, in the end, the threat or reality of revolution, to directly push and pull the leavers. This is empowerment, It’s why we are so powerless, they don’t talk or think about this at all.

Looking round the room I can’t see any activist affinity groups forming, not a glimpse, the privileged space is filled with powerless people talking about things that matter, it’s not that this #fluffy path does not have a role, but on balance this is likely simply more problem than solution. The experts and the academics, the #NGO politicos and all their shared views on how to talk to and work with the plebs, that’s the real people outside the walls of the collage.

The guy talking about trust interested me. Then there was the guy who went off script, who, was kind of inspiring, what would more of this look like? The language guy at the end was OK, words do matter and can be used as levers of power, this is affective fluffy activism. And the final point, that the #mainstreaming is not a natural block on the far right, is scarily true.

humm over all interesting, a little food for thought, but likely an unhealthy balance of both activism and academic blocking. The challenge is bridging the gap between intellectual dialogue and on-the-ground activism. How do we push these conversations to actions that can actually “pull the levers” of power, rather than simply talking about what needs to be done at best or at worst #blocking action, by #mainstreaming #blinded dogma? This balance is vital, and is missing completely from all these gatherings.

What can we do.

#Oxford

Free Software is Political

In progressive discussions about technology and open source, there is intolerant pushing of mess from people who say “just focus on the code” without the politics. This is an understandable outlook, but it is also stupid, based on a misunderstanding of what is Free/Open Source Software (#FOSS). This everyday pushing of mess making comes from #blinded #mainstreaming people claiming that FOSS is “a-political” or should be kept that way, and shows a lack of any understanding of this movement.

As this article highlights, the idea of “a-political” Free Software is not only incorrect; it’s historically nonsense. Free Software is intrinsically and unavoidably political. It is not simply about code; it is about who controls the code and, therefore, who controls the user. This is why the path that many projects take, to jam FOSS into capitalism without addressing these core issues, is a mess and failing path.

The roots of free software are in a political and ethical movement that just happens to focus on software. “Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.” This is not just a technical stance; it is a moral, ethical, and political one. The idea that users should have the right to control their own digital lives and help others do the same is at the heart of Free Software. This #KISS foundation opposes proprietary software, where users are legally prevented from helping their neighbours, thus restricting their freedom.

“Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.”

The emergence of the “Open Source” in the late 1990s pushed change on this “native” path, into a more #mainstreaming direction by shifting focus to development benefits, pushing out the ethical and political core. This, however, does not change the foundational politics of Free Software, it merely tries to mask it, to hide it, by pushing out of sight the political core, this is mess making and the normal mainstream “common sense” when it comes to taking up any Alt paths, this is a history we need to stop.

The difference between Free Software and Open Source: “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the #opensource path, non-free software is a suboptimal technical solution. For the FOSS path, non-free software is a social problem that needs challenging and changing. This is a distinction that some who try to take this path fail to recognize, leading to the meany messy social and coding projects we try to make work today.

As the #dotcons world builds crises of privacy, control, and trust, the relevance of these distinctions, hopefully, becomes more into focus. From tech giants abusing data to governments exploiting backdoors, the ethical foundation that Free Software rests upon is needed, not optional.

The politics of software, the idea that software can be a-political, is a misunderstanding of what software does and represents. As Larry Lessig says – “Our choice is not between ‘regulation’ and ‘no regulation.’ The code regulates. It implements values, or not. It enables freedoms, or disables them. It protects privacy, or promotes monitoring.” Every decision in software development, from what features to include, to how data is handled, to what kind of accessibility is provided, is a political one. There is no “neutral” code. Decisions about prioritizing user rights, security, and privacy are political decisions, and they shape the wider digital networks we live within.

All code is ideology solidified into action – thus most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this at all. Yes, you can try and act on any ideology path from this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogramed. If we continue to pretend that the software and platforms can be devoid of politics, we are, taking a side, and actively contributing to the mainstream mess that dotcons push, and this is the mess we urgently need to move away from. As outlined on my website, we need to focus on building a #openweb projects that respect people, rather than merely mimicking corporate platforms with a veneer of openness as we do so often, on the #Fediverse, #Bluesky etc.

Conclusion: stop pretending and start building, to those who wish to “just code” without the politics, it needs to be continually pointed out strongly that is impossible in the path of impactful software development. Every piece of software carries with it values, ethics, and political implications. Acknowledging this is the first step toward building digital networks that serves the people, rather than controlling them. We need to walk a path away from the mess of #mainstreaming towards a more open and humanistic internet.

This is not a hard path to take #OMN

Navigating the Trolls

There is a shifting of social and political paths underway, we will have a move to the left or the right, the centre path has made itself irrelevant through, with not having any valid path to mediate, growing social divisions and ecological breakdown. On the left in our efforts to find meaningful change, we often encounter the phenomenon of “trolling” a problem that has become more prevalent and divisive in recent years. The trolls, emboldened by the anonymity and reach of the #dotcons, try to act as gatekeepers of thought, determined to shut down any ideas or alternatives that fall outside their narrow, and often mean-spirited, views of the world. No matter which political ideology they think they are pushing, this is a right-wing path driven by fear and the need for control. It can be useful to look at these individuals as being drawn from two distinct but overlapping groups: #geekproblem and #fashionista.

The geekproblem, is normally a technical path, but on the social side they often approach activism with a rigid mindset, fixated on technological solutions or unthinking, thus #blinded ideological frameworks. These people are generally well-versed in their specialized areas – be it coding, digital security, or political theory – but are quick to dismiss any ideas that don’t conform to their existing dogmatic and blinded beliefs. Pushing themselves as guardians of “the truth” or the “right way”, but this is from their world they can see, and thus way to often so narrow as to be irrelevant in the messy world we actually live in and have to navigate our way through.

This attitude manifests as trolling behaviour, attacking, undermining, and deriding people who suggest different approaches and alternatives. They forget that the goal is not to dominate the conversation, but to build a collective path that embraces diversity and complexity. Their (blinded) rigidity becomes a barrier to experimentation and cooperation, stifling the messy but working solutions we desperately need.

On the other #blocking path, we have the #fashionistas who are more concerned with appearances, trends, and social currency within activist spaces and wider #mainstreaming society. This group prioritizes being seen as part of the “right” movements, using the “right” language, or following the “right” trends over actually engaging in real meaningful, substantive work. They engage in social gatekeeping, where deviations from the accepted norms or language lead to ostracization and public shaming. This too is trolling, shutting down anything that is outside their blind #deathcult fed #stupidindividualism. Adding to the mess, not composting it, unconsciously replicate the exclusionary tactics they sometimes claim to fight against, creating a culture of fear and conformity instead of openness, debate and the needed paths of diversity.

The consequence of this is the current lack of alternatives, the stifling mess where any alternative outside narrow definitions is attacked, ridiculed, then ignored. This prevents the growth of diverse solutions by marginalizing, then #blocking voices that think differently, and ultimately reinforces the status quo. In effect, the trolls on the internet, whether consciously or unconsciously, are blocking the change and challenge we need. This is a very right-wing path, what ever you might like to call this.

The sad and bad paradox is that these groups can share a genuine desire for social justice and systemic change, yet the inadequacy of their behaviour serves to uphold the paths and systems of oppression and exclusion they seek to dismantle. Trolling thrives on conflict and negativity, which feeds this mess so they can feed off it, it’s a nasty and negative circle.

What paths can we take? How do we move beyond this mess?

We can try and mediate this by focusing on compassionate communication, listening without instant judgment, speaking with some empathy, and seeking to understand rather than only to dominate—we can create spaces that are more inclusive and productive to find path to disagree without being disagreeable. Are we shutting down ideas too quickly? Are we dismissing people who don’t fit neatly into our ideological boxes? By staying open to self-critique, we can prevent ourselves from falling into the trap of this kind of narrow thinking. We can substance this path by building communities that have deepening roots in mutual aid and support.

To sustain these communities we need to focus on concrete actions, not only words, both the #geekproblem and #fashernista paths get bogged down in theoretical debates or performative displays of activism. Instead, we prioritize concrete actions that make tangible differences in our communities, whether through, building alternative networks to create spaces for messy dialogue and collaboration.

A first important step is to move outside the bindings of the dotcons, this is basic, the current internet infrastructure, dominated by social media giants (the #dotcons), is designed to amplify division, outrage, and addiction. To start to build meaningful alternatives, we need to step away from these platforms and cultivate the #openweb—decentralized, community-driven paths where we can experiment with new forms of social organization and communication.

For the last 20 years the has been a historic project, the #OMN, that is based on a culture that values diverse approaches, where multiple strategies and ideas can coexist, and where there is room for trial and error. To do this project requires a fundamental shift in an affinity group to move from rigid dogmas to a more flexible, #4opens approaches that encourage learning from the grassroot history mistakes and successes alike.

We can compost the negativity—the trolling, the rigid thinking, the performative posturing—to find fertile ground for new ideas to grow. To keep on this path we must remain open to different possibilities, willing to take risks, and courageous enough to challenge not just the status quo, but also ourselves. The trolls will always be there, but we don’t have to feed them. Instead, let’s focus on creating the world we want to see. The humanistic adventure in social technology, an Open Media Network of diverse voices and ideas. Let’s embrace the mess, compost it, and use it to grow something new. The path is open, and it can be a more happy one.

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

Understanding Left-Wing Anti-Communism

History is worth looking at, in sectors of the left, particularly within the Western left, there’s a trend to dismiss past socialist experiments, at best these critics debate whether these experiments were “true” socialism or not. However, the point remains that these experiments attempted to organize society differently from capitalism, what we need to learn from is that each succeeded to some extent. They stood as threats to global capitalism, which is why the priests of the #deathcult, and its worshippers, keep demonizing them. Yet, on the progressive side, left-wing anti-communists also to often blindly reject these experiments, dismissing them as perversions of their “idealized” socialism, claiming there’s nothing to learn from them.

Then the capitalist establishment pushes and supports this with glowing reviews of books that condemn real socialism, backed by #mainstreaming institutions. For example, on this path much radical/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.

How can we change and challenge this? These left-wing anti-communists tend to lack any nuance in their criticisms, they ignore the complexities and harsh “spiky” realities that revolutionary movements’ had pushed over them in the early 20th century. The Bolsheviks, for example, had to build a strong army and internal security apparatus in reaction to western invasions, ration due to widespread economic sanctions. Criticizing these actions, while valid, is not helpful without understanding the very uneasy context, only blindly criticising, this time, shows a lack of appreciation for the recurring challenges any real revolution will face.

Then 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 violent backlash and the hardships that successful socialist experiments have to endure and the real, tangible benefits they provided to their societies.

So we do need to criticize socialist experiments with evidence, good faith, and an understanding of the circumstances they happen in. 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 strong vertical flaws, to learning from these 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 #blinded capitalist propaganda.

Left-wing anti-communism is a trend to dislike and disregard almost every socialist experiment. Over the last 40 years, on this path of #mainstreaming, the neoliberal world-view replaces trust with fear, when we try to discuss solutions, So it’s needed to challenge common sense #neoliberal views and advocate for basic nuanced, evidence-based perspectives. Let’s learn from this history, please.

Why Mainstreaming Politics is Crap

Common sense “fake” news and #mainstreaming propaganda fuel division, confusion, and empower reactionary forces, this rise of fascism isn’t a random phenomenon, it’s a direct result of the failures of our crap #mainstreaming politics. Corrupt elitists, indifferent politicians, and sell-out parties abandoned people, creating a vacuum that far-right forces are all too eager to fill.

Yet, most people still cling to the idea that these broken institutions will somehow save us. That’s the oxymoron. The path that created the problem won’t be the one to fix it. We need to step outside this collapsing framework, build grassroots alternatives, and reclaim power through more collective action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must reckon with the consequences of our past decisions

One thing we can all now likely agree is that we have made a complete mess of our society, ecology and tech paths. The intertwining of #postmodernist social thinking and #neoliberal economic ideology over the past four decades has laid the groundwork for the turbulent state of contemporary politics and the social chaos evident in our digital ecosystems (#dotcons)

This marriage of ideologies led to a fracturing of political values and an obscuring of ideological divides, resulting in the polarization and dysfunction we witness in both right and left-wing politics. In the realm of technology, this has resulted in the proliferation of centralized platforms and the erosion of community.

“From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called “laissez-faire” was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.”
— Kevin Carson

For forty years, we’ve marched down this dark path, “unwittingly” shaping the current “human nature” through the failed dogmatic #blinded collective choices and actions. Now, as we confront the existential threats growing #climatechaos and ecological degradation, we must reckon with the consequences of our decisions.

The next four decades will be marked by hardship, suffering, and loss as we grapple with the consequences of our past actions. As a first step, it’s very useful we acknowledge our role in shaping this grim reality and take responsibility for charting a new course forward.

It’s time to reject the poisoned philosophies and economic doctrines that have brought us to this precipice. We must reclaim agency over our collective future and commit to a path of social healing, reconciliation, and renewal.

Acknowledging our complicity in creating this mess is the first step towards redemption. The path I am outlining to do this is to embrace the power of #openweb collective action and solidarity, working together to build a more just, equitable, and sustainable world for generations to come.

One of the strong #blocking of this is to see this social thinking as simply an individualistic moral judgment, this would be using the current mess to judge the current mess. An all too common, hopeless path to walk down, and would only lead to the pushing of more mess. Please try not to take this path, thanks.

Let point out a glaringly obverse statement, I am not saying that these ways of thinking are not working as intended, they obviously are. Postmodernism has been used to disintegrate social norms that bind society together, it has done this. Neoliberalism has been used to divide the rich and the poor, it has done this. The moral judgment is not in the effectiveness of these paths but in our choice of path.

These too dead philosophy together push social disintegration that lubricated the pushing of the divide between the rich and the poor to the extremes that are growing today. It’s important not to simple see this as a moral judgment, as it’s a natural outcome of the path we have chosen to walk over the last 40 years, the moral judgment is on the path we have chosen.

#dontbeaprat is a positive statement of what’s next?

In activism (and interestingly less so in #mainstreaming life now) #stupidindividualism is a constant poison. With #blinded, people treat critical social thinking as ONLY personal criticism. This has the effect of #blocking that spreads mess over the very needed social change and challenge. Am increasingly using the #dontbeaprat hashtag to communicate on this problem.

I think another useful hashtag on this behaviour is #blinded, which is in part self-inflicted and in part a general social outcome of the last 40 years of worshipping #postmodernism and #neoliberalism. The hashtag #deathcult is a useful “uncomfortable” way of expressing this.

Why is this such an issue, people are directly responsible for this mess making, as both of these ideologies are actually dead themselves now. It’s an intellectual zombie block.

So #dontbeaprat is a positive statement of what’s next?

Please #dontbeaprat on this, thanks.