Explore this post and more from the ChatGPT community

Dear friends, We’ve charted knowledge validation before. Or, I suppose, flitted around the edges of the supposed “validatory” power of the western hegemonic bloc. A bloc which is under threat, and yet remains largely outsourced under contemporary capitalist forms. Is the academy ready to be captured by the counter-hegemony, or are its tools, methods and self-important validations ready to topple to the disinformation racket of modern platform social media. Ok, we’ll scratch this itch a little further and ask some critical questions, because knowledge production remains an eternally under critiqued area of capitalism. Universities and research institutes have long served as a big rubber stamp for _some_ kinds of knowledge. Without getting into a material history of things like peer-review, we can see the influence of ”valid knowledge” on civil society for decades. The written form of record that these institutions produce inform a great many areas of bourgeois life – and, importantly, contribute to ongoing hegemonic reproduction. Take for instance an academic paper. For a paper to be written, we need researchers, researchers need jobs, institutions employ researchers, and in modern times, researchers must also seek funding from dried out pools. Each of these steps is political. Universities, containing things to Australia for a moment, are beholden to government for funding and direction. This is achieved both through financing the institutions (parking the way HECS screws both universities and students for a moment) and through the provision of political acts (from _actual_ acts, i.e., the University’s act) through to “strategic direction” through organs such as the chief scientist. Then there is the proliferation of academic hierarchy, most of whom are beholden to external interests, anything from political party membership, through to holding sponsored roles (i.e., xyz corp’s professorial fellow for killing the environment). Then, down layers of neoliberal ontogenesis, researchers are themselves beholden to political and corporate interests. Researchers, here, serve dual function: author/scientist, and reviewer/expert. The circlejerk of capitalism as epistemic master is complete. Each layer of university existence is designed to prioritise stasis – not innovation, and the stasis above all else must ensure capitalism’s hegemony. Even if that means sabotaging the organs which support that hegemony in favour of new brutalisms. Bureaucratisation is the latest recycled fad in the onslaught of agency undermining processes designed to keep people from thinking their way out of capitalism. And it is at this point where a fundamental philosophical question emerges. This, as something I grapple with each day, is fundamental to theories of change: **Can the system which has created and maintained colonial capitalist hegemony be used to absolutely transform that system?** We might look to Lorde[1] on the masters tools at this juncture. From Marxist law[2], to intersectional feminisms[3]Lorde shook up notions of transformation using capitalism’s tools to change the world. While cynical inaction surfaces as a result of some of this thinking, decolonial and anti-capitalist thinkers continue to challenge the tools which reproduce our unequal system[4]. The essential tools, though, which emerge from the descendants of Lorde’s thinking, are in the epistemological re-shaping work which allow us to fundamentally challenge the ways our knowledge production happens, working with each other to find new ways of being and knowing[5]. A literal collective (that means all of us, intersectionally, not some of us _qua_ capitalists) redefining of how we know and why that knowing matters. This said, the general usefulness of universities and research institutes to capitalist hegemony seems to be in extreme doubt in our current political moment[6]. Look no further than the exile of researchers, academics and scientists from the US under Trump’s philistine and disinformation rulership[7]. But all over the world, universities and institutions which are responsible for anything from biomedical science through political philosophy are coming under fire and are contracting far faster than they are growing. Between the hegemonic apparatus embracing neofascism and the primary media form, platform social media, peddling ever more propaganda and disinformation with the goal of driving “engagement”, the process of knowledge validation is in tumult. At this point, I believe, those of us in universities need to ask ourselves what _we_ are striving for. Are we seeking endless reproduction of racist, sexist, ableist, and expropriative systems which feed the capitalist beast (and allow it to outgrow its need for us) all while cancerously destroying us and the rest of the ecology. Or do we look to what we could do to educate, work in relation with, and share our tools which have been too long kept guarded atop the ivory tower? There is a fundamental need for us to shift the way we operate. Either we go: with the current hegemony we beg for scraps at capitalism’s table, reinforcing a broken and distorted system; or, we use the immense power still inside our institutions, the knowledge, processes and practices we know might be beneficial to people and communities to make strong relationships with people and communities. Not to “save”, and certainly not to “steal” from them, but to step alongside and work in partnership. The latter, fundamentally re-shaping the collective academic view of epistemology, is happening across intersectional work in a huge variety of arenas[8] – this is not “new” but rather, counter-hegemonic and thereby obstructed from mainstream view. This gives us an opportunity to reflect on what knowledge is, what thinking, knowing and doing could be, and how we want to relate to each other and to the planet – hope. I started this thought with a pondering of what exactly it is universities offer students. Walking through Tarndanya’s Rundle Mall this morning, I further wondered, what can a university possibly offer an Aboriginal community? Further extraction? Further harm? Can we, in these current regimes, work toward truth telling, currently a distant glimmer, and build relationships with communities to recognise _their_ aspirations, and centre those as ways of building a better future? I know for certain that the knowledge held in Aboriginal communities _to date_ is far more complex and nuanced – and applicable _with_ Country – than “western” knowledge. Yet universities concern ourselves with “educating” not recognising. We are worried about “validation” not acknowledgment. And we race to deficit narratives which undermine Community knowledge lest anyone else be labelled “knower”. Heaven forbid anyone else be as tastelessly pretentious as the bourgeois professor. All the while, we waste literally millions on advertising campaigns to target future students, particularly the current lifeblood, international students. The marketing department wastes hours inventing empty slogans, targeted advertising copy, and finding ‘placement’ with no authentic groundwork to support their promises and claims. Decades of researchers barreling into communities and places with empty promises, delivering broken dreams, and producing decontextualised texts “about” rather than _with_ have severed what could have been a powerful space for transformation of the Australian publics. And this is but one, fundamental, space where university capitulation to corporate and hegemonic political interest fails civil society. Who cares, in 2025, if a “fact” is peer reviewed? Who agreed that _these_ people are the ones who should be allowed to validate knowledge in the first place? Anything resembling truth, if we could even agree on what that is, is becoming increasingly scarce in our AI-fuelled pseudoscientific platform capitalism reality. Media literacy is at an all time low, and even the fundamental skill of searching the internet is being replaced by >70% inaccurate ecology destroyers[9]. It feels like now or never to pivot the purpose of education towards something which engages communities. Lest hallucinatory fact guessing machines replace the utterly human act of educating and we stumble into darkness. (mind you, it always feels now or never, so don’t panic, let’s strategise and contribute to the already growing counter-hegemony instead). With care, Aidan * * * 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audre_Lorde#Sister_Outsider also https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/audre-lorde ↩︎ 2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4544488 ↩︎ 3. https://doi.org/10.1353/par.2000.0019 ↩︎ 4. https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Beyond_the_Master_s_Tools/72fuDwAAQBAJ?hl=en https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2021.1963420 ↩︎ 5. https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/hypa.12062 ↩︎ 6. Or actually for decades… https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-014-0041-x ↩︎ 7. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/15/academics-science-trump-university-crackdown ↩︎ 8. i.e., https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-021-00110-0 ↩︎ 9. https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/29/ai_agents_fail_a_lot/ ↩︎

Dear friends, 🧸 Bear with me, I swear this is cultural studies. I've been thinking about how internet topologies shape the nature of communications, and the culture of 'place' in the hyper-online world. This started with me reminiscing about the dialup years, impatiently waiting for awkwardly themed phpBB forums to load, the disconnect mid-download from a phone call, and the internet _being_ a place[1]. The early foundations of internet technology arose from a desire to network, specifically to network beyond the intranet (i.e., the office, your house). There were competing modes of connecting, from different cables, standards, and approaches to different protocols and communication stacks (particularly across operating systems: UNIX, MacOS, Windows for Workgroups, Novell, etc.)[2]. But somewhere in these early days standards were achieved™ and computers could talk. But I don't want to write a history of internet communication protocols and methods. That's been done, and it's really that interesting... except to consider how late-stage capitalism would approach that problem today. Can you imagine the micro-quantifications of connectivity shaped with mandatory advertisement viewing, cost per click, commercialised interconnection, concentration of services onto oligarchic platforms, propaganda and information filtration, god it makes me feel sick just thinking about it. Oh, that's the current internet. But the foundations of _the network is the computer_ gave us great freedom of connectivity, even if it was and remains largely bourgeois. Information passage and collectivity fundamentally underpin the computer today – what is a computer without the network in 2025? Can you imagine not having internet access now?[3] Getting funky, and applying some philosophical concepts to technology I'd like to ask: what assumptions have we made about the internet? Does it really offer universality, human connection, ease and convenience, and what might we be letting go of to allow this? How do our assumptions influence (or otherwise) our thinking about the largest non-organic connection in our lives? And, importantly, what ontological necessities frame our communication modes? See, I told you it was cultural studies[4]! The modern internet depends on quite a few "layers" of technology. First, we have a physical layer the actual cables, infrastructure, satellites, switches, routers, servers, and storage (and many other bits and pieces). This layer makes some assumptions about place, politics, and physics. In order to have a physical layer, we might say, the ontological space requires: * Reality to have measurable physical phenomena – for instance transmission of electrical pulses, flashes of light, or radio waves. * Relatively reliable tools which enable construction and transmission across place and time. * Reality as non-abstract: photons, electrons, electromagnetic fields, cause and effect. * Human labour to construct the network: the hardware and the installation of that hardware. We also have certain epistemological assumptions embedded in this layer. These include: * Even if none ontological assumptions are "real", we must hold a belief that the above are _somewhat_ real which underpins the infrastructure (let's not get nihilistic about it). * We can know the physical world well enough to engineer mostly reliable transmission of signals. * Those signals can be measured, noise can be distinguished from data, and errors can be understood and corrected. * This knowledge foundation is largely quantitative, empirical and replicable. Jumping up a few steps we have a protocol layer. The protocol layer enables the machines to talk (we're not quite at the level of human interaction, though some talented humans know far too much about this). In 2025 we mostly use Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) at this layer[5]. On an ontological front we could assert: * Communications can be broken down into packets (described and relatively stable units). * Networks, building on the physical layer above, are about connecting separate entities, these entities remain "separate" but connected. * Implicit atomisation, the network is made of nodes (mostly computers, etc.) which have boundaries based on the physical. On the epistemological front, we might say: * There are "universal" protocols which allow different types of systems to communicate. * Strong beliefs that there is possibility of unambiguous communication, that standardisation, specification, and protocols can be made and, to an extent, enforced. * There are methods which can enable us to detect what information is correct and what is corrupted. At the application layer (not to be confused with apps), we start to see a more human organic nature emerging. This space has more 'tribes' and diverse standards, rather than requiring one agreed approach. For the web (http/https) there are some more interesting ontological concerns: * Information can be separated from context. * Information can be transported to different environments. * Information retains a coherent identity. * Information has (relatively) stable identifiers. * Resources (combinations of this information) may have stable identities and identifiers. * The presentation of resources can be separated from the resource itself (think different web browsers, email clients, etc.). Epistemologically, then, there is an assertion of certain cultural aspects: * Hypertext, this page you are reading for instance, is an associative model of knowledge. * "Understanding" hypertext emerges from relationships. Finding this page, for instance, requires me to either communicate with you in the meat suit world: offering the link, or you use another linking service (i.e., search engine) which brings you here. * Hierarchies and taxonomies are largely moot – links may receive "preference" based on search algorithms, but these aren't fundamental to how we know in application spaces. * These relationships, the "world wide web", embeds assumptions about how humans navigate information and what constitutes meaningful connection between ideas. Cool, so we've given a genealogy of knowledge to the internet. It's so academic that it hurts. But, I think there's some use in trying to understand what conditions our communications. These building blocks, while clearly contestable and very surface level, might help us to understand the socio-cultural construct which sits atop them, similarly to how ontological and epistemological examinations give us necessary context for positioning theoretical understandings – and the politics therein. And on that note, let's briefly examine the politics of network construction. The politics of these technological layers is probably more visible when we think about who controls the infrastructure, how access is distributed, and what assumptions about our behaviour are present in these systems. Let's consider the seemingly neutral act of laying undersea fibre optic cables, rather than 'construction projects', we could see decisions about physical routing as geopolitical relationships. Our communication infrastructure reinforces existing knowledge power structures. The quantity, for instance, of optic routes between Australia and the US is much higher than between Australia and Vietnam. Increasingly as corporations fund these constructions, they are not doing so because they are benevolent, rather they are literally reshaping the topology of information flow according to their commercial and political interests. At the protocol level, the apparent universality of TCP/IP masks its (western) cultural heritage. The packet-switching paradigm assumes that information can be meaningfully decomposed into discrete units and reassembled elsewhere. Intriguingly this is based on enlightenment ideas, fundamentally Eurocentric, an analytical approach to knowledge which has not been fully critiqued in relation to, say, high context ways of understanding information. Moreover, the "robustness" of the internet, its ability to "route around damage", embeds military thinking about decentralisation and resilience, carrying those assumptions about threat and survival into civilian communications decades later. The application layer is more overtly political, it promises universal access but collides with the reality of platform capitalism. The epistemological shift toward hypertext and associative knowledge, above, has been commodified. Google's PageRank algorithm manufactures hierarchies based on what serves advertising revenue. Google's platform dominance as _the_ search engine centres this even further (though threat from ChatGPT as the new information synthesis machine threatens this dominance, even if it is stupid). The democratisation of publishing offered in the early days of the internet to bourgeois folks, through blogs and web publishing tools, enabled new voices, but social media has conversely concentrated unprecedented power in the hands of a few platform owners who frequently amplify and suppress content to feed their priorities. Each of these layers politics shape the kinds of subjects, agents, or people we are online. The atomised nodes of network topology, in 2025, reinforce neoliberal conceptions of the individual as a discrete, competitive unit seeking optimal connections. What emerges across these strata is a constellation of philosophical commitments that are not made explicit, or really examined. The entire edifice rests on profound faith in reductionism. Quite literally a belief that the irreducible complexity of human communication can actually be decomposed into standardised packets, protocols, and formats without losing what makes it meaningful. This assumption underpins everything from the way TCP/IP breaks messages into fragments to how HTML separates content from presentation. Alongside, a commitment to universalism show us that technical standards can transcend the messiness of cultural difference (ha!), that a protocol designed in California can seamlessly facilitate communication between contexts as different as a Scandinavian internet café and a Nigerian research lab. There's also an extraordinary optimism about mediation embedded in these systems. A belief that technical infrastructure can serve as a neutral conduit for human intention and that meaning can traverse fibre optic cables and wireless signals without fundamental distortion or transformation. Perhaps most significantly, the network architecture enshrines liberal individualism as its organising principle, positioning discrete agents as the primary locus of choice and value creation, even as it enables unprecedented forms of collective action and emergent social phenomena that exceed individual intention. And we've barely even scratched the surface of how the entire architecture of the internet is based on colonial capitalism. Each assumption is thrown in to stark relief when viewed through the lens of plural Indigenous epistemologies. The internet's foundational logic reproduces colonial patterns of knowledge extraction and appropriation. This extraction logic operates across the internet, euphemistically called data mining, and betrays the colonial underpinnings at work. Heck, just think about how AI training complicates this ever more. Just as European colonisers extract gold, timber, and other resources from Indigenous lands while treating those territories as empty space available for appropriation, platform capitalism extracts value from user-generated content, social relations and behavioural patterns, treating these as freely available resources. The internet's assumption of placelessness, that information can be abstracted from its context and transmitted anywhere without loss of meaning, directly contradicts Indigenous ways of knowing that understand knowledge as fundamentally relational, emerging from specific places, communities, and responsibilities to the land. Not to mention the internet's modern transience – following us everywhere we go, even when we don't carry a smartphone. When ecological knowledge is synthesised into Wikipedia articles, or cultural practices are subsumed into virtual reality experiences, there's no preserving of context, culture, knowledge genealogy, and these practices are regularly forms of epistemological violence that severs knowledge from relationships – even when the internet offers ways to preserve this. Such extraction renders knowledge meaningless, as the process remains colonial and harmful. The evolution from early internet collectivism toward extractive platform capitalism sits with deeper transformation (late stage capitalism) which informs how we understand knowledge. No room for "collectively held" and "contextually bounded" ways of knowing with Facebook on the scene, everything is individual property that can be owned, traded, and accumulated – by Facebook. Indigenous knowledge systems remind us _all_ that knowledge carries responsibilities as much as or more than rights, that certain understandings are meant to _stay_ within specific communities and contexts, and that the commodification of knowledge is a categorical error about what knowledge is and how it should circulate. Not to say there should be no trade of ideas, ways of working, and ways of being. But that these should be bounded in place, community, and context. Not promulgated as advertising material, hypercapitalist money grabs, and fear mongering to drive engagement metrics. The concentration of our collective digital life onto a very small handful of platforms is tantamount to the enclosure movement across Europe, then around the world, which displaced Indigenous peoples globally, rendering many _no longer Indigenous to place_[6], and converted communal resources into private property – HELLO CAPITALISM. What began as a decentralised network has been systematically enclosed by Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Alphabet (Google, Gemini), Amazon, and so on. Their privatising has captured in hegemony the commons of human connection and knowledge-sharing. The vague and naïve pioneering promise of the internet's relatively equal peer-to-peer communication has been replaced by platform-mediated relationships where our most intimate conversations become raw material for algorithmic processing and targeted advertising. The emergent fiction is that unenclosed resources are waste, that can be more efficiently managed through private ownership, and that Meta should be the ones to do it. Golly this really became a spread of arguments. Let's wrap up before we become a puddle of plato on the kitchen floor. Emergent critiques, in whatever my ramble is above, can still point us toward alternative possibilities. All hope is not lost. We are seeing the emergences of different philosophies of knowledge online – just look at federation[7]. Perhaps we can move toward "access to vital information" which recognises praxis in relation, in _right relation_. Knowledge sovereignty demands recognition of community ownership of information and ways of exchanging it, while embedded reciprocity challenges extractive data relationships. Perhaps we might consider the internet itself as a kind of Country that deserves care and respect, where communal proppa protocols govern our connections and enable us to know and respond to place. Not to scream at each other over deliberately divisive micropolitics while Zucc sleeps soundly on his pile of money built on genocide and expropriation. This work of reimagining digital relations isn't individualist – it is based on reframing ontological and epistemological foundations of our networks, to build new forms of digital practice that recognise the relationships between knowledge, place, and community that sustain us, as social animals. And I don't even have to leave us on a negative note – new ways like this are happening, right now, probably somewhere near you. And, as a last word, if we reconsidered each of these epistemological and ontological frames through a different meta-theory, we could already point to the ways that computer networking gives rise to respectful and proppa ways. Go on, think about it[8]. What a time to be alive, Aidan * * * 1. c.f., https://www.reddit.com/r/nosurf/comments/18nmyef/the_internet_used_to_be_a_place/ ↩︎ 2. Here's a low effort Wikipedia article for this. ↩︎ 3. Many can, because they are still denied access by extreme cost floors, genocidal regimes, and outrageous filtration, but if you're reading this, it's not that likely to be you. ↩︎ 4. A quick sidebar: The way we think – something we label as epistemology – is assembled through social processes. This reproduction of our ideas, thoughts and ways of being is quite deliberate. In the dominant western system, education has been formalised and mandated for all children from around the age of 5 to around the age of 17 (with a handful of exceptions). This education process, something which we often take for granted in itself, delivers a curriculum derived from a fragment of the status quo. Teachers may have some capability for autonomy (agency) within this (though, this is increasingly stripped away) to change _how_ the curriculum is delivered, but it remains imbued with a western middle class way of thinking, working, being and doing. The difficulty with examining epistemology (or epistemologies) is that they are an endless cascade of ways of thinking all the way down. If we even begin to trace back the origins of the thinking which underpins education, as above, we get trapped in a cycle of “whose thinking” all the way back to Aristotle. Lest we accidentally stumble on the prehistoric, the internet is also framed in epistemological and ontological assumptions and ways of working which, just like a teachers' agency, shape the way we learn, interact, and act. ↩︎ 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite ↩︎ 6. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2017.25 ↩︎ 7. https://jointhefediverse.net/learn/ (and hey, surprise, this blog is federated like a cool cat) ↩︎ 8. Or I could do it, I guess: The physical layer recognises that knowledge cannot exist without material grounding. Like Aboriginal epistemologies that understand knowledge as inseparable from Country, the internet acknowledges that information requires physical substrate, that there is no "virtual" without the material. The ontological requirements of this layer resonate with Indigenous materialism: reality manifests through measurable phenomena, requires reliable tools for transmission across place and time, and depends fundamentally on human labour and relationship to construct the network. The epistemological foundations here parallel Indigenous empirical traditions that read Country through careful observation, pattern recognition, and intergenerational knowledge-testing. The protocol layer holds potential for deeper affinities with relational ways of knowing. While TCP/IP appears to atomise communication into discrete packets, it actually demonstrates that meaningful communication requires constant relationship and reciprocity. Packets acknowledge receipt, negotiate transmission rates, and adapt to network conditions, a dance of mutual recognition. The ontological identification that networks connect separate entities while maintaining their distinctness echoes understandings of autonomy-in-relationship, where individuals and communities maintain boundaries while participating in larger webs of connection. The epistemological commitment to "universal" protocols that enable different systems to communicate reflects Indigenous values of translation and diplomacy, literally the belief that different ways of knowing can find common ground _without_ losing their specificity. The application layer has striking alignment with Indigenous knowledge systems. Here tribes and diverse standards abound, not monolithic approaches. The web's ontological assumptions about information connect with knowledge systems which travel between communities through story and practice, expertly tailored to to local contexts. The epistemological foundation of hypertext as an associative model of knowledge directly mirrors Aboriginal ways of knowing which have long understood truth as emerging from relationships rather than hierarchies. The recognition that understanding hypertext emerges from connections, that finding knowledge requires either direct communication or following networks of relationship, perfectly fits with how Indigenous knowledge systems operate through kinship, cycles, and connections that link particular places to broader patterns of meaning. There, I did your homework for you. ↩︎

Dear friends, Recently, we saw the largest protest movement in American history. We also saw this swept away by the capitalist media within a handful of news cycles. But what is practice without theory (well, ... anyway). I think it is worth spending a little time on analysing the underlying ideologies and values of protest movements, particularly when they hold such broad appeal. Through this kind of analysis we might be able to first recognise some fundamental assumptions and a shared epistemology (way of knowing) to elaborate or stretch. I also want to underlabour this writing with Marxist critique, noting that the collapse of Marxian praxis in popular thought is the point of radical departure from engaging the proletariat _where they are at_. Doing things backwards, let's start with some fundamental challenges of theory in this space first. From Rosa Luxemburg[1] to V. I. Lenin[2] the beginning of the 1900s saw this rupture between theory and practice repeat. Notably, across the western world the working class were more allied around a union solidarity than our contemporary conditions. In practical terms we can then assume that there is less theory/practice dynamism now than then. If workers were already willing to grapple with issues of ("inferior") class positions then, workers now, for ideological and hegemonic reasons, are often unwilling to engage beyond immediate conditions. Evidencing this theory/practice rupture isn't difficult. Theoretical debates in the Occupy Wall Street protesters have been discussed elsewhere[3], the Sanders 2016 movement attempted to reconnect the divide but ultimately failed to meet its target[4] and armchair socialists have discussed this point of departure at length (I promise I'm not feeling guilty)[5]. And in other American discourse, protest and activist movements such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal program seek navigation of these spaces – treading lightly often to their detriment. At this moment, we should detour through accelerationism theory, to lay out some groundwork for what's to come (identifying the point of departure). Accelerationism advocates for speeding up and intensifying capitalism's inherent contradictions and technological dynamics, rather than resisting them[6]. But accelerationism is a 'both sides' tactic – though a hegemonic tactic nonetheless. Right-accelerationists embrace intensification as a means to collapse existing (liberal) democratic structures, viewing societal breakdown as necessary for installing hierarchical, ethno-nationalist orders. Manifestos written by right-wing accelerationists – literal murderers – emphasise chaos[7]. Left-accelerationists advocate for using (capitalist) technology and automation to transcend capitalism. Putting it simply: more of this will equal less of this (I'm scratching my head too). They see a post-work society achieved through technological liberation rather than traditional labour organising. Between accelerationists there is also a point of departure between theory and practice: theorists look for systemic transformation through technological and economic forces, practical movements instead devolve into either nihilistic destruction (right) or techno-optimistic reformism (left) that does not address material conditions. Are you feeling all meta'd out yet? I sure am. Basically accelerationists embody "move fast, break shit" believing that this will somehow manifest in the manufacture of concrete political work required for meaningful social change. Okay, I've jerked you between theory/practice rupture, accelerationist theory practice divide, and we've landed somewhere ideologically adrift. Let's revisit the point of departure in popular movements rather than in a specific theory. Because as we know, there is no grand unifying theory in activist spaces. We can see a catastrophic theory/practice divide in activist movements littered through history. The Weather Underground, for instance, demonstrated this dynamic. Emerging from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which had 100,000 members by 1969, the Weathermen faction's adoption of "ultraleft" theory advocating immediate armed confrontation with the government and their belief that mass organisations were unnecessary led them to dissolve SDS entirely and retreat into small guerrilla cells (accelerationist!)[8]. Germany's Red Army Faction (RAF) emerged from the 1968 student movement but similarly destroyed its own base when theoretical commitment to urban guerrilla warfare led them to believe they represented the most "exposed European vanguard" of global revolution, thereby isolating them from the broader left as their tactics became more violent (accelerationist!)[9]. Interestingly, the Black Panthers emerging from grassroots community assistance programs held their ideological roots for longer. By delivering systematic mutual aid everything from large scale free breakfast programs for children to health clinics, and community education[10], activists remained connected to community concerns longer than other movements. With time, however, revolutionary strategy versus community organising became a departure point (...). Notably, longer lived programs of activism tend to have stronger theoretical connection to grassroots needs. This is an inversion. Social movement theory literature discusses sustained movements requiring ongoing dialogue between theoretical understanding and grassroots experience. Here, for instance, resource mobilisation theory discusses that movements survival may be ensured through resource acquisition and management[11] with adaptability to changing contexts critical to longevity[12] – dialogue and equal distribution of wins (not accelerationist!). Community organising approaches which connect with values of democratic decision-making, Indigenous leadership (and relationality), and concrete winnable campaigns consistently demonstrate superior longevity compared to "vanguard" (frequently accelerationist) models[13]. If you want to read more about connectivity between grassroots needs and activist projects boy have I got you covered in the footnotes[14]. If we return, now, with these schematics to our investigation of the No Kings protests, there are a few theoretical landmines we need to tread carefully around. There is a binding ideology at the heart of these protests – a view that U.S. government should not become a dictatorship. We can pontificate about the lack of voter turnout vs the massive scale of the No Kings protests another time. Fundamentally, it has been shown that the vast majority of American people believe that Trump should not have authoritarian powers[^15]. Great. But upon what ideological base? Fundamentally was the No Kings turnout inspired by notions of democratic preservation? Or is the root ideology behind the protests actually a neoliberal or free market capitalist perspective? And where does the working class fit amongst this? If we can reconcile the No Kings protest movement as a manifestation of contradictory consciousness[15] (within civil society), we can begin to theorise political connectivity, as well as some points of departure (but let's not overload the brain right this second)[16]. Protesters' rejection of autocratic leadership while they maintain allegiance to liberal democratic _institutions_ reveals a misrecognition of power structures in bourgeois hegemony[17]. A selective critique opposing individual "kings" yet paradoxically preserving the "kingdom" of capitalist "democracy". Read: it is the leader who is wrong, not the system which enables the leader. This shows the breadth of hegemonic ideology. The common sense is that "our (U.S.) system is the best system; that exploitation of that superior system is an individual failing, not a systemic one". Critically, we can, here, recognise that capitalist realism has gripped the "average American". The working class has internalised ruling class ideology. The fundamental focus on personality rather than systemic critique actually serves to reinforce rather than challenge structures and power. As yet unwritten, and not very praxiological of me, I would rather use criticism of Trump to criticise American fascism as a _systemic power_. Sure Trump is a terrible person, but the system inflicts much greater ripples of intergenerational pain. This system exists to enable people like Trump _all the way down_. It isn't "Trump" its the entire political/economic system. Any critique (activism), here, which fails to address this is fundamentally doomed to repeat until such times as protest is made illegal – and the U.S. is well on the way to following Australia on this. Yet, this is a point of departure, because by and large the American people believe that their system is egalitarian – even when no one they know is benefiting from it. This is the colonising of minds – an epistemic war – to reinforce the status quo. The debate of American fascism parallels Gramsci's analysis of fascism as capitalism's authoritarian response to organic crisis[18]. There has been widespread recognition that the United States Government exhibits fascistic tendencies through its history of settler colonialism and racial violence[19]. There has been widespread recognition of the U.S. as a neocolonial empire, acting as a regional bully to ensure capitalist survival[20]. There has been more analysis than we could possible cope with in a lifetime, yet none of it appears to organically connect to grassroots struggles. Gramsci identified fascism as a latent possibility within bourgeois democracy. But the recognition of this has been forestalled by the strength and power of rapidly accelerating hegmeonic ideology supported by technological advancement (hello again accelerationism!). We're seeing the ruling class hope for passive revolution[21], where they absorb and neutralise opposition and maintain fundamental power structures [22]. We saw this with the media rapidly phasing the protests out of the news cycle – and we've seen this globally as capitalist hegemony spreads and metastasises. The tension between spontaneous protest, organised revolutionary action, and reform sits in Gramsci's dialectical understanding of spontaneity and leadership[23]. While some dismiss protests as ineffective performance (particularly liberals), others recognise their potential as sites for political education and organisation. Spontaneous movements contain embryonic elements of _conscious_ leadership that need be developed through democratic collectives to flourish as organic intellectuals. The challenge becomes transforming diffuse discontent into collective will which sits unified (enough) politically to create action guided by revolutionary theory and strategy, and systematic critique needs to sit at the root of this. The challenge as with all activist movements, is challenging the hegemony, the power of the status quo. Challenging the person (i.e., Trump) is an easier, more politically acceptable, move (though increasingly ICE's war of manoeuvre is making this less the case) within mainstream American ruling ideology promulgated amongst civil society. However, as we've discussed at length here on mind reader, the structural colonial, capitalist, anti-worker, anti-ecological, and anti-human ideology and institutional apparatus is much deeper rooted than an unchecked fascist controlling an unprecedented number of soldiers and nuclear warheads. The fact that the questions is not "how does anyone have this level of power" blows my mind every time. This is a divergent point for me, and for many other socialist thinkers, from organic protesters. The average American (white, able bodied, straight and cisgender, middle class, middle age, male) thinks Trump should be _subject to law_. The average intersectionally disadvantaged person (this is the quantitative majority) needs the system to be reformed in order to have any quality of life. The problem is acceptable political discourse is constrained so strongly to the needs of the former group that meagre reforms are all that are allowed to be discussed[24]. How do we shift the discourse away from acceptable "centrist" (verging heavily towards fascist) discourse in such a way that even allows all those oppressed to speak for their struggles? Because the traditional intellectual apparatus is based on a capitalist ontological frame which demands control of (epistemological) discourse such that language which challenges oppression is impermissible[25]. And holding, strongly, this way of thinking – if it happened that I were in a position of leadership amidst the No Kings movement – would likely become an area of significant tension with those mostly comfy white dudes. Let's take an example of a pro-socialist education movement (because this draws from my lived experience of organising large scale activism). In identifying, post-mortem, the ruptures of theory and practice which disintegrated the movement I would name hegemony, intersectionality, and economics as fundamental points of break. Chiefly, hegemony makes it difficult for any activist movement to gain sufficient momentum for change. This includes the full weight of the ideological apparatus of the hegemony, the media, education systems, police, government (fines, etc.), and so on. The intersectional rupture becomes twofold: (1) those with a marginalised identity failing to holistically connect with the movement; (2) those connected with the movement not seeing their needs met by the leadership of the movement, or seeing the leadership move away from a position which validated their needs. This micro-fracturing of allegiances, needs, ideas, thought and so on repeats across all persons participating in the movement regardless of their relative stature. Anyone with a friendship group would likely also be familiar with such politics[26]. To be clear, I commend the democratic and largely transformative way these protests were intentioned. The use of peaceful protest, broad appeal, and anything which shows Trump for the fascist capitalist dictator he is has my tick of approval (not that anyone asked). However, the points of departure towards change – desperately needed positive systemic change – make this a difficult space _for_ praxis. It's paradoxical – Our systems need to change, faster than ever, because they are changing faster than ever. Convincing people that their view of change, for instance, "Trump must go" is not "radical" enough, without collapse into accelerationism is nearly unimaginable (and thereby rupturing the protest movement for "valid" ideological reasons, rupture nonetheless). The average American discourse in particular is so allergic to anything resembling socialism, that even equity initiatives are often looked upon scornfully. Yet those casting the scorn are often those who would benefit most from reform. This is the nature of hegemonic media, education, and systems control[27]. Breaking the way of thinking, working, might be achieved incrementally but it can't be achieved through departure. "You're being to radical", "you just want to break shit", etc. which are critiques hurled by right-accelerationists seeking technological engulfment of the proletariat for fascist ends. And still acceleration into violence is the last thing I, personally, and many socialists would want, so... Regardless, the critique remains as long as capitalism defines our shared ontology and revokes agency for one's own episteme. Gosh, we're so many layers deep that even I've lost track! Let me simplify in bullets before we say farewell to one another for the moment: * No Kings effectively targeted a fascist leader; * The fascist leader is both symbolic and literal embodiment of capitalist fascism, and hegemony (an accelerationist capital-techno-fascism); * Critique of the fascist leader is already extremely difficult and receives little airtime due to His hegemony; * Broader critique of the system which enables this leader is not on the table with No Kings – both from a left and right wing perspective (because it is close to disintegrating anyway due to the weight of hegemony); * Discussion of the limited airtime (coverage) is largely off the table for American discourse; * Critique of capitalism is seen as "communist" and flagged as dangerous due to educational hegemony; * Points of rupture between idealised ideologies and idealised lived realities create discord and paradox which can destroy movements; * Everything else already seeks to destroy anti-capitalist movements; and * Well, stalemate. There's a real need for genuine empathy and education in moving liberals toward more radical leftist ideologies. We're just not sure they're interested unless they're made personally uncomfortable. Still, I remain hopeful that compassion and empathy will win. Yikes, Aidan. * * * 1. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm ↩︎ 2. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ ↩︎ 3. https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/occupy-socialist-anarchist/ ↩︎ 4. https://theconversation.com/bernie-sanders-says-the-left-has-lost-the-working-class-has-it-forgotten-how-to-speak-to-them-243160 ↩︎ 5. cf., https://www.law.georgetown.edu/denny-center/blog/labor-unions-capitalism/ ↩︎ 6. for a relatively clear explanation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in ↩︎ 7. https://theconversation.com/a-field-guide-to-accelerationism-white-supremacist-groups-using-violence-to-spur-race-war-and-create-social-chaos-255699 ↩︎ 8. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Weathermen ↩︎ 9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10576109308435925 ↩︎ 10. https://bppaln.org/programs ↩︎ 11. cf., https://doi.org/10.1086/226464 ↩︎ 12. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2329496519850846 for one example ↩︎ 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2010023 and also https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0899825619300089 ↩︎ 14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378013002197 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096877/full https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10162496/ ↩︎ 15. look no further than https://search.worldcat.org/title/14965368 ↩︎ 16. I could do another whole dispatch looking at collective structures of subalterns (in Gramsci's originary sense) but I'll just drop this here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/089356902101242242 ↩︎ 17. This is another can of theoretical worms, but: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18dzstb.13 ↩︎ 18. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137334183_3 ↩︎ 19. An absolute must read: https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240 and a bit more if you're on a spree https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520273436.003.0005 ↩︎ 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005 and https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.01020-4 ↩︎ 21. https://doi.org/10.7202/016590ar ↩︎ 22. an interesting analysis of this kind of structure https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt19b9jz2 ↩︎ 23. cf., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199457557.001.0001 ↩︎ 24. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.4.2.d7593370607l6756 ↩︎ 25. Don't get too bogged down here, but there's useful sketches in: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm ↩︎ 26. This is a whole poststructural epistemic mess, but the ideas are nonetheless important: https://doi.org/10.1086/669608 ↩︎ 27. Old faithful: https://chomsky.info/19890315/ ↩︎