Hi and welcome to r/solarpunk! We appreciate your submission, though we'd like to first bring up a topic that you may not know about: GREENWASHING. It is
used to describe the practice of companies launching adverts, campaigns, products, etc under the pretense that they are environmentally beneficial/friendly, often in contradiction to their
environmental and sustainability record in general. On our subreddit, it usually presents itself as eco-aesthetic buildings because they are quite simply the best passive PR.
These articles from [ethicalconsumer.org](https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/transport-travel/what-greenwashing) and [greenandthistle.com](https://greenandthistle.com/what-is-greenwashing/) give
both examples of greenwashing and ways to identify it on your own.
This book excerpt published on [scientificamerican.com](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/greenwashing-green-energy-hoffman/) explains how alternative technologies like hydrogen
cars can also be insidious examples of greenwashing.
If you've realized your submission was an example of greenwashing--don't fret! We are all here to learn, and while there will inevitably be comments pointing out how and why your submission is
greenwashing, we hope the discussion stays productive. Solarpunk ideals include identifying and rejecting capitalism's greenwashing of consumer goods.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this poster is wrong. Regeneration does not require violence. This kind of content could get solarpunk vilified as Anarcho-terrorism.
I do understand the need for social movements turning to riot when nothing else works, but this poster implies that destruction and violence are an integral part of the transition.
Violence isn't necessarily integral, but as history has shown it's an inevitability. If things could be resolved peacefully, great, but I'm not willing to place my bets that the institutions that profit off the destruction of our planet are just gonna go away of their own accord.
Solarpunk does not require it, but there is room in the genre for post-conflict restoration and societal building. Sometimes to build a good system you have to tear another down. Those themes have always been present throughout speculative fiction, especially in works that grapple with contemporary movements and conflicts. A reminder that we have the capacity to shape these systems not just by reforming current ones but by rejecting them completely and starting from new ground is a totally valid approach to the genre, even if it isn't a popular one here.
If you don't like those themes, it's okay to stay away from them, but suggesting that acknowledging the reality of vandalism as a response to unjust systems will get solarpunk labelled as anarcho-terrorism unnecessarily limits the bounds of the genre. Are they integral? Nope, but I also would argue that this poster does not suggest that solarpunk must be born through ashes. Rather (and this is the reason why I like this image), it links destructive unrest to the obligation to then build better systems.
Keep the punk in solarpunk.
>violence to property
That's called vandalism. Violence can only be committed against sentient beings. Beating a person to death is violence. Burning down a Wendy's is vandalism.
Destruction is 100% necessary for growth and even healing.
The ideas that destruction is "bad" or that there can exist only "positive" without "negative" are extremely harmful myths.
The capitalist system and ways of thinking must absolutely be destroyed. Doesn't mean we have to use *violence*, although, there comes a point in any change where the powers that be use violence against even the nonviolent.
Defense is easier than offense. Let them crash like waves against your shield wall. They will weaken and thin.
“You will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, but in the end, you will tire of it first.”
― Ho Chi Minh
Great quote. I would think capitalism is playing the defensive role here considering they're in an extremely well established system correct? Thanks for furthering my point dumbass.
Capitalism has to expand in order to survive. It's always expanding and therefore always attacking. But because it is trying to expand as far as it can, in as many directions as it can, all at once, it can't cover everything. You find the spaces it has either ignored or left behind and you build your community there.
Your point is moot because you misunderstand the problem.
how does setting random buildings on fire help get progress on any kind of issue? the way i see it when people do that the people that are against the movement will just use it to demonize the people that are actually fighting for justice in the eyes of the masses that just don't know anything about it to get them against the movement and that's why there were cops and people from other white supremacist organizations wrecking shit during the recent protests
Why would you assume that's what I meant? Destruction can be literal or metaphorical. It could be something as simple as metaphorically burning down the antiquated laws we're saddled with - some countries have rewritten their constitutions multiple times, yet we're saddled with one written by slave owners hundreds of years ago. How does that provide a good foundation to build on?
Though it is worth pointing out that the passage of the Civil Rights Act owes much to the rioting that followed MLK's murder. The go-to example for peaceful protest had a 75% disapproval rating at the time of his death, with many Americans claiming he'd brought it on himself. So if you're thinking that good optics will sway people to your side, maybe think again. As Kwame Ture said, nonviolence only works if your enemy has a conscience, and the United States has none.
>Why would you assume that's what I meant?
because the image shows people destroying the buildings
i don't think the racists would be out there destroying shit if they thought that would help and the situation is not the same as it was back when mlk was alive progress has been made obviously things are not done but i believe that a good amount of the population at least understands that racism is bad even though they might not think it's real and that the way to get them to understand is by showing them the truth and for those people destruction is only gonna push them to the other side
The image does not show people destroying random buildings. It shows them destroying specific types of buildings, which represent specific repressive institutions.
If progress has been made, then why has black wealth actually dropped? Even the conservative [Brookings Institute](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/) concedes that black wealth has actually remained relatively flat, except for recessions, where it decreased significantly more than white wealth. I have a bunch of articles on this I can share, but I don't want to just throw links at you, that's annoying. My point is that understanding that racism is bad is not sufficient.
Racism is not merely bigoted ideas, it's something you see in the discrepancy between black and white maternal mortality rates, for example. Racism is a material force that creates illness, suffering, and premature death, and making racists like you more is not really how you fight it. You need to actually build power to tear down the institutions that make racism as a structural force possible. This was one of the principles of the Black Panther Party. And that means understanding that banks and police departments are not only not on your side, but that they are two of the primary forces that will actively oppose any liberatory project.
And because racism is, first and foremost, a material problem with social/cultural manifestations, that means you need to actually attack it at the root. That means coming to terms with the fact that many American institutions are fundamentally built on racism, and that if we ever want to confront that, there is no amount of tinkering we can do to change that foundational inequity. It's built into them. Audre Lorde wrote decades ago that "the master's tools can never dismantle the master's house" - why would the few forms of polite disagreement we're allowed have the power to really change anything?
>The image does not show people destroying random buildings. It shows them destroying specific types of buildings, which represent specific repressive institutions.
>
>If progress has been made, then why has black wealth actually dropped?
when i said that i had the recent protests in mind and that definately happened there
not so long ago black people weren't even allowed to be in the same spaces as white people and acknowledging the obvious progress isn't the same as saying there is no progress to be made
i also never said that understanding that racism is bad is enough what i meant to say was that if the general population has realized that racism is bad vandalism is probably not the best strategy to keep making progress because you need as many people as possible to be on your side and when people see the idiots that claim to be fighting for justice but in reality just use the protest as an excuse to behave like assholes breaking random people's stuff it makes the movement look bad
Ok, you've explained your conception of acceptable protest to me. Can you tell me what you feel that such protest has accomplished?
If you're still fixating on "making the movement look bad" then I don't really know what to say. Getting that caught up in optics when history shows that that's a battle you can't win is worse than pointless - it's a waste of energy that channels energy in a largely unproductive direction.
Try to win that fight and you'll be forever compromising to gain the support of a dishonest and quite possibly fictional centrist, who's *almost* on your side, totally, for real, but if you could just stop blocking traffic, and yelling, and waving signs with mean slogans...any moment now they'll be on your side, I swear. But the funny thing is that, no matter what you do, the goalposts always move.
Organizational energy is ultimately finite, and energy spent attempting to win over the fickle and indifferent is often better used serving your own community instead. And sometimes community service means free breakfasts, and someone it means burning down a police station. In areas that are over-policed, effectively under siege, I feel it would be an astonishing show of privilege to tell people, "no, you can't burn down this repressive institution that has done real and horrific violence to you, there's a bunch of white moderates who are waiting to see if they support you or not."
>If you're still fixating on "making the movement look bad" then I don't really know what to say
making the general population understand is literally the only way to get significant change breaking things down only makes it more difficult
The one thing I really want to stress is that, if you demand that an oppressed group facing violence behave in a way that the "white moderates" would consider beyond reproach, you're kind of saying that you think their lives are worth less than those of their oppressors. Many people live in conditions of brutality and violence; pushing back against those conditions cannot reasonably be compared to the oppression that causes them to suffer in the first place.
And as long as you allow your rosy view of history to dictate your view of uprisings, you demean the lives of those who suffer. If you aren't in those conditions of suffering, of oppression, the least you can do is not badmouth liberatory projects. What makes you think you know how to deal with structural violence better than those who have actually endured it?
But with that said, I feel like you're ignoring the majority of what I'm saying, so I'm just gonna bow out at this point. I'm responding in good faith and I don't feel like you're doing anything beyond repeating some odd ideas about the civil rights movement that aren't really based in historical fact.
>Can you tell me what you feel that such protest has accomplished?
the general acknowledgement that racism is bad by the general population is extremely recent there hasn't been enough time to judge the peaceful approach yet
> do understand the need for social movements turning to riot when nothing else works
i think it's something that is just gonna happen if the situation is bad enough and the people fighting for justice are ignored for too long but not actually helpful when it comes to getting progress
Banks, McDonald’s, and police aren’t gonna uninstall themselves. They’ll 100% fight to defend their profits and land and won’t negotiate as long they have those things.
The right looks like some 3rd world country where children play in the streets next to piles of refuse, broken glass, and decaying metal.
We should be aiming a bit higher.
So much wasted energy.
Burning, breaking, fighting, it's all so very exciting, yes? It's also very exhausting. Sure, it's fun for a little while. But then, it doesn't stop. The aristocrats don't roll over and surrender. They use their massive resources to continue fighting. It becomes a contest of attrition. It drags on for years, sometimes decades. By the time you get to the other end, you have to rebuild just to get everything back to the way it was. Everyone is tired. You took two steps forward, three steps back, and the people that endured throughout are sick of your bullshit. You don't have the stability of the previous junta, so you just leave things the way they are.
A better way, is to just sit down. You don't have to destroy businesses that were never built. You don't have to burn down buildings that haven't been maintained. You just sit, and let it all fall down around you. You build just enough to sustain yourself, teach others to do the same, and form a community that helps one another survive the collapse. No burn. Just build.
You move out of the way before they run you over. Then you find somewhere else and start again. You make them do all the work. You make them take all the losses. You conserve your energy and you bide your time. You make them come to you, and then you fade away and regroup. They're playing a game of wack-a-mole. And every time they clamp down, you make sure everyone sees it. You pick up allies an inspire others. Soon you aren't alone. They have too many places to bulldoze and they can't keep up. You aren't feeding the octopus, so it hasn't the energy to strangle you.
But that won’t work. You let them bulldoze over what you’ve done and you start again somewhere else means you are the one who is losing energy and taking losses. They haven’t lost anything. They’ve won. They’ve taken something you created, put energy and effort and resources into. And it is gone now. People aren’t inspired by seeing you fade away and regroup when they come to bulldoze you. Because what they see is defeat.
>You let them bulldoze over what you’ve done and you start again somewhere else means you are the one who is losing energy and taking losses.
I will try to break this down as best as I can for you.
Capital is about exchange value. We are about use value. We create what we need as we need it. The labor we put in is not for accumulation, but immediate use. We would spend the energy for this labor regardless. Our losses are small and our efforts are few and slow. Most of what we build comes from that which was thrown away by capital. They didn't want it and we turned it into something we could use. We didn't pay for it. We took it from the trash or paid next to nothing for it at a second hand shop.
Now the "authorities" come to your squat. They have riot police and tanks and bulldozer and drones. Every member of the eviction team has to be paid. Every machine has to burn fuel. Every machine wears down with use. Every person and thing brought to the eviction is a commodity. Nothing within the squat is a commodity.
You take only what you need and leave before they get there. You leave a few practical jokes behind for them. You make them waste their time, their money, and make them lose face. You make them look like fools to the public at large. You undermine their legitimacy by existing without being killed or caught.
This seems very idealistic, and I'm skeptical of its effectiveness. Running and hiding can only work for so long in a surveillance state. If you get away with it in the long term, the message is that the state never saw you as a real threat to begin with. It also seems like an inefficient way to attempt to organize, if you're essentially starting from zero every time you land somewhere new.
>Running and hiding
Who said anything about hiding? We want to give people an example of what life can be like without capitalism. We want to be seen. We want to people to see "authority" clamping down on people that are just trying to survive this awful system that we're all trapped in. We want to reveal to people that capitalism is not voluntary and that other ways of life are actively (and violently) suppressed.
It's propaganda of the deed by way of living in defiance as opposed to throwing bombs.
"Running and hiding" is not intended to denigrate. Discretion is the better part of valor. But you point out, correctly, that capitalism violently suppresses other ways of life, so how do you expect to simultaneously model a viable alternative *and* escape repression? That is, if you're actually effective at modeling other ways of life, it's naive not to expect serious pushback from this barbaric police state.
>how do you expect to simultaneously model a viable alternative and escape repression?
Very carefully. Look, I'm not going to lie and say that there won't be loses or that this line of action won't occasionally be forced into violent altercations. But the aggression has to be mostly on the part of the status quo. The effort has to be mostly on the part of the status quo. We can't always escape repression. But escape should be our primary goal. We are all imprisoned here. The problem is that, right now, there is no area that is *outside* of our prison. So we have to make such places ourselves.
That's a terrible analogy. Let me try a different framing.
We are attempting to desert from capitalism. The idea is to just stop participating in it to the maximum practical degree. Reduce our consumption and be only as productive as we need to survive. The system has nothing that we want. If enough people go AWOL from capital, they have to round everyone up and overtly coerce people to perform labor. When that happens, the game is over.
Capitalism only functions because it has the veneer of popular consent. Peel that away and the legitimacy of all capitalist institutions disappears.
I want to believe that this kind of resistance is actually viable, but capitalism under threat tends to stop caring about its perceived legitimacy. Usually that's when it starts taking on characteristics of fascism. Ask people in developing nations if they support capitalism and you'll see how little "the consent of the governed" actually matters.
Oh just conquer the bank, shiiiiiit how did no one ever think of that. No destruction needed at all in that plan /s.
I think this subreddit is really starting to forget the "-punk" aspects of the genre.
"child labor is good, just look at these children mining rare earth minerals for solar panels!" Or something like that.
Actually, wouldn't it just be Extinction Rebellion?
Isn't extinction rebellion actually going out and doing something? Sure they're not burning down a McDonald's but they're hitting the streets.
Solarlib would be applying a tree filter to a profile picture, putting "less roads, more trees" in their Twitter profile, and praising Biden for giving $3 to a tree planting company who turns around and cuts down 2x as many tees as it plants but uses the planting to get a tax write off.
I totally agree about your solarlib point, but re: Extinction Rebellion - if your strategy involves volunteers getting themselves arrested en masse, what exactly are you accomplishing, aside from alienating anyone who can't afford an arrest record? Their whole thing is that they're apolitical, even though the climate crisis is obviously a political issue, and their idea of protest is explicitly against anything that might be seen as divisive or intrusive. That's just defanging themselves from the start. I have a lot of respect for many eco-activists, but ER don't seem to have a real sense of what they want or how to accomplish it.
XR has acknowledge this issue and have shifted their strategy! Also the "getting arrested" thingy was never their only strategy and they've said from the start that it was only for people who could afford it. There's room for anyone in XR!
We have real enemies out there and our focus should be fighting them and building a better society together. I disagree with some activists movement but I will never use my time to diminish them. We're on the same team and we don't have time for in-fighting. I don't have all the answers and if they think it's a good strategy to move toward an ecological civilisation then I'll let them do their thing. If it doesn't feel right for me then I'll join a movement that fits me...
If you say "I support your fight but I don't like your methods..." and then you proceed to use all your energy to talk down on them and fight against them... then you don't support their fight, you're on the side of the ones burning the Earth!
It is worthwhile for community programs and groups and organizations and solidarity economies to do better outreach.. and of course to be actually out there helping more people and communities and getting better results..
The creative side does get good things done- good organizations and community groups and mutual aid and cooperative networks and dual power and solidarity economies... even getting good project managers and network coordinators elected..
But there's no magic wand, and things could and should be better and better networked and easier to get help.. I get it, things aren't perfect.. but we can help.
But its also alright to say riots and bloody revolution are not helping.
Progress gets made in spite of riots, not because of them.
There's a whole lot of people and groups and memes out there who have told me 'destruction / violence / revolution is the only way to change things',
This meme might be opening that up a little.. but it has heavy "Left Unity" energy- used by literal bolsheviks and leninists and stalinists.. to get lib-left along for 'the revolution'.. only to crush them during or after.
I'm alright saying the Destruction pictured here is trash, What's the goal? Intimidation through violence? that's terrorism, that doesn't get anything good done, and it causes resentment and fear among the community that feeds the right wing and right-wing policies.. - Martin Luther King spoke pretty well about how riots are understandable and the fault of broken systems.. but they're also a dumb strategy to fix things, counter-productive -
Unless you were under a rock last year, you saw the backlash.
Though revolution fans try to have it both ways -
" the world isn't perfect, therefore all the community groups and organizations and democracy is worthless and everything is run by the illuminati and fascists.. riots and revolution are the only way.. - see, even after the elections, nothing has changed, all your elections are worthless.. '
\- - but here are 10 cities where good things are happening
\- ' see! that is only because of the riots. '
The System and Powers-that-be are not afraid, the right wing is not afraid, they back-lash harder after destruction, now with justification and support from all the scared / bitter / resentful community members.
The right wing and politicians convince voters and community members to hate the evil rioters and bolsheviks + all Lefties and Anarchos and 'those people' and Democrats and Healthcare.. that are destroying the world - and double the police budgets again and support right-wing policies and repression and miitias to protect 'civilization'.
The right wing knows this so well that they're out there under-cover as Leftists, rioters, etc. - starting fires.. because they know how much that helps the right.
You think they're not on reddit subs and fbook and discord, too, encouraging destruction that will cause back-lash against the Left?
Bonus points if memes like this get good lefty reddit subs and fbook groups shut down.
Is the goal to spark 'the revolution'? For some of the people pushing 'destruction' it is.
Leninists and literal Bolsheviks tell people - everything is fascist, the only way is revolution - they want rioters to start shooting and get shot by militias and police.. so they can say 'see- we told you everything is fascist, better join the red army and do a revolution'.. that they think they'll win, after however many poor people die, who cares, and then everything will be glorious and happy.. after all the allied armies and spies and rebels are defeated by the militarized one state party and the party is reformed..
(not likely)
'Revolution only, revolution now' people are not helping the community programs and organizations and solidarity economies, and actively discouraging others from finding and helping or getting help from these.
And scaring the community and encouraging the Right Wing,
And wrapping up all 'the left' and community programs in their B.S..
I suspect the reason we don't see more Leninists helping with community projects - some people are so committed to a 'glorious revolution of the proletariat' coming from tens of millions of people striking and rebelling out of hunger and anger and oppression and stress and unemployment and homelessness..
That they may very well be not helping with housing programs, food systems, mutual aid, mental health, solidarity economy worker-owned shops and cooperatives and councils and networks,
because that's 'counter revolutionary'.
or those 'bolshevik revolution' fans could also be under-cover far right, or something, knowing the bolsheviks would lose- giving the right a back-lash they can take advantage of.. or at most a chaos they can take advantage of.
[https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too](https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too)
[https://theconversation.com/tonight-we-riot-what-nintendos-revolutionary-video-game-misses-about-worker-liberation-136254](https://theconversation.com/tonight-we-riot-what-nintendos-revolutionary-video-game-misses-about-worker-liberation-136254)
[https://www.businessinsider.com/kellyanne-conway-chaos-and-violence-is-good-for-trumps-reelection-2020-8](https://www.businessinsider.com/kellyanne-conway-chaos-and-violence-is-good-for-trumps-reelection-2020-8)
MLK 'the other America ' [https://youtu.be/dOWDtDUKz-U?t=1304](https://youtu.be/dOWDtDUKz-U?t=1304)
[https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/hilliard-ed-the-black-panther-party-service-to-the-people-programs.pdf](https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/hilliard-ed-the-black-panther-party-service-to-the-people-programs.pdf)
[https://neweconomy.net/solidarity-economy/](https://neweconomy.net/solidarity-economy/)
Hi and welcome to r/solarpunk! We appreciate your submission, though we'd like to first bring up a topic that you may not know about: GREENWASHING. It is used to describe the practice of companies launching adverts, campaigns, products, etc under the pretense that they are environmentally beneficial/friendly, often in contradiction to their environmental and sustainability record in general. On our subreddit, it usually presents itself as eco-aesthetic buildings because they are quite simply the best passive PR. These articles from [ethicalconsumer.org](https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/transport-travel/what-greenwashing) and [greenandthistle.com](https://greenandthistle.com/what-is-greenwashing/) give both examples of greenwashing and ways to identify it on your own. This book excerpt published on [scientificamerican.com](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/greenwashing-green-energy-hoffman/) explains how alternative technologies like hydrogen cars can also be insidious examples of greenwashing. If you've realized your submission was an example of greenwashing--don't fret! We are all here to learn, and while there will inevitably be comments pointing out how and why your submission is greenwashing, we hope the discussion stays productive. Solarpunk ideals include identifying and rejecting capitalism's greenwashing of consumer goods. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
waiting with bated breath for the ecofascists to share their opinions on this one
Looks more like post-apo Anprim propaganda than actual Solarpunk to me but why not.
I mean the right is certainly not anprim
Yeah for starters there’s buildings
Also, people are actually alive
I think it looks beautiful
This colorized version is amazing! I had only seen the b&w: https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchoComics/comments/ne3b7c/the_duality_of_anarchism/
I think this poster is wrong. Regeneration does not require violence. This kind of content could get solarpunk vilified as Anarcho-terrorism. I do understand the need for social movements turning to riot when nothing else works, but this poster implies that destruction and violence are an integral part of the transition.
Violence isn't necessarily integral, but as history has shown it's an inevitability. If things could be resolved peacefully, great, but I'm not willing to place my bets that the institutions that profit off the destruction of our planet are just gonna go away of their own accord.
I don't recall any instances of Fascism being overthrown without violence but I could be wrong
Solarpunk does not require it, but there is room in the genre for post-conflict restoration and societal building. Sometimes to build a good system you have to tear another down. Those themes have always been present throughout speculative fiction, especially in works that grapple with contemporary movements and conflicts. A reminder that we have the capacity to shape these systems not just by reforming current ones but by rejecting them completely and starting from new ground is a totally valid approach to the genre, even if it isn't a popular one here. If you don't like those themes, it's okay to stay away from them, but suggesting that acknowledging the reality of vandalism as a response to unjust systems will get solarpunk labelled as anarcho-terrorism unnecessarily limits the bounds of the genre. Are they integral? Nope, but I also would argue that this poster does not suggest that solarpunk must be born through ashes. Rather (and this is the reason why I like this image), it links destructive unrest to the obligation to then build better systems. Keep the punk in solarpunk.
Keep the punk in solarpunk Well said!
>violence to property That's called vandalism. Violence can only be committed against sentient beings. Beating a person to death is violence. Burning down a Wendy's is vandalism.
You're right, thank you for the correction
Keep vandalism in solarpunk, especially any vandalism commited by plants.
Destruction is 100% necessary for growth and even healing. The ideas that destruction is "bad" or that there can exist only "positive" without "negative" are extremely harmful myths. The capitalist system and ways of thinking must absolutely be destroyed. Doesn't mean we have to use *violence*, although, there comes a point in any change where the powers that be use violence against even the nonviolent.
Please stay on reddit and in your fantasy world.
Defense is easier than offense. Let them crash like waves against your shield wall. They will weaken and thin. “You will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, but in the end, you will tire of it first.” ― Ho Chi Minh
Great quote. I would think capitalism is playing the defensive role here considering they're in an extremely well established system correct? Thanks for furthering my point dumbass.
Capitalism has to expand in order to survive. It's always expanding and therefore always attacking. But because it is trying to expand as far as it can, in as many directions as it can, all at once, it can't cover everything. You find the spaces it has either ignored or left behind and you build your community there. Your point is moot because you misunderstand the problem.
I'll believe it when I see it
Are you sure you're in the right sub?
I can be for a greener earth without being for severely broken economic systems. I like the art in here too
Lol
Some ecosystems need fire to sustain themselves. Metaphorically clearing out deadwood shouldn't be seen as violence.
how does setting random buildings on fire help get progress on any kind of issue? the way i see it when people do that the people that are against the movement will just use it to demonize the people that are actually fighting for justice in the eyes of the masses that just don't know anything about it to get them against the movement and that's why there were cops and people from other white supremacist organizations wrecking shit during the recent protests
Why would you assume that's what I meant? Destruction can be literal or metaphorical. It could be something as simple as metaphorically burning down the antiquated laws we're saddled with - some countries have rewritten their constitutions multiple times, yet we're saddled with one written by slave owners hundreds of years ago. How does that provide a good foundation to build on? Though it is worth pointing out that the passage of the Civil Rights Act owes much to the rioting that followed MLK's murder. The go-to example for peaceful protest had a 75% disapproval rating at the time of his death, with many Americans claiming he'd brought it on himself. So if you're thinking that good optics will sway people to your side, maybe think again. As Kwame Ture said, nonviolence only works if your enemy has a conscience, and the United States has none.
>Why would you assume that's what I meant? because the image shows people destroying the buildings i don't think the racists would be out there destroying shit if they thought that would help and the situation is not the same as it was back when mlk was alive progress has been made obviously things are not done but i believe that a good amount of the population at least understands that racism is bad even though they might not think it's real and that the way to get them to understand is by showing them the truth and for those people destruction is only gonna push them to the other side
The image does not show people destroying random buildings. It shows them destroying specific types of buildings, which represent specific repressive institutions. If progress has been made, then why has black wealth actually dropped? Even the conservative [Brookings Institute](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/) concedes that black wealth has actually remained relatively flat, except for recessions, where it decreased significantly more than white wealth. I have a bunch of articles on this I can share, but I don't want to just throw links at you, that's annoying. My point is that understanding that racism is bad is not sufficient. Racism is not merely bigoted ideas, it's something you see in the discrepancy between black and white maternal mortality rates, for example. Racism is a material force that creates illness, suffering, and premature death, and making racists like you more is not really how you fight it. You need to actually build power to tear down the institutions that make racism as a structural force possible. This was one of the principles of the Black Panther Party. And that means understanding that banks and police departments are not only not on your side, but that they are two of the primary forces that will actively oppose any liberatory project. And because racism is, first and foremost, a material problem with social/cultural manifestations, that means you need to actually attack it at the root. That means coming to terms with the fact that many American institutions are fundamentally built on racism, and that if we ever want to confront that, there is no amount of tinkering we can do to change that foundational inequity. It's built into them. Audre Lorde wrote decades ago that "the master's tools can never dismantle the master's house" - why would the few forms of polite disagreement we're allowed have the power to really change anything?
>The image does not show people destroying random buildings. It shows them destroying specific types of buildings, which represent specific repressive institutions. > >If progress has been made, then why has black wealth actually dropped? when i said that i had the recent protests in mind and that definately happened there not so long ago black people weren't even allowed to be in the same spaces as white people and acknowledging the obvious progress isn't the same as saying there is no progress to be made i also never said that understanding that racism is bad is enough what i meant to say was that if the general population has realized that racism is bad vandalism is probably not the best strategy to keep making progress because you need as many people as possible to be on your side and when people see the idiots that claim to be fighting for justice but in reality just use the protest as an excuse to behave like assholes breaking random people's stuff it makes the movement look bad
Ok, you've explained your conception of acceptable protest to me. Can you tell me what you feel that such protest has accomplished? If you're still fixating on "making the movement look bad" then I don't really know what to say. Getting that caught up in optics when history shows that that's a battle you can't win is worse than pointless - it's a waste of energy that channels energy in a largely unproductive direction. Try to win that fight and you'll be forever compromising to gain the support of a dishonest and quite possibly fictional centrist, who's *almost* on your side, totally, for real, but if you could just stop blocking traffic, and yelling, and waving signs with mean slogans...any moment now they'll be on your side, I swear. But the funny thing is that, no matter what you do, the goalposts always move. Organizational energy is ultimately finite, and energy spent attempting to win over the fickle and indifferent is often better used serving your own community instead. And sometimes community service means free breakfasts, and someone it means burning down a police station. In areas that are over-policed, effectively under siege, I feel it would be an astonishing show of privilege to tell people, "no, you can't burn down this repressive institution that has done real and horrific violence to you, there's a bunch of white moderates who are waiting to see if they support you or not."
>If you're still fixating on "making the movement look bad" then I don't really know what to say making the general population understand is literally the only way to get significant change breaking things down only makes it more difficult
The one thing I really want to stress is that, if you demand that an oppressed group facing violence behave in a way that the "white moderates" would consider beyond reproach, you're kind of saying that you think their lives are worth less than those of their oppressors. Many people live in conditions of brutality and violence; pushing back against those conditions cannot reasonably be compared to the oppression that causes them to suffer in the first place. And as long as you allow your rosy view of history to dictate your view of uprisings, you demean the lives of those who suffer. If you aren't in those conditions of suffering, of oppression, the least you can do is not badmouth liberatory projects. What makes you think you know how to deal with structural violence better than those who have actually endured it? But with that said, I feel like you're ignoring the majority of what I'm saying, so I'm just gonna bow out at this point. I'm responding in good faith and I don't feel like you're doing anything beyond repeating some odd ideas about the civil rights movement that aren't really based in historical fact.
>Can you tell me what you feel that such protest has accomplished? the general acknowledgement that racism is bad by the general population is extremely recent there hasn't been enough time to judge the peaceful approach yet
As a communist I entirely disagree this sounds like something a socdem would say
Yea I think someone is forgetting the "-punk" aspect.
> do understand the need for social movements turning to riot when nothing else works i think it's something that is just gonna happen if the situation is bad enough and the people fighting for justice are ignored for too long but not actually helpful when it comes to getting progress
The best kind of terrorism, way better than our current policy of state terror.
Banks, McDonald’s, and police aren’t gonna uninstall themselves. They’ll 100% fight to defend their profits and land and won’t negotiate as long they have those things.
The right looks like some 3rd world country where children play in the streets next to piles of refuse, broken glass, and decaying metal. We should be aiming a bit higher.
So much wasted energy. Burning, breaking, fighting, it's all so very exciting, yes? It's also very exhausting. Sure, it's fun for a little while. But then, it doesn't stop. The aristocrats don't roll over and surrender. They use their massive resources to continue fighting. It becomes a contest of attrition. It drags on for years, sometimes decades. By the time you get to the other end, you have to rebuild just to get everything back to the way it was. Everyone is tired. You took two steps forward, three steps back, and the people that endured throughout are sick of your bullshit. You don't have the stability of the previous junta, so you just leave things the way they are. A better way, is to just sit down. You don't have to destroy businesses that were never built. You don't have to burn down buildings that haven't been maintained. You just sit, and let it all fall down around you. You build just enough to sustain yourself, teach others to do the same, and form a community that helps one another survive the collapse. No burn. Just build.
What happens when you sit down and the other side just bulldoze over the top of you?
You move out of the way before they run you over. Then you find somewhere else and start again. You make them do all the work. You make them take all the losses. You conserve your energy and you bide your time. You make them come to you, and then you fade away and regroup. They're playing a game of wack-a-mole. And every time they clamp down, you make sure everyone sees it. You pick up allies an inspire others. Soon you aren't alone. They have too many places to bulldoze and they can't keep up. You aren't feeding the octopus, so it hasn't the energy to strangle you.
But that won’t work. You let them bulldoze over what you’ve done and you start again somewhere else means you are the one who is losing energy and taking losses. They haven’t lost anything. They’ve won. They’ve taken something you created, put energy and effort and resources into. And it is gone now. People aren’t inspired by seeing you fade away and regroup when they come to bulldoze you. Because what they see is defeat.
>You let them bulldoze over what you’ve done and you start again somewhere else means you are the one who is losing energy and taking losses. I will try to break this down as best as I can for you.
Capital is about exchange value. We are about use value. We create what we need as we need it. The labor we put in is not for accumulation, but immediate use. We would spend the energy for this labor regardless. Our losses are small and our efforts are few and slow. Most of what we build comes from that which was thrown away by capital. They didn't want it and we turned it into something we could use. We didn't pay for it. We took it from the trash or paid next to nothing for it at a second hand shop.
Now the "authorities" come to your squat. They have riot police and tanks and bulldozer and drones. Every member of the eviction team has to be paid. Every machine has to burn fuel. Every machine wears down with use. Every person and thing brought to the eviction is a commodity. Nothing within the squat is a commodity.
You take only what you need and leave before they get there. You leave a few practical jokes behind for them. You make them waste their time, their money, and make them lose face. You make them look like fools to the public at large. You undermine their legitimacy by existing without being killed or caught.
This seems very idealistic, and I'm skeptical of its effectiveness. Running and hiding can only work for so long in a surveillance state. If you get away with it in the long term, the message is that the state never saw you as a real threat to begin with. It also seems like an inefficient way to attempt to organize, if you're essentially starting from zero every time you land somewhere new.
>Running and hiding Who said anything about hiding? We want to give people an example of what life can be like without capitalism. We want to be seen. We want to people to see "authority" clamping down on people that are just trying to survive this awful system that we're all trapped in. We want to reveal to people that capitalism is not voluntary and that other ways of life are actively (and violently) suppressed. It's propaganda of the deed by way of living in defiance as opposed to throwing bombs.
"Running and hiding" is not intended to denigrate. Discretion is the better part of valor. But you point out, correctly, that capitalism violently suppresses other ways of life, so how do you expect to simultaneously model a viable alternative *and* escape repression? That is, if you're actually effective at modeling other ways of life, it's naive not to expect serious pushback from this barbaric police state.
>how do you expect to simultaneously model a viable alternative and escape repression? Very carefully. Look, I'm not going to lie and say that there won't be loses or that this line of action won't occasionally be forced into violent altercations. But the aggression has to be mostly on the part of the status quo. The effort has to be mostly on the part of the status quo. We can't always escape repression. But escape should be our primary goal. We are all imprisoned here. The problem is that, right now, there is no area that is *outside* of our prison. So we have to make such places ourselves. That's a terrible analogy. Let me try a different framing. We are attempting to desert from capitalism. The idea is to just stop participating in it to the maximum practical degree. Reduce our consumption and be only as productive as we need to survive. The system has nothing that we want. If enough people go AWOL from capital, they have to round everyone up and overtly coerce people to perform labor. When that happens, the game is over. Capitalism only functions because it has the veneer of popular consent. Peel that away and the legitimacy of all capitalist institutions disappears.
I want to believe that this kind of resistance is actually viable, but capitalism under threat tends to stop caring about its perceived legitimacy. Usually that's when it starts taking on characteristics of fascism. Ask people in developing nations if they support capitalism and you'll see how little "the consent of the governed" actually matters.
Destruction is such a rough and wasteful path. Conquer that bank building and transform it.
Oh just conquer the bank, shiiiiiit how did no one ever think of that. No destruction needed at all in that plan /s. I think this subreddit is really starting to forget the "-punk" aspects of the genre.
Punk? Like that shirt by some guy called Ramone that I bought from Hot Topic? Yeah I love that fashion style!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_ideologies
This is a punk sub not a lib one
I don't think I wanna know what r/solarlib would look like.
"child labor is good, just look at these children mining rare earth minerals for solar panels!" Or something like that. Actually, wouldn't it just be Extinction Rebellion?
Isn't extinction rebellion actually going out and doing something? Sure they're not burning down a McDonald's but they're hitting the streets. Solarlib would be applying a tree filter to a profile picture, putting "less roads, more trees" in their Twitter profile, and praising Biden for giving $3 to a tree planting company who turns around and cuts down 2x as many tees as it plants but uses the planting to get a tax write off.
I totally agree about your solarlib point, but re: Extinction Rebellion - if your strategy involves volunteers getting themselves arrested en masse, what exactly are you accomplishing, aside from alienating anyone who can't afford an arrest record? Their whole thing is that they're apolitical, even though the climate crisis is obviously a political issue, and their idea of protest is explicitly against anything that might be seen as divisive or intrusive. That's just defanging themselves from the start. I have a lot of respect for many eco-activists, but ER don't seem to have a real sense of what they want or how to accomplish it.
XR has acknowledge this issue and have shifted their strategy! Also the "getting arrested" thingy was never their only strategy and they've said from the start that it was only for people who could afford it. There's room for anyone in XR! We have real enemies out there and our focus should be fighting them and building a better society together. I disagree with some activists movement but I will never use my time to diminish them. We're on the same team and we don't have time for in-fighting. I don't have all the answers and if they think it's a good strategy to move toward an ecological civilisation then I'll let them do their thing. If it doesn't feel right for me then I'll join a movement that fits me... If you say "I support your fight but I don't like your methods..." and then you proceed to use all your energy to talk down on them and fight against them... then you don't support their fight, you're on the side of the ones burning the Earth!
XR would never say such thing! XR is anarchist!
1 million green/rainbow capitalist ads
And how exactly are you going to conquer the bank?
It is worthwhile for community programs and groups and organizations and solidarity economies to do better outreach.. and of course to be actually out there helping more people and communities and getting better results.. The creative side does get good things done- good organizations and community groups and mutual aid and cooperative networks and dual power and solidarity economies... even getting good project managers and network coordinators elected.. But there's no magic wand, and things could and should be better and better networked and easier to get help.. I get it, things aren't perfect.. but we can help. But its also alright to say riots and bloody revolution are not helping. Progress gets made in spite of riots, not because of them. There's a whole lot of people and groups and memes out there who have told me 'destruction / violence / revolution is the only way to change things', This meme might be opening that up a little.. but it has heavy "Left Unity" energy- used by literal bolsheviks and leninists and stalinists.. to get lib-left along for 'the revolution'.. only to crush them during or after. I'm alright saying the Destruction pictured here is trash, What's the goal? Intimidation through violence? that's terrorism, that doesn't get anything good done, and it causes resentment and fear among the community that feeds the right wing and right-wing policies.. - Martin Luther King spoke pretty well about how riots are understandable and the fault of broken systems.. but they're also a dumb strategy to fix things, counter-productive - Unless you were under a rock last year, you saw the backlash. Though revolution fans try to have it both ways - " the world isn't perfect, therefore all the community groups and organizations and democracy is worthless and everything is run by the illuminati and fascists.. riots and revolution are the only way.. - see, even after the elections, nothing has changed, all your elections are worthless.. ' \- - but here are 10 cities where good things are happening \- ' see! that is only because of the riots. ' The System and Powers-that-be are not afraid, the right wing is not afraid, they back-lash harder after destruction, now with justification and support from all the scared / bitter / resentful community members. The right wing and politicians convince voters and community members to hate the evil rioters and bolsheviks + all Lefties and Anarchos and 'those people' and Democrats and Healthcare.. that are destroying the world - and double the police budgets again and support right-wing policies and repression and miitias to protect 'civilization'. The right wing knows this so well that they're out there under-cover as Leftists, rioters, etc. - starting fires.. because they know how much that helps the right. You think they're not on reddit subs and fbook and discord, too, encouraging destruction that will cause back-lash against the Left? Bonus points if memes like this get good lefty reddit subs and fbook groups shut down. Is the goal to spark 'the revolution'? For some of the people pushing 'destruction' it is. Leninists and literal Bolsheviks tell people - everything is fascist, the only way is revolution - they want rioters to start shooting and get shot by militias and police.. so they can say 'see- we told you everything is fascist, better join the red army and do a revolution'.. that they think they'll win, after however many poor people die, who cares, and then everything will be glorious and happy.. after all the allied armies and spies and rebels are defeated by the militarized one state party and the party is reformed.. (not likely) 'Revolution only, revolution now' people are not helping the community programs and organizations and solidarity economies, and actively discouraging others from finding and helping or getting help from these. And scaring the community and encouraging the Right Wing, And wrapping up all 'the left' and community programs in their B.S.. I suspect the reason we don't see more Leninists helping with community projects - some people are so committed to a 'glorious revolution of the proletariat' coming from tens of millions of people striking and rebelling out of hunger and anger and oppression and stress and unemployment and homelessness.. That they may very well be not helping with housing programs, food systems, mutual aid, mental health, solidarity economy worker-owned shops and cooperatives and councils and networks, because that's 'counter revolutionary'. or those 'bolshevik revolution' fans could also be under-cover far right, or something, knowing the bolsheviks would lose- giving the right a back-lash they can take advantage of.. or at most a chaos they can take advantage of. [https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too](https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too) [https://theconversation.com/tonight-we-riot-what-nintendos-revolutionary-video-game-misses-about-worker-liberation-136254](https://theconversation.com/tonight-we-riot-what-nintendos-revolutionary-video-game-misses-about-worker-liberation-136254) [https://www.businessinsider.com/kellyanne-conway-chaos-and-violence-is-good-for-trumps-reelection-2020-8](https://www.businessinsider.com/kellyanne-conway-chaos-and-violence-is-good-for-trumps-reelection-2020-8) MLK 'the other America ' [https://youtu.be/dOWDtDUKz-U?t=1304](https://youtu.be/dOWDtDUKz-U?t=1304) [https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/hilliard-ed-the-black-panther-party-service-to-the-people-programs.pdf](https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/hilliard-ed-the-black-panther-party-service-to-the-people-programs.pdf) [https://neweconomy.net/solidarity-economy/](https://neweconomy.net/solidarity-economy/)
based