The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.
Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.
I got several comments removed and a ban from the Beehaw community for reminding Americans of their first few amendments.
Apparently, Americans won’t even listen to their own country’s constitution. Especially the part that talks about amendments made and rights to be exercised in the event of government tyranny.
Fix your shit because the moment your country crosses the border and starts shit with Canada, it will be open season on every single America.
Buddy i understand your rage but i'm not sure how it relates to the post...
p.s. Try sticking to the rules of the server please ^ - ^
It’s directly related to the topic of the post. Americans trying to post their way out of their own cultural endpoint and then over-moderating when they don’t like hearing that they may have to get off social media and start taking real action.
Please do inform me of any server rules that this broke. I’m always eager to learn.
Americans trying to post their way out of their own cultural endpoint
Oh i see. I did the post not focussing on americans tbf, i'm not one. The ''i know too much stuff everything is broken'' paralysis given by the social is real in the whole world where social media is present
then over-moderating when they don’t like hearing
ohhh ok
Please do inform me of any server rules that this broke
To me it looked like a non constructive rant born by a recent ban from other places and also ended up with a killing threat on an entire population (open season on every single american)
a killing threat on an entire population
Yes this is exactly what American threats against Canada’s sovereignty is. They are actively waging economic and information warfare on Canada with the intent on annexation. If you classify Canadians defending their own lives and sovereignty as a “killing threat” then that’s where we fundamentally disagree as I believe people should defend themselves when attacked, not sit there and take it as you suggest.
If you classify Canadians defending their own lives and sovereignty
Bro you are posting on an online forum, you are just ranting and coping. If you wanna take a gun and shoot someone go and do it but don’t write it here
not sit there and take it as you suggest
Sure, I was suggesting exactly that. Not like I was asking you to not wish death on 340mln people
When money-hungry people imitate each other's successful tactics to get more money, it can look like a massive conspiracy to do some other thing. But oligarchs really don't cooperate on that scale. They see each other as competitors, not allies. If one of them proposed locking the populace into an eternal doomscroll to keep them from fighting capitalism, the rest would think, "What's in it for him? How is he trying to take market share away from me?" The vast majority of peasants don't even want to fight capitalism, so it's a non-problem. Some oligarchs might go along hoping to individually get something out of it, but they would think it was just alarmist bullshit that might benefit them.
If one of them proposed locking the populace into an eternal doomscroll to keep them from fighting capitalism
I didn't get to choose that preview, idk if it's a my bad thing or a lemmy thing
but still i didn't write that little sum up and it doesn't really represent the article
It's not just the little sum up. Let's look more...
"Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Hannah Arendt warned us that the point of this deluge is not to persuade, but to overwhelm and paralyze our capacity to act." Wrong - persuasion is the exact purpose. Persuading people to donate money, buy more shit, stay brand-loyal... That's why oligarchs spend money on social media. Their alliances with each other are temporary, and meticulously defined to maximize their individual gain. Everything about their behavior says they aren't allies.
“Everything on social media is designed to make you think [you're the main protagonist in a sea of NPCs, from previous paragraph],” said Cross. “It’s all about you—your feed, your network, your friends.” Ahh, okay, so the reason so many people on social media think they're the main character isn't because they already thought that way and the anonymity lets them express themselves more freely. No no, it's because social media is "designed" to make them feel that way. Well alrighty then, more conspiracy. Social media didn't evolve like everything else, somebody had a grand design for it.
Gimme a break. What I feel is that I've spent enough time and effort on this.
you are kinda criticizing the finger that points at the moon (and to be clear, i too disagree with some of the rethorical stuff of the article) but doesn't really make sense to discuss with this:
Gimme a break. What I feel is that I’ve spent enough time and effort on this
Well, you said the little sum-up wasn't the main point of the article, so I took the trouble to bring out a couple parts from the article that I felt say the same thing as the sum-up. Now all you can add is some lyrical bit about a finger pointing at the moon? Alright, have a nice day.
You can't vote your way out, or peacefully protest your way out either. We are fucking cooked.
You can organize your way out. We are only cooked if we give up.
@ex_06 Loving that half the responses are "yes I can" from people who clearly read only the article's headline. God bless the internet, may we never learn 🥂
Thank you, really appreciated. I was starting to think I was imagining that almost no one read the article understanding it lol
I think a big issue is that the people educated enough to understand how desperate things may be are not naturally inclined to lead simply because we are more often than not deeply aware of our limitations and spend time telling ourselves we are not the right person to be leading.
But everything has to start somewhere. Someone had to throw the first brick at Stonewall. Being a leader can be scary because you don't know if anyone else will actually follow. It is a massive personal risk, especially to someone already aware of their own limitations and need for others.
I struggle with it because I would rather join an already existing Mutual Aid group instead of doing the work of organizing it myself. I am inherently disorganized. I do not see myself as a leader. I see myself as good at following processes, reading, following directions. I am moderately good at writing but I say enough stupid stuff that others don't agree with that I could accidentally alienate groups whose input and involvement are desperately needed. I fear leadership because of how often I put my foot in my mouth. I fear it because of how important it is and how many people come to rely on leadership. I think a great leader is one who teaches people how to lead themselves. Finally, if there is anything I have learned in life is that it is very easy to be thinking you're teaching the right lesson but you actually taught people something completely different and disturbing to you. I fear accidentally teaching the wrong lessons.
But the question is this: Are all those fears, all those questions, all that awareness of our own limitations... Could that be perhaps what actually creates a good leader whose goals align with those they represent? A question we should all be asking ourselves.
That being said, I still have no idea where to start. Especially in a conservative, regressive area. Hunter Thompson was right that we need to learn to speak their language, which is why he wrote in sports metaphors. Problem is, I am not like him, I don't know how to speak to them. I feel that may be my biggest limitation in making headway. Not just because I don't know how but because the simplistic way they communicate eats at my soul, I don't like it and struggle to think I could speak that language.
I think a lot of places that prohibit talking about violence are supporting the horrors. Like, it'd be swell if we could vote ourselves out of this mess but that seems like a long shot, and a lot of damage would be done before that even started to take effect.
I get most of us don't actually want to risk our lives. We don't want to be the one guy who throws a molotov and gets shot by the police.
But shit is really bad, and at the end of all things might makes right. Principles and philosophy don't matter if you're dead.
I think everyone's thought about like "what if i went back in time and shot Hitler before things got really bad?" Well, that's now. You've arrived at the time travel destination.
I don't really want to live in a world where republicans are shot dead, where the prosecutors putting people in jail for protesting are murdered in their sleep, or where the owners of a factory that pollutes the air we breathe are beaten so badly they'll never walk again. But I also don't want to live in the world those forces will create if left unchecked.
Besides, the right has been using stochastic terrorism for years.
But shit is really bad, and at the end of all things might makes right. Principles and philosophy don’t matter if you’re dead.
Not necessarily. There have been some successful non-violent revolutions in history, and there's a strong case to be made that not exhausting those options could be a huge mistake.
We still have, right now, completely un-used tools at our disposal, such as unionizing en masse and deploying a general strike, which is insanely powerful (capable of bringing a nation to its knees if done widely enough), while being far less dangerous and more appealing to the general populace than any other means.
To be clear, I support other options like a general strike and unionizing (though I think forming a union is only a bandaid on top of the evils of capitalism, it's better than nothing).
I don't think "just vote for the democrats in 4 years" is a viable strategy on its own.
But even so, these have to be backed by might. If you do a strike and they send police to do violence to you, you have to be ready to fight back.
It's also important to remember that there is no magic bullet. Nothing is a viable strategy on it's own.
It's my own personal conspiracy theory that our natural hesitance to throw resources at unknown variables is being amplified by the ruling class and fed back to us in the form of the all-or-nothing perfectionism I've seen a lot this past election cycle.
We need to be building with the blocks we have, and Theil et al are using the fear of failure to encourage us to fight each other about whether we should use square blocks or rectangle blocks.
I see the workplace benefits of a global union (specifically the IWW) as a bonus, with the real meat being that it teaches people how to organize, and how much power they truly can wield collectively, as many people still feel quite powerless despite the potential they hold, they need only be taught how to use it.
When the Spanish Civil War kicked off, it was the Syndicalist unions (CNT-FAI) that were able to organize their communities effectively to resist Franco and transform Catalonia when the existing government crumbled. That type of organization doesn't necessarily have to be from a union, but I feel the ability to engage in a general strike would be far more encouraged if people were in a union and became used to flexing that muscle (and build up a strike fund to be able to sustain it) and would drastically help in effectively resisting.
This is a good point. I hadn't thought much about how some of the skills and such from unionizing might transfer to other things. Thanks
Well said. From my outsider perspective a general strike is ideal for the situation in the US rn. The benefits of a general strike are
you can force politicians to pass things they wpuldn't have the initiative to pass themselves (like universal healthcare), as long as you have a manifesto that's surgically precise (eg. with pre-prepared drafts of laws) and you refuse to cease until that manifesto has been passed as law verbatim.
it's still fully constitutional. On paper, the politicians came up with these ideas and passed them out of their own volition.
the unity & platform created by a general strike would create very good conditions for a 3rd party to have an actual chance of winning seats.
~~All you need is some philanthropist who will create a massive strike fund.~~
Relying on a philanthropist is risky, and possibly unviable if the scale is large enough. Most strike funds are created and maintained using union dues, which would scale up to any size. The unfortunate part is that it generally takes time to fill them, and we're a bit short on that.
Just remember that violence is so often counterproductive to the point where governments intentionally bait or false flag it as a core part of their strategy to take down activist groups. This article focuses on ways people can organize to help each other, rather than assassinations:
Here in New York City, in the week since the inauguration, I’ve seen large groups mobilize to defend migrants from anticipated ICE raids and provide warm food and winter clothes for the unhoused after the city closed shelters and abandoned people in sub-freezing temperatures. Similar efforts are underway in Chicago, where ICE reportedly arrested more than 100 people, and in other cities where ICE has planned or attempted raids, with volunteers assigned to keep watch over key locations where migrants are most vulnerable.
A few weeks earlier, residents created ad-hoc mutual aid distros in Los Angeles to provide food and essentials for those displaced by the wildfires. The coordinated efforts gave Angelenos a lifeline during the crisis, cutting through the false claims spreading on social media about looting and out-of-state fire trucks being stopped for “emissions testing.”
I've been reading a (confusingly named) book, The Anarchist Cookbook, which I think has some strong arguments about this stuff, here is an excerpt:
Solnit’s essay on the Oakland assault on Whole Foods is pertinent here: “This account is by a protestor who also noted in downtown Oakland that day a couple of men with military-style haircuts and brand new clothes put bandanas over their faces and began to smash stuff.” She thinks that infiltrators might have instigated the property destruction, and Copwatch’s posted video seems to document police infiltrators at Occupy Oakland. One way to make the work of provocateurs much more difficult is to be clearly committed to tactics that the state can’t co-opt: nonviolent tactics. If an infiltrator wants to nonviolently blockade or march or take out the garbage, well, that’s useful to us. If an infiltrator sabotages us by recruiting others to commit mayhem, that’s a comment on what such tactics are good for. Solnit quotes Oakland Occupier Sunaura Taylor: “A few people making decisions that affect everyone else is not what revolution looks like; it’s what capitalism looks like.” Peter Marshall’s book on the history of anarchism, Demanding the Impossible, points out that “The word violence comes from the Latin violare and etymologically means violation. Strictly speaking, to act violently means to treat others without respect … A violent revolution is therefore unlikely to bring about any fundamental change in human relations. Given the anarchists’ respect for the sovereignty of the individual, in the long run it is nonviolence and not violence which is implied by anarchist values.”
Why is it counter productive? I guess because uninvolved people clutch their pearls and then support the police/capitalists?
The huge support for Luigi makes me think there may be a change in the air. But also that was precisely targeted, not just randomly murdering. If he had set off a bomb and killed 30 people in midtown New York, even if one was a hated CEO, I don't think people would support him.
Here is another excerpt which is more relevant to more extreme acts of political violence, which is referencing this essay:
text
Events in recent years have amply demonstrated the correctness of its main points: 1) That means determine ends—the use of horrifying means guarantees horrifying ends; 2) That urban guerrillaism almost always leads to repression and little else—which makes it very difficult to engage in constructive political work such as organizing and education; 3) That “successful” urban guerrillaism leads to authoritarian outcomes; 4) That these results are determined by the nature of guerrillaism. Guerrillaism relies upon the capitalist media for much of its impact, presenting political acts as spectacles divorced from the day-to-day lives of ordinary people (reducing them to passive spectators), while providing the corporate media with a perfect opportunity to frighten the public into the “protective” arms of the state. To put it another way, guerrillas presume to act for the people—attempting to substitute individual acts for mass actions—thus perpetuating the division between leaders and followers (in this case, vanguardists and spectators). While the authors of You Can’t Blow Up a Social Relationship reject terrorism, it should be emphasized that they are not arguing for political passivity. They are not arguing against the many forms of direct action which form an essential part of any mass movement for fundamental social change. (Examples of such direct action include wildcat strikes, factory occupations, and civil disobedience.) Neither do they discount the quieter but equally essential efforts of those doing educational work. Finally, it should be noted that the authors are not pacifists; they believe that situations may arise in which armed self-defense becomes necessary.
So there's a lot of reasons, only one of which is "uninvolved people clutch their pearls" ie. fear is generated and authoritarians get fed political capital to make things worse. There's also direct relevance to the point being made in the OP article: its actual impact focuses on media spectacle, in which most participants are reduced to unconnected spectators. This leads to the narrative
writing itself into a corner:
By the time the drama has become tragedy and the guerrillas lie dead about the stage, the audience of masses finds itself surrounded by barbed wire, and, while it might now feel impelled to take the stage itself, it finds a line of tanks blocking it and weakly files out to remain passive again. Those individuals who continue to object and call on the audience to storm the stage are dragged out, struggling, to the concentration camps. Guerrillaism is in the tradition of vanguardist strategies for revolution. While in general it merely leads to repression, should the strategy succeed it can only produce an authoritarian leftist regime. This is because the people have not moved into the building of a democratic movement themselves.
After all, that CEO was replaced immediately, they're still doing the same things, just now a lot of people are having fun posting memes about it, which is cathartic and enjoyable without being difficult or risky or meaningfully improving the situation. It doesn't put them in a position where they have habits and social relationships that would enable them to actually do anything to help each other or exercise direct political involvement. From the OP article:
But when it comes to addressing the problems we face, no amount of posting or passive info consumption is going to substitute the hard, unsexy work of organizing.
That was an interesting read. Thank you. I'll have to do some thinking on it, and read more carefully when I'm not befogged by a head cold.
I still want, like, emotionally, the horrible people to face justice (or at least vengeance), but i can see how that can have myriad unwanted consequences.
Getting people to actually organize is hard. One of the consequences of what Luigi (allegedly) did was people at work started to actually talk about politics, where before it had been a little more gauche (pun intended). Will anything come of it? Probably not.
At that job, I feel like I was planting seeds of radicalization just by talking to people about US history. Several of them hadn't grown up here, and had a very glossy marketing understanding. Just telling them about how like Jim Crow is a thing from living memory, not centuries ago, was eye opening.
It’s not that we can’t beat fascism, it’s that the amount of people that want fascism is way too high, and might soon to be the majority.
How do you save a country from something most of them want?
Are you sure that the majority wants it? Do they want actual fascism or they want what fascism promises? :)
By taking on the media and social media companies that create the environment and sentiment that has produced the current political climate.
No, but posting can create a community of like-minded individuals who love to punch Nazis. It can also tell you where and when the punching is taking place, and which lawyers to call after the punching has occurred.
It's a call to action, not the action itself, but most action doesn't act unless called upon.
I kinda disagree. Social media, even this very harmless version of it, is great for building opinions. But it's not great at making stuff happen in the real world. I will never meet anyone from Lemmy. It might be comforting to write about guillotines here, posting angry articles, but we in general and especially you Americans need to leave this save zone and actually do something. Fast. With your bodies. In the real world. Show up! Being online is a trap, it makes you feel like you're participating while it eats you time and kills your energy. Greta Thunberg stopped going to school, wrote a sign and sat down.
Get Signal, gather some local people and do stuff.
Edit:
I agree it can be a challenge. Showing up and meeting a handful of people in the rain can be frustrating and disappointing. But there is no other way and these are real life experiences you will talk and bond about. Sorry for the pep talk. :)
Edit:
I'm not saying you should leave. I love Lemmy! Use it as a tool, not a solution. And a messenger is much more helpful to organize you locally.
Let me put it this way - would you go protest if you weren't sure anyone else were going?
The likely answer is no, especially if it's a protest that would get you arrested.
Social media isn't great, but with the full oligarchical takeover of mass media outlets (Sinclair, Fox), it's become one of the few avenues left for the public to voice (and subsequently act on) dissent.
This is the overall point I'm trying to make - yes, posting won't get the job done, but it can help if you do it right. And without people constantly standing up and speaking out about what's happening, no change is possible.
Because no one wants to be the only person at a protest, and unless other people know its happening, it'll be a party of one.
Saying sharing info is "at best" a coping mechanism seems a bit silly. With how algorithms keep people locked in their own bubbles, I'd say it's super important to share information you don't think everyone sees.
My mom had no idea about that student that got arrested, for example. I know for a fact most of my friends and family wouldn't know.
Truth. Treating it as nothing is doing the abusers jobs for them.
Reading, writing, and helping others read and write is liberation. Knowledge is power.
Why else would they be gutting educational institutions?
Who knew that changing your profile pictures, sharing hashtags, and finding like minded people in your bubble to doompost with to tell eachother youre right doesn't actually address any real problems. Another way this was described is called the Information–action ratio... Which essentially means "meant to indicate the relationship between a piece of information and what action, if any, a consumer of that information might reasonably be expected to take once learning it"
Back in the day, most news was local which meant that the information you were given could lead to actionable results directly. Now because you have the entire world beamed at you instantly, everyone is bombarded with information where no real action can be taken. This leads to a feeling of helplessness, which in turn causes this cycle of denial and inaction to accelerate. It's all very much an intended effect of the modern news cycle. Over time it leads to a certain collective numbness towards very real issues and in a way kind of normalizes things by making you forget the past. Just think about the major stories over the past few months and how many of those are largely gone out of the current narrative. This is all by design and based on years of psychological studies and social engineering.
I don't entirely disagree with your assessment, but at the same time I think you may be overlooking some benefits of at least federated social media.
Federated Social Media by its nature cannot be controlled for the sake of corporate interests, which is unfortunately a rare trait at this point in time. What this can effectively become is a new Citizen Controlled Media, as described by Noam Chomsky. This will become essential to spreading news of real events and ideas on how to resist while bypassing the corporate filter.
Posting is an outlet for me, it helps me reorganize my thoughts and not do something rash.
I agree that simply posting isn't enough. But acting egregiously without strategy is potentially a problem too.
not do something rash
Perhaps it's time to engage in rash behavior.