I wholeheartedly agree - but also believe that the sorts of initiatives we’re exploring here hold the key to addressing corporate/government corruption. Exploitation and the consolidation of wealth and power within the hands of a tiny few has existed before, after all, and it has - to some extent - been eroded by activists’ past efforts.
This occurred throughout the late 19th to mid 20th Century because people living within tight, interdependent communities coalesced around popular movements that allowed people to act as one - pushing back the tide of abuse that was perpetuated against them by oligarchical tyrannies. The work of these movements saw the greatest increase in health, living standards - and the most significant redistribution of wealth - since the beginning of ‘civilisation’; as national health services, the welfare state and aggressive tax initiatives were implemented.
These popular movements were based around and dependent upon communities of workers who staffed large industries and who self-evidently shared the same interests, however, and now those industries are gone. That is in part due to the fact that people in positions of power knowingly sought to break up those industries and fragment local communities, so that they couldn’t organise against them. Today, that atomisation continues and people are easily set against one another - either consciously or indirectly - by media/corporate/cultural forces that seek to emphasise the differences that exist between individuals and communities, rather than the interests shared by them.
The corruption that we see within the establishment will only be curtailed by the efforts of similar cohesive social movements, and those can only grow and profligate when we come together again as united communities with shared goals. Initiatives such as those discussed prepare the ground for these social movements; both because they bring disparate people together and offer them a sense of what can be achieved when they act as one, and because they make them less susceptible to the elite’s efforts to manipulate them (if you produce more of your own stuff, claims that corporate supply chains will be hampered/prices will rise as a result of activism will have less effect on you).
The anti-fracking movement is an excellent demonstration of what can be achieved when seemingly discordant sections of the community (crusties and Daily Mail readers ) start communicating and realise that they have shared interests. That movement has withstood every effort to dismantle it by corporate/governmental power, enjoyed unprecedented, widespread support amongst the wider population, largely taken care of itself (with many activists living on the front lines for years - middle-class grannies alongside staple-faced anarchists - fed and financed by community efforts, rather than by their own employment or benefits) and though the threat hasn’t passed entirely, fracking as a force in Britain presently looks to be dead in the water.
From small acorns giant oak trees grow .