So the author’s argument is that youth have just gone to gig work instead of traditional jobs. OK, maybe true, but first of all, this is not a good thing on its own either. And secondly, we have to consider why gig work even exists, aside from being a fresh new way to exploit workers and deny them the traditional protections of the labor market. Because there is a specific reason gig work exists right at this very transitional moment in the workforce, and I’ll give you a spoiler: It exists because of AI.

Considering the author is possibly the most relevant scholar on (against?) platform work, I’m quite sure he would agree with you. The article implies that AI is deskilling and displacing workers and that’s intrinsically a bad thing.

You’re focusing too much on the WordPress example. There are a dozen tools mentioned in the article that will clarify what’s possible.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

A CMS is a specific type of no-code software. N8N or Appsmith are definitely not a CMS

This is exactly what happens under fascism way before digitalization. Do you think they care if they make mistakes? They round up and jail random people if they are not sure. You really should read how fascism played out in Italy, Germany or Chile because you seem dangerously misguided

yeah, that’s a microscopic element of privacy in a situation where the state can come and kill you with no accountability. You still have a body, you still need to inhabit a space, eat food and exist in the world. Encryption won’t help you with that.

No problem with that. My problem is with people who expect to start from theory as if that it’s a relatable and normal thing to do.

most working class people cannot read well, let alone theory, have no material time to read, or if, they do, they don’t have the mental energy or continuity to get to the end of it, grapple alone on how to turn that into action and find a path for themselves. It’s very individualistic, good for the privileged who organize out of aspiration rather than out of necessity. Any serious org, to the people coming to offer help, should answer: “this is John, he will teach you how to do X and Y, and why this is important. Get to work”. Anything else is designed for an intellectual, individualistic minority that never gets shit done.

“I want to help”

“Read several books first”.

Are you aware of how disgusting and classist it sounds?

lol, there’s no privacy in a fascist State because the state doesn’t feel compelled to respect the law and doesn’t recognize fundamental rights. Nobody is going to leave you alone. Get real.

Now that I have to articulate it, it’s not so easy to explain. I think it’s because for me the solarpunk is somehow associated to this idea of the Augustinian Left, but more in the way Nunes talks about it. All the people I know who are into solarpunk (environmental activists, green/orangepilled, ReFi/CoFi etc etc) are also somehow practicing, consciously or not, this Augustinian Left mode. It is true though that nothing in this article connects to SolarPunk directly.

well, Solarpunk, being utopic, hinges on a complete alterity. Reflecting on how articulate a connection to actual praxis could be interesting for some. Also on the same blog there’s solarpunk references.

Well, I would say at least since the 80s, where the political movements started in the 68 lost steam and we entered a period of political irrelevance for the Left throughout the West. After the fall of the USSR, it got worse because especially in Europe the Left lost the leverage given by the threat of a soviet invasion/support. The G8 protests in Seattle and Genova kinda sealed the deal, showing that the future has been abolished.

It shouldn’t, but it does. Now what?

same author, more accessible stuff: https://networkcultures.org/longform/2025/03/18/seven-mantras-for-political-holism/

the assumption is that they are not customers. They are producer on a platform, which is very different. This is more similar to office workers striking alongside riders in a food delivery company rather than a consumer boycott.

I wish it was personal beef. It’s a systemic pathology throughout the left, reason why I abandoned those spaces to organize elsewhere.

That’s the narrative after the fact to justify successful revolutions.

Many revolutions have had setbacks at times, but showed regular growth in the participation of organizations building them and growth in the resources they could mobilize.

Most professional revolutionaries, like Lenin, Ho Chi Min, Guevara etc were middle-upper class who could commit their time and resources to build structure. Revolutions never start from the poor, because the poor are busy working. The best they can do is rioting or protesting, but protests never change things.

What I’m saying is that with this narrative about losing we justify a tolerance for defeat, ineffectiveness and spontaneism that pamper and console people in their powerlessness, breeding activists and protestors instead of organizers. While nobody should be judged for not winning, we also shouldn’t be so comfortable with losing. It’s also very alienating for normal people: if they have to give up their time and energy to chase a higher goal, they want to win, they don’t want to “lose better”. Nobody wants to be a loser, except insular dirtbag leftists with an outcast attitude.

Because you live in a bubble and your needs are not the needs of the vast majority of human on Earth. Also change is not a matter of opinions or conscience, it’s a matter of organizing and building power. Most people can agree on a topic without anything changing.