Tag: mainstreaming

The Cost of Living Crisis: Corporate Greed and Political Corruption

That the cost of living crisis stems from corporate greed and political corruption is a useful perspective to challenge #mainstreaming narratives. Economic hardships faced by people and communerties are not inevitable or natural, rather the result of deliberate actions by powerful agendas.

“Remember, anyone trying to blame our cost of living crisis on anything other than grotesque corporate greed & political corruption are themselves grotesquely greedy & corrupt.” (from ClimateDad)

Corporate Greed

  1. Profit Maximization: Corporations prioritize profit maximization above all else, at the expense of workers, consumers, and the environment. This drive leads to the current mess of wage suppression, price gouging, and cutting corners on safety and quality.
  2. Market Manipulation: Large corporations engage in anti-competitive practices to dominate markets, stifling competition and innovation. This leads to higher prices and reduced choices for people.
  3. Tax Evasion: By exploiting tax loopholes and offshore tax havens, corporations significantly reduce their tax burdens. This deprives governments of essential revenue needed to fund public services and infrastructure, shifting the financial burden onto ordinary people.
  4. Environmental Exploitation: Corporations engage in environmentally destructive practices to cut costs and increase profits. The long-term environmental degradation leads to increased costs for communities and governments in terms of health care, disaster relief, and restoration efforts.

Political Corruption

  1. Lobbying and Influence: Corporations and wealthy individuals use their financial resources to influence political decisions through lobbying and campaign contributions. This result in policies that favour the wealthy and powerful, rather than the general populace.
  2. Regulatory Capture: Regulatory agencies tasked with overseeing industries become dominated by the industries they are supposed to regulate. This leads to weak enforcement of laws and regulations, allowing corporate malfeasance to go unchecked.
  3. Public Policy: Corruption leads to policies that prioritize the interests of the few over the needs of the many. Examples include tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and austerity measures that disproportionately affect low- and middle-income people.
  4. Lack of Accountability: Corrupt politicians and officials face little to no accountability for their actions, leading to a cycle of corruption and mismanagement that perpetuates economic inequality and social injustice.

The Combined Effect

  1. Economic Inequality: The combination of corporate greed and political corruption builds economic inequality. As wealth and power become concentrated in the hands of a few, the majority of people struggle to afford necessities like housing, healthcare, and education.
  2. Erosion of Public Services: Reduced tax revenues and public spending cuts leads to the erosion of essential public services. This affects the most vulnerable members of society, increasing their cost of living and reducing their quality of life.
  3. Social Unrest: Widespread economic hardship and injustice lead to social unrest, as people become increasingly frustrated with their inability to achieve a decent standard of living. This at best manifest in protests, strikes, and more #DIY forms of resistance.
  4. Health and Well-being: The stress and insecurity of economic hardship has severe impacts on physical and mental health, further entrenching poverty and making it difficult for people to see or act coherently.

Conclusion

Corporate greed and political corruption are the drivers of the cost of living crisis, we need to say this clearly to challenge people to look beyond surface-level explanations and examine the systemic abuse and issues on this current path. Addressing these root causes requires a fundamental change to challenge the current #deathcult worship, an effort for transparency, accountability, and fairness in both the corporate and political spheres.

Good to keep this simple, #KISS

Real Social Media is a Hard Balancing Act

#Opensocialmedia is native to the #openweb it represents liberation, while #closedsocialmedia is centred around control for profit. The balance between these two forms is nuanced, and understanding the implications and paths of each requires consideration. It is not “common sense” so you need to think outside your current limited view please #KISS

Open Social Media: Liberation

  1. Transparency and Accountability: Open social media operate with transparency, allowing people to see and understand the algorithms, policies, and decision-making processes. This transparency builds trust and accountability, as people feel responsible and empowered to be responsible for actions and content.
  2. Empowerment: At best, people and communities have control over their content and data. They shape experiences to take their own path, contribute to the platform’s development, and participate in governance. This builds ownership and engagement, it’s a feedback loop.
  3. Innovation and Collaboration: Open platforms grow through collaboration. Developers and users create features together, improving collectively. This collaborative building nurtures technological for people rather than only for profit.
  4. Information: Open social media provides unrestricted access to information, promoting affective and for fulling speech and sharing of ideas. This supports progressive education, activism, and the basic democratization of knowledge.

Closed Social Media: Control

  1. Monetization and Profitability: Closed social media platforms are motivated by monetization, using people’s data and metadata to generate revenue through manipulative advertising and social control.
  2. Centralized Power: Control is centralized to the platform owners and administrators, in the end the state. This centralization limits people influence over the network, policies and progressive changes, creating vertical, top-down governance.
  3. Content Moderation and Censorship: Content moderation is core to building community and to prevent abuse, closed platforms exercise total, manipulative control, leading to #mainstreaming censorship and the shaping of agendas, and most obviously the suppression of dissenting voices. This control is used to shape public thinking and silence any real opposition.
  4. Data Privacy Concerns: Closed platforms collect and store vast amounts of people’s data and metadata without much transparency about how it is used. This lack of transparency highlights privacy concerns and risks of invertible data leeks.

The Complex Balance

  1. Finding the Middle path: Balancing open and closed social media involves finding a balance where people’s empowerment and creativity coexist with democratic controls and sustainability measures. This balance requires careful consideration of the trade-offs involved in both cases.
  2. Regulation and Governance: Effective democratic regulation and governance are crucial in maintaining this balance. Policies protects people’s rights, data privacy, and promotes transparency without stifling creativity by pushing only #mainstreaming agenda.
  3. Community Involvement: Building in community decision-making grows this balance. Platforms that have participatory governance are likely to achieve a harmonious equilibrium between openness and control.

Conclusion

The balance between open and closed social media is not straightforward and requires taking the path of reflection and adaptation. Open social media offers liberation through transparency, empowerment, and collaboration (#4opens), while closed social media focuses on control, centralization, and monetization (#dotcons). Walking a path that maximizes the benefits of both approaches involves navigating trade-offs, fostering community involvement, and implementing effective governance (#OGB).

You can support this path https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Security and trust are a part of the fluffy/spiky debate in activism

As dissent and protest are increasingly criminalized, it’s important for protesters and activists to protect themselves – to the degree possible – from surveillance. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (#EFF) offers a guide for surveillance defence. It’s useful to read this even if you aren’t a protester, because the right wing (and sadly, some of the left) are increasingly willing to trample on trust building in activism. Let’s hope for the best, but good to understand the possible bad outcomes.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/surveillance-defense-campus-protests

While the EFF’s guidance is useful, it’s important to acknowledge that the level of organized paranoia required for this to be effective is overwhelming and damaging to “trust” based activism. So It’s key to strike a balance, which, yes, is a lived challenge. It’s best to focus on the “fluffy spiky” debate—ensuring that spiky, direct activism uses this guide to inform their actions without dictating to more #mainstreaming and outreach “fluffy” activism.

The concept of #4opens (open data, open source, open standards, and open process) is integral in building trust, which is how and why these grassroots #DIY protests and movements can be effective. It is crucial for sustaining impactful activism.

By maintaining a balance between necessary security measures and open, inclusive activism, we can continue to protect our rights while promoting a more a “native” and importantly affective path to build an equitable society.

The Battle for the Internet: Open vs. Closed

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

The #OpenWeb

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

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

The #ClosedWeb

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

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

The Internet’s “native” Potential

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

From the #OpenWeb perspective:

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

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

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

The Battleground for Openness

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

The #GeekProblem

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

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

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

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

#mainstreaming counter-cultures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tension, Open and Closed Web

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to compost the current culture of lying

Toxic Positivity

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

The Myth of the Temporarily Embarrassed Billionaire

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

The Rejection of Toxic Positivity

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

The Commodification of Purpose

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

The American Dream and Meritocracy

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

The Realities of the Corporate Grind

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

Conclusion

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

Utopia

Let’s try and reclaim some words, in the current mess of #mainstreaming, #Utopia is a dirty word #Dystopia is not. The story that imagines a future of continual decline feels more reasonable, even inevitable. It’s easy and kinda enjoyable to picture #apocalyptic paths, given the current state of the world.

With the growth of #deathcult worshipping, the end of history was declared 40 years ago, equating our current social and economic organization as the pinnacle of human achievement. The prevailing #neoliberal system —markets, competition, a gladiatorial struggle for personal betterment—was seen as the only viable one. The myth that individual success trickles down to benefit everyone persists, despite now widespread disbelief and distrust in this what should be obvious to any thinking person – #deathcult

However, we’re so deeply in to everyday “common sense” worship that imagining alternatives feels impossible now, Utopia has become a dirty word, while dystopia is accepted. Reflecting on our childhood wonder at human progress—pilotless planes, robots, space exploration, flying cars—we now see these advancements as threats. Military drones, job-stealing automation, space as a private escape, and flying cars are all tinged with dread.

It’s the system. Whether you support or oppose it, the is a consensus, that the future under this system is rarely viewed with optimism. The promises of market-driven utopia have led to repeated crises like 2008, not the envisioned social prosperity. Even so, we cling to this system, its power inescapable, much like the divine right of kings once was.

Individualization of Collective Imagination

Capitalism’s sells us as a personalized, isolated package. Unlike divine rights or blood-bound royalty, it promotes the idea of control over one’s destiny. This creates a stark divide in experiences, making collective betterment less achievable. Pursuing a better life individually, rather than collectively, becomes the normal path. This social “blindness” stops us from seeing ourselves as we are, as a part of a larger human social experiment.

Even those aware of the system’s flaws live by its tenets, striving for personal success. The fear of revolution or change is partly because of the effort already invested in this individual progress. The idea that there’s an alternative to struggle is overshadowed by the pursuit of these personal goals, leading to a narrowed view of possibilities. We all still blindly worship this #deathcult in our everyday lives.

Capitalism is internalized as the natural way of life. Imagining beyond it is seen as insanity. The greatest progress arises from dire circumstances, where the alternative to suffering is non-existence. Today, comfort smothers the drive for change. Yet, dystopian media normalizes bleak futures, projecting what #climatechaos and social break down will eventually make happen.

Fictional literature and media have always been vital in exploring human futures. The contrast between grim dystopias and hopeful utopias illustrates our capacity for imagining different worlds. Yet, creating believable, relatable utopias is challenging in a world where the status quo dominates. Characters proposing radical change are cast as antagonists, reinforcing the idea that reform, not revolution, is the only path.

The Room for Optimism

Despite this, the fact we’re discussing these issues means there’s hope. Remembering that this current system is a tiny step in human history, that human social organization is dynamic and changeable. Reflecting on past norms—such as ancient philosophers, fascist regimes, or the lack of modern conveniences—shows how transient and idiotic we can be in the belief in a single “static” path.

Rejecting the idea that our pinnacle achievement is building bigger shopping malls is basic. Utopia isn’t a dirty word; it’s an aspiration made dirty by those who fear its potential. Utopias aren’t meant to be achieved, but to serve as light guiding us forward. Embracing utopian thinking means daring to imagine better futures, challenging the status quo, and recognizing our capacity for taking different paths to profound social evolution.

So, let’s reclaim utopia, not as an endpoint, but as a direction, an ideal to strive towards, illuminating our path through the darkness of the present mess. Be part of this path https://opencollective.com/open-media-network you can hold the light, the #OMN is building real world #openweb native alternatives, together we can be this step.

Why We Can’t Enjoy life

There is a #mainstreaming story that progressives are incapable of enjoying anything and are easily offended, wildly over-analytical, snobby, pretentious, and injecting politics into everything. There is some truth to this, many left-leaning people would admit, reluctantly, that we can be pretty crap and insufferable at times. But it’s important to see the difference between the self-critical view leftists have of themselves not being able to enjoy anything and the propagandist one coming from the right or centre of politics.

Rage Against the System

The right-wing shouts at us that left #fahernistas can’t enjoy anything because they are soft, overthink things and are easily offended, “woke”. They forget that it’s not only a weakness, but more often inarticulate rage and anger, a rage towards an insufferable world people just can’t swallow and accept. Anger that builds up with every minute people have to spend pretending everything’s all right.

Anger, in reality, comes bursting out at the worst or most absurd of times. But think for a moment, it’s not the anger that is the problem. The anger is fine; it’s more that it is often misplaced. Many young, progressive learning, anti-status quo people are just that: angry, confused, and thus lost. Rightfully angry, confused, and lost, but with a social created, unfortunate, lack of vision on when and where to channel this anger.

The Curse of Awareness

So why do leftists find it so hard to enjoy things?

  1. The News: The way #mainstreaming news works is you pick a tribe and only watch what the people from your tribe show on the #dotcons and TV. You foam at the mouth with a pitchfork in hand, go online with a burning touch to shout and complain about either the illiterate rednecks or the college graduate cross-dressing paedophiles. From the grassroots activist sidelines, this seems equally weird and entertaining because we don’t currently have a news cycle backing anyone like us. Our understanding of how privately owned media works makes most news indigestible. No matter how “objective” this tries to be, when news is a business, it will never cross certain boundaries. Boundaries like questioning the system or pitching an alternative to the status quo.
  2. National Identity: We might be proud of our heritage and culture, but #class consciousness makes us understand that we have far more in common with workers of all nations than we do with the #rulingclass of our own country. Patriotism without class consciousness feels wrong and is wrong. We cringe at hyper-patriotic empty gestures because we understand that 9 out of 10 times, if we get sent to the front line in the next war, we’ll be shooting other working-class comrades while the sons of our presidents sit comfortably on a far away beach.
  3. Self-Help and New Age Philosophy: These are the two deep fake philosophies out there. The self-help military-industrial complex implies that everything can be solved if you figure out the puzzle which is the world economy and use a special cheat code to get yourself out of any mess. The latter idea, quasi-spiritual enlightenment, pitches internalizing the world and creating a world of your “own” as a coping mechanism. We can’t enjoy either of these because they are commodified beyond recognition and based on an unrealistic #stupidindividualism that we can and should handle everything on our own.
  4. Our Jobs: We struggle to enjoy our jobs because we understand that at the end of the day, we’re being exploited. No matter what industry or position, your boss does not pay you even close to how much you make them. This fact makes all the talk of purpose, family, and a cause sound like pathetic, childish gesturing.
  5. Mindless Consumption: We can’t fully enjoy consumerism because we know that the high of a purchase is followed by the hangover realization that we’re still as lost as we were before. The lie that we can find purpose in mindless consumption is the greatest epidemic of our time.

The Price of Seeing Clearly

The main takeaway of all these examples is simple: the progressive activist understands that in the current system, whether it’s mindless shopping, new chauvinism, job unfulfillment, or quasi-philosophy, there is a struggle between our wants to see the world and constant manipulation steering us away from this. This awareness is why life feels so miserable. Yes, we see the Zombies behind the masks of the puppets, and it’s hard to enjoy the show when you know it’s death dancing behind the #mainstreaming illusion.

Q. “WHAT ABOUT HUMAN NATURE?” That simple question posits an even simpler view of human consciousness and decision-making. It says man is flawed—through his greed, jealousy, and selfishness—and that as such, he would destroy and corrupt any system which doesn’t utilize those very flaws. The way capitalism, for example, does with greed, by throwing us in the gladiatorial arena, or to be more realistic, a children’s sandbox, of the free market—where the greediest win. Yes, it’s a mess.

We worshipped a #deathcult for 40 years

Our shared #mainstreaming for the last 40 years has been built on the path of #neoliberalism a political and economic ideology that advocates for minimal state intervention in the economy, emphasizing free markets, deregulation, privatization, and a reduction in government spending on social programs. It emerged as a dominant force in the late 20th century, particularly from the 1980s onwards, under the influence of #MargaretThatcher in the UK and #RonaldReagan in the US.

Historical Context

After World War II, many European countries adopted social democratic policies, influenced by the pressure of strong socialist movements and the existence of socialist states like the #USSR, these provided extensive social benefits, full employment, free healthcare, and education. To avoid potential revolutions and maintain stability, European nations implemented social welfare programs internally while still engaging in exploitative economic practices externally in their former colonies.

Emergence of Neoliberalism

By the 1980s, the capitalist system faced renewed crises, including economic recessions, a decline in profitability. In response, the old fundamentalism of #classicliberalism renamed as #neoliberal pushed for a drastic reduction in government intervention and social spending. This shift was driven by the belief that previous social democratic concessions (the social safety net put in place due to communism) were no longer sustainable or needed and were hindering economic growth and profit margins.

Definition and Principles

Neoliberalism is a set of policies and ideas focused on:

  1. Deregulation: Removing government regulations to allow businesses total freedom in how they operate.
  2. Privatization: Transferring public services and assets to the private sector.
  3. Reduced Public Spending: Cutting government expenditures on social programs like welfare, healthcare, and education.
  4. Tax Cuts: Lowering taxes for corporations and the wealthy to encourage investment and economic growth.
  5. Free Markets: Promoting the idea that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources and solve social problems.

Ideological Dogma

Neoliberalism “common sense” asserts that the market, left alone, will “naturally” regulate itself and provide the best outcomes for society. This belief extends to all areas of life, including education, healthcare, and social services, which should be subjected to market forces rather than people driven state control.

Consequences

Social and Economic Impact

  • Increased Inequality: Neoliberal policies lead to income and wealth disparities as the rich benefit from tax cuts and deregulation while social safety nets are dismantled for the poor.
  • Reduced Worker Protections: Labour unions and pro-labour legislation are weakened, leading to lower wages and worse working conditions.
  • Privatization of Public Services: Essential services like healthcare and education become more expensive and less accessible to the poor.
  • Environmental Degradation: Deregulation leads to pollution and environmental harm as companies prioritize profit over sustainability. We have pushed #climatechaos hard with this mess.

Global Impact

  • IMF and World Bank Policies: Developing countries are subjected to structural adjustment programs by international financial institutions, which require them to implement neoliberal policies in exchange for loans. This leads to severe social and economic hardship in the developing world
  • Exploitation of Developing Countries: Neoliberalism perpetuates global inequalities by maintaining exploitative relationships between wealthy and poorer nations.

Criticism and Opposition

Critics show that neoliberalism prioritizes the interests of the wealthy and corporations at the expense of the environment, working class and the poor. Undermining democracy by concentrating economic and political power in the hands of a few, leading to increased social unrest and current right-wing shift and resulting political and environmental instability.

Conclusion

The people pushing #neoliberalism, lied about economic efficiency and growth and the associated significant social costs, including increased inequality, reduced public welfare, and environmental degradation. Their focus on market solutions for all problems disregards the realities of social and economic life, leading to widespread criticism and calls for alternative approaches that prioritize social equity and sustainability.

In the era of #climatechaos, this shift to Neoliberalism was obviously a #deathcult that continues to shapes our “common sense” and has been central to our lives for the last 40 years. We can’t keep going down the path, you can find different paths here https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The West’s Climate-Catastrophe is “native” to the mess we are in

We need pathways to sustainable, equitable and just societies

The idea of mixing capitalism and socialism in a “fluffy” path is proposed as a solution to the shortcomings of both systems. This notion is especially popular among well-meaning liberals who point to European social democracies as examples of successful mixed economies. However, any deeper examination reveals contradictions and challenges inherent in attempting to merge these fundamentally opposing systems.

Capitalism vs. Socialism: The Fundamental Contradiction

Capitalism is characterized by private property, markets, and the private ownership of capital. It operates on exploitative wage labour, where workers sell their labour power to capitalists, who, in turn, use this labour to create commodities sold in capitalist markets. The primary goal is profit maximization, this leads to class divisions: the capitalist class (a small, wealthy minority) and the working class (the huge majority who sell their labour).

Socialism, on the other hand, advocates for the communal ownership of the means of production, such as land, resources, and factories. It emphasizes worker control and management of enterprises, aiming for a society where economic decisions are made democratically to serve the needs of the majority. Socialism seeks to abolish wage labour and private property in favour of collective ownership and cooperative management.

The Mixed Economy Myth

Proponents of a mixed economy argue that integrating elements of both systems can harness the benefits of capitalism (such as innovation and efficiency) while mitigating its downsides (like inequality and exploitation) through socialist policies (like social safety nets and public services). However, this view is blind to the deeper ideological and practical conflicts between capitalism and socialism.

  1. Incompatibility of Goals: Capitalism thrives on competition, profit, and private ownership, which inherently leads to inequality and exploitation. Socialism eliminates these foundations by promoting equality, collective ownership, and cooperation. Trying to mix these systems results in a compromised form of capitalism rather than any genuine blend.
  2. Social Democracy: Often cited as successful examples of mixed economies, European social democracies (e.g., Scandinavian countries) actually represent capitalism with extensive welfare states rather than hybrids of capitalism and socialism. These countries maintain capitalist structures of private ownership and markets while providing comprehensive social services funded through taxation. Historically, the rise of social democracy was influenced by the threat of socialism, leading capitalist states to adopt welfare measures to appease the working class and avoid revolutionary upheaval.
  3. Sustainability Issues: The concessions of social democracy are unsustainable in the long run within a capitalist framework. As capitalism requires constant growth and profit maximization, social programs are frequently under threat of cuts, especially during economic downturns. The capitalist class has a vested interest in reducing welfare spending to increase profits, leading to a erosion of social benefits over time.

The Role of Imperialism

An often overlooked aspect of social democracies is their reliance on imperialist exploitation. Wealthy nations frequently sustain their high living standards and social programs through economic relationships that exploit poorer countries. This global inequality allows rich nations to enjoy the benefits of capitalism and socialism-like welfare simultaneously, but it perpetuates global injustice and dependency.

Moving Beyond the Mixed Economy

For those who seek to address the issues of capitalism, the solution lies not in a superficial mix but in a fundamental restructuring towards socialism. This involves:

  • Democratizing the Economy: Shifting control of enterprises from private owners to workers and communities.
  • Abolishing Wage Labour: Ensuring that all workers benefit directly from the fruits of their labour, rather than enriching a small capitalist class.
  • Prioritizing Human Needs: Redirecting economic activity to meet the needs of the majority rather than the profit motives of a few.

Conclusion

While the idea of mixing capitalism and socialism might seem appealing to our more progressive #mainstreaming crew, it ultimately fails to address the root contradictions between these systems. Socialism involves a profound transformation of economic and social relations, to build a path to a society based on equality, cooperation, and democratic control.

They are different projects, we need pathways towards this equitable and just society https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

#spiky #fluffy # socialdemocracy #MixedEconomy

A radical view of the Palestine

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is messy and complex. Let’s look at this from a radical perspective, where it is seen as a struggle against settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, with ongoing systemic injustice.

The Radical View of the Palestine Story

  1. Historical Context
    • Colonial Legacy: The establishment of Israel in 1948 was a settler colonial project. This is likened to European colonialism in Africa and the Americas, where indigenous populations were displaced by settlers.
    • Ethnic Cleansing: The Nakba, or “catastrophe,” tells the story of the mass displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel. Over 700,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes, a process of ethnic cleansing.
  2. Ongoing Occupation
    • Military Occupation: The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in Israel occupying the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. This occupation is illegal under international law.
    • Settler Expansion: Israeli settlements in the West Bank are a continuation of the colonial project, with land being taken from Palestinians to build homes for Israeli settlers. This agen is illegal under international law.
  3. Systemic Injustice
    • Apartheid: Radicals describe the situation as apartheid, with separate legal systems and rights for Jewish Israelis and Palestinians, akin to South African apartheid.
    • Human Rights Violations: Regular reports of human rights abuses, including home demolitions, arbitrary arrests, and restrictions on movement, highlight the ongoing systemic oppression.

Key Points of Advocacy

  1. Education and Awareness
    • Understanding the history and current realities is crucial. This includes debunking myths perpetuated by #mainstreaming media agendas.
  2. Active Participation
    • Demonstrations and Protests: Being present at demonstrations shows solidarity and helps raise awareness. “Spiky” direct action on the economic supports for the occupation is also a needed and affective strategy.
    • Join Organizations: Support or join “Fluffy” organizations that work towards Palestinian liberation and human rights, such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
  3. Support and Solidarity
    • Charity and Aid: Donate to grassroots organizations helping Palestinian refugees and those affected by the conflict. Work in this area.
    • Political Advocacy: Pressure governments to hold Israel accountable for human rights violations and to support Palestinian self-determination.

Conclusion

The radical view of the Palestine story emphasizes the importance of understanding the conflict through the daily reality of colonialism and systemic injustice. From this view, education, direct action, active participation, and support for Palestinian self-determination are key to contributing to the movement. That arming yourself with knowledge and standing in solidarity, people can help combat the ongoing crimes against humanity in Palestine.

The current mess making, media coverage, of tribal struggles in the Middle East