Antanicus is a user on social.coop. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse.
Antanicus @Antanicus

"These millionaires – who account for 0.7% of the world’s adult population – control 46% of total global wealth that now stands at $280tn (...) the world’s 3.5 billion poorest adults each have assets of less than $10,000 (...). Collectively these people, who account for 70% of the world’s working age population, account for just 2.7% of global wealth."

And yet they have the courage to tell us "socialism is unsustainable"...

theguardian.com/inequality/201

@Antanicus the really annoying bit is that even market restraints and low-key redistributionary effort is being opposed and rolled back.

@pnathan that's hardly a surprise... Neoliberal elites worldwide have been working tirelessly for the past 30 years to get to this point, no wonder they want to keep the status quo. Asking them pretty please won't change a thing. We need to get what is ours by force, if necessary.

@antanicus @pnathan I think at this point the neoliberal era which began in approximately 1980 is either already over or in its final stages. We're moving into some other kind of economic era, but it's not clear what that will be. Maybe some feudalistic or fascistic version of capitalism, or maybe an era of the commons.

@Antanicus @bob that does seem pretty clear to me too (and you and I do disagree heartily about a lot, Bob 😀 ).

we're having some heavy tugging toward oligarchs, and some heavy tugging towards redistributionary systems in the us. not sure who will win.

@pnathan @Antanicus @bob Stiglitz seems to think it is time to rein in markets, as they do not actually work without regulation. And to expressly address power asymmetries in markets.

And that knowledge should be a public good.

So mainstream economics are in the process of moving in the right direction.

@Antanicus @bob @alanz i defer the details of what constitutes a working market to the experts.

but it seems clear that the accumulation of the power and wealth to oligarchs is due to inadequate regulation at appropriate levels and inadequate accountability for the regulators.

I would be fascinated to figure out how to increase effective power of the UN to regulate. I've thought about working there even. :-)

@Antanicus @bob @pnathan And here is a PPT from Stiglitz critiquing the neoliberal Washington Consensus against a thing he calls the Stockholm Consensus.

sida.se/contentassets/6c3efac0

@Antanicus @bob @alanz Ah, now that's interesting. He seems to have the experience to say something worth really listening to.

@bob @pnathan the proliferation of neo-fascist parties and movements is a clear signal the middle class is feeling threatened. And rightfully so: the long term goal of neoliberalism is the thirdworldization of society (and if today's news is anything to go by, the goal is almost achieved.. )

@Antanicus I would not advise suggesting or implying using force in the political process on a public website system which will certainly come to light as a hotbed of leftist and liberal sentiment.

I would suggest that organization, solidarity, education, protest, and pressure on responsible law officials should be applied to ensure redistribution for a more just society.

@pnathan there's only one problem with that: the neo-fascist movements (which are a direct expression of the threatened middle class) will always side with the rich and powerful. And they really, really like violence.

@Antanicus let me rephrase what I said.

Security services will set up a scraper for the fediverse and investigate those advocating violence.

@pnathan for all we know, that might already be happening. Just to be clear, I truly hope we will never have to resort to force, that's why I used the words "if necessary".

@Antanicus @pnathan As much as I tend tor oll my eyes at seperatists, it's becoming awfully tempting.

The very, very, very hard part is fighting the overall government direction effectively, because it's very easy for governments to ignore or suppress protests, but very difficult for us to live without them

Disengaging from government services generally just means not taking payments and reducing your income below taxable. It's a bit harder to 'disengage' from the police, or emergency services

@Antanicus @dartigen I would argue that government services are profoundly more networked into people's lives than just welfare/taxes. I would, in fact, say that the totality of all labor and materials including process and transportation interact and are guided by modern governments. Everything is regulated and limited. Everything.

That reality is what took place, in part, to limit oligarchs circa 1880-1920.

@pnathan @Antanicus Yeah. It's almost impossible to escape from it, even if you're not someone who is reliant on government-funded medical or other services. Even harder to escape the capitalism economy.

Which is why I tend to roll my eyes at seperatists. As nice as I would be to live on a big farm with all my friends, growing all our own food and making all our own stuff, I just don't see how that's going to bring capitalism down. It's just running away from the problems.

@dartigen @pnathan it's a matter of both scale and method. Just a few, detached people leaving out of the system won't change a thing. A massive, networked group of communities abandoning the capitalist system are a totally different thing. The. P2P Foundation has lots of material around that, if you're interested

@Antanicus @pnathan I'm not sure even a large scale would get around certain issues though, like where to go and such.

I'm also not very confident that there won't be pushbacks from local and state governments if the scale did get big enough.

Some council areas are more likely to be on board than others, but they tend to not be in the areas where these actions are the most sorely needed.

@Antanicus @dartigen I see communes and other small scale separatist efforts as pre-dividing for easier conquering by oligarchs/fascists. It is inherently anti solidarity.

@pnathan @Antanicus This is also true. Creating these larger-scale efforts to support or circumvent can establish solidarity, but outright seperatism doesn't.

(I still tend to lean on the 'running away from the problems won't fix them' argument though, because to me seperatism is running away from your problems on a larger scale.)

@Antanicus @dartigen I read it as an inherent weakness in the post-1970 USA Left. The focus on subsidiarity and decentralization has disempowered and divided the left, giving us today's situation....

#statist

@pnathan @dartigen I beg to differ. It was not the focus on decentralization (which even today is hardly a "mainstream left" topic) that disempowered the left, but rather the lack of credible proposals to counteract the neoliberal paradigm, which spread like wildfire across the west. Millions of jobs were moved to China or elsewhere, de facto destroying the very concept of "working class" the left relied on. Nostalgia-ridden discourse and an ageing leadership did the rest...

@Antanicus @pnathan Well, and a lack of ability to adapt that discourse to the expanding service sector, or hook generations who had been told that the left wasn't worth the time of day. (And combined with not insignificant efforts to keep any serious leftists out of positions of any significant power or authority, even in universities and such.)
It's slowly changing, but it took long enough.

@Antanicus @pnathan It really seems more and more like violence is the only way to create this kind of change, but it doesn't seem like we've hit the kind of flashpoint that would trigger it. It's just this slow grinding down.

@pseudo310 @pnathan I have the same feeling, and it is a very unpleasant one... I don't like violence nor I wish to be forced to resort to it, but the more I look at the rise of neo-fascists, the more I am afraid we will eventually have to defend ourselves