I like Wolff, but I disagree with this comparison. Electoral systems in the countries he’s referring to are way different and make it possible for there to be more than two parties.
In the US, elections are undemocratically controlled by Dems & GOP to ensure that doesn’t happen.
That isn’t to say I think US left politics needs to take place within the Democratic Party, or that it’s a good vehicle to realize left-wing demands. But I don’t think the example of European left parties carries over to the US, especially federally.
There are way more roadblocks to any kind of third-party strategy in the US than there are in European democracies, and that limits the possibility of success when taking that route. US left needs to find an effective way to exert its power, but I’m not sure third party is it.
I should note this is also just based on the clip, maybe there’s more context and nuance in the full conversation, but I haven’t had a chance to listen.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Oxford University was going to open source its vaccine, then the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation stepped in and convinced them to sell exclusive rights to AstraZeneca.
Now AstraZeneca is failing to deliver and poor countries are struggling to access vaccines.
It’s important to remember that Gates has used his foundation to launder his reputation, but there are a lot of serious questions about its activities, including supporting strong IP rights for drugs that make them less accessible to poor countries. thenation.com/article/societ…
You can read the full article about Oxford reversing course and selling its vaccine’s rights to AstraZeneca (at the encouragement of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) here: khn.org/news/rather-th…
the film is populated with a bunch of former high-ranking tech employees and executives (for the most part) who have seemingly seen the light: their tech tools are destroying the world.
except there’s a massive problem with their framing.
the technological determinism of silicon valley, that now pervades neoliberal society, always presents technology as the primary actor: fb and google are brainwashing us, manipulating us, destroying democracy, dividing us, etc.
this is technodeterministic liberal propaganda.
these people once believed that technology was changing the world; they still do, but now it’s for ill instead of good.
and obviously it must be technology — because what else could be causing these massively negative social outcomes but technology?
I’ve cited the “British Digital Cooperative” report in a several articles and recommended it to a number of people, so it was great to finally speak with its author, @danhind, and get some more insight on how he imagines a cooperative future for technology.
I think one of the key things is how hard it can be to imagine an alternative to what exists right now — whether it’s in terms of political organization, the structure of economic sectors, or how technology would work under a different set of material conditions.
That’s one of the most valuable aspects of Dan’s report: tech can be developed in a very different way, it can encourage & enable different functions (and figuring those out will take collaborative work), and it can help enable more democratic political & economic structures.
.@triofrancos has done a lot of great work specifically on lithium mining in South America, and how greater demand is fueling more mines that cause damage to local environments and communities.
I also wrote about the bigger picture, citing an @Earthworks report on how the demand for these metals will grow exponentially, the damage mines are already causing in the Global South, and how it will also get worse. link.medium.com/pD1T5DWIj2