People think in groups, this is natural

Group thinking is human nature, as society 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 deeper, 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 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 current 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

Composting #TechShit: Planned Obsolescence

We are surrounded by piles of #techshit, why are we in such a mess. Imagine buying a new car to find out that you can’t replace the tires when they wear out. Instead, you’re forced to pay an exorbitant amount to get them fixed at an authorized repair shop. Sounds ridiculous? Well, this scenario isn’t far from reality when it comes to tech products like smartphones, printers, or household appliances. This is the world of planned obsolescence.

Cartels and Monopoly:

Planned obsolescence isn’t a random occurrence; it’s a strategy employed by tech companies to keep us perpetually consuming. It’s a story as old as #capitalism itself to maximize profits at any cost.

Why Things Break More Often?

Have you ever wondered why your new printer is dirt cheap, but the ink cartridges cost a fortune? Or why your smartphone seems to slow down just before the latest model is released? It’s all part of a scheme to make you buy more frequently. Planned obsolescence ensures that products break down faster, become obsolete quicker, and push us into a cycle of constant consumption.

Strategies for Reducing Product Lifespan:

Repair locking, software limitations, and compromised durability are a few tactics used to ensure that our gadgets don’t last as long as they should. Ever noticed those tricky screws in your smartphone that prevent easy repairs? Or the sudden software updates that render your device sluggish? It’s all part of this plan.

Environmental Impact and Political Consequences:

The consequences of planned obsolescence are deeper than personal consumer frustration. It leads to overproduction, waste, and environmental degradation. The mountains of e-waste generated by discarded gadgets are a testament to the unsustainable nature of our consumption habits. Moreover, planned obsolescence fuels imperialist domination and conflicts in resource-rich regions.

Perceived Obsolescence:

It’s not just about making things break; it’s also about making perfectly usable items seem outdated. Fashion industries thrive on perceived obsolescence, constantly churning out new trends to keep people buying. It’s a never-ending cycle of consumption driven by manufactured insecurities.

What’s the Solution?

Reformism simply won’t cut it. Repairing items yourself or pushing for right-to-repair legislation helps, but won’t touch the systemic issue. Fundamental social change, socialism offers a real alternative where production is based on need, not profit.

Do you have a shovel?

In conclusion, we need to compost #TechShit by challenging planned obsolescence and pushing hard for a system that prioritizes sustainability, environmental and social over profit. I talk a lot on this blog, https://hamishcampbell.com

#KISS

Liberalism – is not for you

The Myth of the Middle Class:
The so-called “middle class” is a constructed concept that never truly existed. If you work for a boss and earn wages or a salary, you are a worker, a member of the working class, and should take pride in that identity. The term “middle class” was created to isolate more privileged workers, serving the interests of the powerful by dividing the working population. This division prevents unity among workers and keeps them from collectively challenging the institutions and power structures that maintain their oppression.

A critique of #liberalism from a #Marxist perspective.

1. Marxist Analysis of History

Class-Based Analysis: Marxists analyse history based on class struggles and material conditions, rather than simple “common sense” ideas or metaphysical concepts.
Material Conditions: Ideas, including those of influential thinkers like Marx, are shaped by the material conditions of their time.

2. Historical Context of Liberalism

Western European Phenomenon: Liberalism developed primarily in Western Europe within a feudal background.
Urban Centres and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie: Economic and technological developments in urban centres led to the rise of the bourgeoisie (burghers), who eventually clashed with feudal landlords.
Guilds and Standardization: The formation of guilds standardized production methods, leading to increased productive capacity and economic power for the bourgeoisie.
Class Struggle and Political Power: The #bourgeoisie eventually overthrew the #feudal order, leading to bourgeois democratic revolutions in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries.

3. Ideological Tenets of Liberalism

Individual Liberty: Claimed to support individual freedom, but in practice, this freedom can be suspended at will.
Anti-Concentration of Power: Advocates for a plurality of power to prevent tyranny, but often consolidates power when necessary to protect capitalist interests.
Constitutionalism: Constitutions serve to protect capitalist relations and private property, often disregarded when inconvenient for the ruling class.
Pro Minority Rights: Initially meant the rights of property owners (bourgeoisie), not class, racial or ethnic minorities.
Sanctification of Private Property: Private property is central to capitalism and liberalism, and its protection is paramount for maintaining bourgeois power.
Capitalism: Liberalism supports capitalist economic structures, often contradicting its own ideals of freedom and equality to do this.

4. Critique of Liberalism

Contradictory Philosophy: Liberalism claims to champion individual liberty and anti-tyranny, but primarily serves the interests of the bourgeoisie.
Superficial Plurality: The appearance of multiple parties and democratic plurality is a façade, with fundamental capitalist interests remaining unchanged.
Constitutional Limitations: Constitutions are tools to maintain capitalist order, with true reforms (like abolishing private property) being impossible within liberal frameworks.
Selective Minority Rights: The protection of minority rights under liberalism prioritizes property owners.
Economic Supremacy: Liberalism’s main function is to protect the economic supremacy of the capitalist class, and it can easily and quickly transition to #fascism when capital feels threatened.

Conclusion

Liberalism, according to a Marxist, is a tool for maintaining bourgeois power and protecting capitalist interests. It presents itself as a philosophy of freedom and equality, but is contradictory in implementation to serving the ruling capitalist class.

#KISS our “common sense” is a problem on this path.

The Urgent Need for Climate Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A European Future

Changing the European Union (#EU) to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires concerted effort and engagement from all the stakeholders, including activists, citizens, civil society organizations (#NGO), policymakers, and Eurocrats. I outline some #fluffy strategies for driving change within the EU:

Engagement and Advocacy: Citizens and civil society organizations can engage with EU institutions through advocacy efforts, lobbying, and participation in public consultations. By pushing concerns, proposing solutions, and advocating for progressive policies, grassroots movements can exert pressure on policymakers to prioritize social and tech issues.
Policy Innovation: Grassroots and “organic” experts in the fields of social and technology policy can develop and promote “innovative “native” policy proposals that address emerging challenges and needed change. This includes regulations that protect the #4opens paths, promote community, and foster #KISS technological innovation reasonably.
Transparency and Accountability: Promoting transparency and accountability within EU institutions to ensuring that decision-making processes are open, inclusive, and accountable to the people. This involves pushing for #4opens in policymaking, access to information, and mechanisms for holding people and policymakers accountable for their actions.
Capacity Building: Investing in capacity building initiatives enhances the knowledge and expertise of policymakers, civil servants, and “grassroots” stakeholders involved in shaping EU policies. This includes shifting funding, training, resources, and support to enable all stakeholders, focusing on the grassroots, to effectively engage with complex social and tech issues and develop evidence-based policy solutions.
Coalition Building: Building coalitions and alliances among diverse spiky and fluffy stakeholders amplify voices and increase collective influence on EU. By forging partnerships across wide sectors, groups and organizations leverage their collective strengths and resources to drive the needed systemic change.
Public Awareness and Education: Raising people’s awareness and educating citizens about social and #FOSS and #dotcons tech issues is essential for building progressive policies and initiatives. This includes conducting #DIY public campaigns, organizing #4opens educational events, and leveraging grassroots media and networks to inform and mobilize the people around key issues.
Participatory Governance: Promoting participatory governance within the EU enhances peoples engagement and democratic decision-making. This includes establishing networks like the #OGB for public participation, citizen assemblies, and deliberative processes for people to contribute to policy development and decision-making.
International Collaboration: Collaborating with international partners, organizations, and networks to amplify efforts to drive change within the EU. By sharing “native” practices, knowledge, and coordinating advocacy efforts at the international level, stakeholders strengthen their collective impact and influence the needed global policy agendas.

Overall, changing the EU to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires a grassroots approach that involves activism, engagement, advocacy, policy innovation, transparency, capacity building, coalition building, public awareness, participatory governance, and international collaboration. By working together in active fluffy/spiky debate across sectors and borders, stakeholders can contribute to shaping the change and challenge needed to build an inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future within the EU and wider world in the era of #climatechaos

The European Union: A “spiky” view

#NGI #NLNET

The Supremacy of Capital: A Fundamental Challenge in the Era of #ClimateChaos

In today’s world, the supremacy of capital stands as a pillar holding up our societies and institutions. This assertion, though seemingly simple, carries implications for our understanding of power dynamics, economic structures, and the urgent need for change in the face of #climatecrisis. This encapsulates a recognition that economic interests, particularly those of capitalists and corporations, wield immense influence over all aspects of human life.

Firstly, let us look into the idea of the supremacy of capital. At its core, this term speaks to the authority held by an ideological “class” holding money and wealth in our globalized society. It reflects economic imperatives that take precedence over social, environmental, and ethical considerations. In this paradigm, profit maximization becomes the objective, driving decision-making at individual, corporate, and governmental levels. As a result, we witness the consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of a few, while vast segments of society are left marginalized and disenfranchised.

The influence of capital extends beyond economic realms, permeating into the fabric of our social and cultural bodies, we can feel this in liberal ideology. Which is traditionally associated with notions of individual freedom, free markets, and limited government intervention, but with #neoliberalism becoming entwined with the supremacy of capital, every context, liberal economic policies prioritize the interests of corporations and the wealthy, reinforcing existing power structures.

The supremacy of capital is not a neutral or uncontested phenomenon. Instead, it is underpinned by a religiose adherence to certain beliefs and ideologies that serve to uphold the status quo. This religiosity manifests in a dogmatic acceptance of capitalist principles, often to the detriment of alternative worldviews and dissenting voices. It fosters a culture of unquestioning obedience to market forces and economic growth, even in the face of mounting evidence of their adverse impacts on society and the environment.

The urgency of addressing the supremacy of capital is underscored by the existential threat of #climatechange. The hashtag #Climatechaos serves as a poignant reminder of the chaotic and disruptive effects of global warming on our planet. From extreme weather events to biodiversity loss and rising sea levels, the consequences of climate change are already being felt across the globe. Yet, capital continues to impede meaningful action on this front, as short-term profit motives take precedence over long-term sustainability and resilience.

In light of these challenges, the principle of #KISS – Keep It Simple, Stupid – offers a clarion call for action. It urges us to confront the fundamental issue at hand: the dominance of capital in our societies. While the solution to this complex problem may not be simple or straightforward, acknowledging its existence is the crucial first step towards effecting change. We must challenge the religiose reverence for capital and advocate for alternative economic models that prioritize people and the planet over profit.

In conclusion, the supremacy of capital stands as a challenge in the era of #climatechaos. By understanding and addressing this, we can pave the way for a more sustainable future. It is past time to break free from the shackles of capitalist ideology and forge a path towards a world where the well-being of humanity and the environment takes precedence over corporate interests #KISS

Reminder about the hashtag family

A breakdown of the #OMN hashtags and how they are typically used as a social change and challenge project that we need:

#dotcons: This hashtag refers to corporate centralized platforms, such as social media networks, that prioritize profit and control over users, data and content. It’s often used in discussions about the negative effects of centralization on the internet and the importance of decentralization.
#fashernista: This hashtag combines “fashion” and “lifestyle” and is used to criticize trends or behaviours that promote #mainstreaming unthinking consumerist paths, behaver and ideas in popular and counter culture.
#stupidindividualism: This hashtag critiques the current use of the ideology of individualism, which prioritizes individual gain and ignores collective well-being. It’s often used to highlight the negative effects of prioritizing individual interests over those of society as a whole.
#neoliberalism: Neoliberalism is an economic and political ideology that emphasizes free-market capitalism, deregulation, privatization, and limited government intervention. This hashtag is used in discussions about the effects of neoliberal policies on society, such as income inequality and the erosion of public services.
#deathcult: This hashtag is used metaphorically to describe neoliberal ideologies that prioritize profit and power over human well-being, environmental sustainability and social justice. It’s frequently associated with critiques of #climatechaos capitalism, consumerism, and imperialism, its the mess we live in today.
#NGO: This stands for “Non-Governmental Organization” and refers to non-profit organizations that operate independently of government control. This hashtag is used in discussions #mainstreaming roles of NGOs and people who think like NGO’s in not being brave enough to address social, environmental, and humanitarian issues.

And on the positive side:

#openweb: This hashtag celebrates the principles of openness, decentralization, and inclusivity on the internet. It’s often used in discussions about the importance of preserving and promoting a “native” open and accessible web for everyone. This is #web01
#4opens: This hashtag is used to promote transparency, collaboration, and community-driven development in software and technology projects. It should be used to JUDGE projects.

Each of these hashtags serves as a shorthand for broader discussions and concepts, allowing people to participate in and contribute to conversations around these topics on the #openweb and inside the #dotcons it’s about linking.

#KISS

Development of technology in a community-centric direction

We need to reboot #KISS by shaping technology to empower people and building to their needs to create any inclusive and democratic digital path. We need technology that prioritizes people and community customization first:

User-Centric Design: Technology should be designed with the people in mind, focusing on usability, accessibility, and flexibility. This means involving people in the design process and incorporating their feedback to create technology that meets real needs, process and preferences.
Open Source and Open Standards: Embracing #4opens principles promotes transparency, interoperability, and people’s control. By making source code freely available and adhering to open standards, developers empower people to modify and customize the technology they are building according to wider social requirements.
Decentralization: Moving away from centralized platforms and embracing decentralized architectures fosters community and resilience in the social digital networks. Decentralized technologies empower people to have control over their digital lives and communities, stepping away from reliance on large corporations.
Education and Empowerment: Educating people about technology and creating tools and resources to shape and customize to their needs is essential. By fostering digital literacy, people can understand and thus take control of their digital experiences, to create a more informed and engaged user base.
Community Engagement: Engaging with communities and building collaboration and thus co-creation leads to the development of technology that reflects the diverse needs and perspectives of people. By building inclusive and participatory processes, developers can ensure that technology serves the interests of the community.

In the context of the #Fediverse and #openweb reboot, prioritizing these helps to steer the development of technology towards a community-centric and empowering direction of real world use. By stepping away from the #dotcons tech that pre-shapes people’s behaviour to grow a more participatory and inclusive path, we build a digital ecosystem that serves the needs of people.

#KISS is a good start on this path.

Funding tech outside the shadow of the #deathcult

There is a complete failure of funding for the community (non #mainstreaming) side of tech, I have put in more than ten funding applications over the last few years to all the openweb funding flows.

And the answer, if the is one, is always the same, some of the replies:

” This kind of effort is very hard to seek grants for – which holds for the vast majority of
FOSS efforts, to be sure, but for things this high up in the stack even more.”

“I don’t have an obvious candidate for you to go to either”

The issue is that this is actually a LIE, the funders do fund the subjects we are applying for, just they ONLY fund the shadow of the #deathcult because they do not understand anything outside this. Or if they do understand, they are to afried of their funding flows drying up if they did fund anything outside this shadow.

“What the times are and how they are changing is different from every perspective. And so is utility. Not every project can be equally successful from everyone’s point of view. From our vantage point the process we deliver seems to work better than the vast majority of other processes (there are many tens of billions spent less frugality and with no impact at all within the same EC frameworks, I’m sure you’ll agree). Future history will have to prove the approach right or wrong,”

So good advice is nice, change challenge is better, ideas please for change challenge of this funding mess.

Or this openweb reboot is going to be absorbed by the #mainstreaming, not a bad thing, but it’s NOT the project meany of have been working on #KISS

“Obviously, we are always eager to haul in new projects – so do send projects you deem worthy our way.”

Ten funding applications latter, it’s a problem, I think we need both being nice and not being nice, and we need these together to break this LIE in funding.

On https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ we have fucked this path over the last few years – the spiky fluffy debate has not been respected. This holding the “debate” in place is the secret of all working/affective activism, hint, hint. And we are doing activism in this openweb reboot, I understand the majority of people like to deny this, but this denying makes these people prats and the problem not the solution, let’s politicly tell them this.

#KISS PS. there is the word “stupid” in this hashtag, in this am not calling any individual stupid, so please don’t take this as pointing at YOU personally I am talking about social groups, stupid #mainstreaming fearful groups.

#NLnet #NGI #ngizero #summerofprotocols #investinopen #RIPENCC

Revisiting the ActivityPub foundation idea

There are a few views on this issue, the “common sense” #NGO path, an example Presenting Fedi Foundation: Empowerment for SocialHub community 1

And the more “nativist” openweb path What would a fediverse “governance” body look like?

And then we have the #geekproblem path, which has been pushing the fep process the last 2 years, but I think they are avoiding the politics of actually touching this issue. Fair enough.

If the “native” openweb crew don’t move past their “left” mess issues then I think in the end the #NGO path will be imposed, It’s simply what happens, there is a long history of this outcome

The argument between structure and lack of structure is often a strawman. For example, the ogb project, that came out of the #EU outreach has a lot of structure Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network BUT it is SOFT “nativist” rather than the HARD structure of the #NGO “foundation” people think of as structure, it’s interesting when people can’t see this, it’s a kind of blindness, and a hard subject to talk about.

Obviously anything that works has lots of structure, the more important question is about the visibility and “native” democracy of this structure. This is a hard argument/talk to have, and we do keep failing on this, what to do? Ideas please.

It’s interesting that formal coops almost never work in reality, and when/if they do work they tend to become shadows of the #deathcult

In contrast, activist aganising works, often badly. But over all, activist organising is more successful at being an Alt than formal coops, there is a long unspoken history to back this up.

BUT our #mainstreaming always talks about formal coops, if they talk about alts at all, because they can ONLY see this shadow of the #deathcult

Activist organising is always fighting the #deathcult, so it rarely functions as this shadow. The #NGO world is always this shadow.

OK I admit with the right/left mess, this is more of a mess to be composted, ideas please 🙂

————————————–

Current examples in the UK would be the coop supermarket, which got Tesco people in to make it profitable and has soviet design sense and staffing. And the coop bank, which is so bureaucratic as to be pretty much unusable. We have banked with them a number of times. On the positive side you had the co-op wholefood shops in the 1970’s which metamorphosed into the much more #deathcult health shops in the 1990’s. Just to touch on a few. Housing coops have an interesting history, quite a few stories to tell on these.

Don’t take me wrong, I like coops, but I don’t like #fahernistas pushing them over things where we have other forms of organising which likely work better. Diversity is good, just don’t dogmatically push crap that then needs to be composted, we have enough shit to shovel without this thanks.

As ever, “don’t be a prat” is the watch word.