bibo
@biboofficial
am i going to get yelled at
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5vr5-WVgAM6Ih6?format=jpg&name=large
https://twitter.com/biboofficial/status/1412982293963018247
Western leftists: eat less meat, that is individual choice and it matters greatly!
Global south: burn less carbon, pls, the ocean is drowning us
Western leftists: :pit: :pit: :pit:
I can't see any way to promote toolkits of action that don't come off as pushing individual responsibility though and any success made with individuals will just end up convincing legislators that actually individual responsibility can succeed "see it's working with x".
I'm not entirely averse to a potential strategy, but a benefit analysis is needed compared to negative affects it can cause towards campaigning for a legislative solution. If there are any at all then it's fundamentally bad.
The people who are "trying to reduce their waste/footprint" already know their lives produce unnecessary waste and emissions and are trying to "do better". The tools we should give them are to join ecosocialist organizations and to organize actual, targeted campaigns that are not limited to individual "consumer choice".
At the same time, we should not purely crap on individual action, which is a necessarily doomed (but not worthless) attempt to make one's life more consistent with one's knowledge of the impact of production and waste in items they purchase. That is a good sentiment, at its core. A lib doing that is doing infinitely more than an internet socialist that doesn't even do anything irl. And they're developing an understanding of how deeply waste and harm are tied to production, they just aren't going to easily discover our frameworks for understanding.
That's why our role should be to build and direct action (i.e., be constructive) , because they're prime targets and we don't actually need to alienate them too hard first. They're very close to seeing the necessity of deep changes to how production is organized.
And the easiest thing we can do is to suggest joining ecosocialist groups and to suggest that their current methods, rather than pointless, are merely insufficient.
Kinda confused by the claim I do nothing irl.
Again, I don't disagree that it's morally right to do. But I don't see how anything you're suggesting has a point, it seems like time wasted that is not going to actually achieve anything.
What we need to achieve: Legislation that forces people and companies to reduce their consumption and change their processes. Outcome: World is saved.
What you're suggesting does: Gets a few people to reduce their consumption, a nice feeling of achieving something but ultimately not what we actually need. The massive majority will change nothing. Outcome: World burns.
It feels very much like the ONLY thing that we should spend energy, time, money, and emotional effort on is the goal of legislation. We have a finite amount of time and labour to put towards anything, the thing that finite time and labout should be spent on should be on the only thing that matters. Fighting for legislation, and opposing anything that might remotely harm the goal of achieving legislation.
I didn't say that.
The thing I suggested was to try to redirect their interest in activism towards more effective collective action by joining an organization, ideally ecosocialist, without simply crapping on their individual action. Aside from being pointlessly alienating, it's generally just not going to jive with their lived experience. They know it's not worthless, but that is the implication they'll take from being dismissive towards their actions. It's important to understand and spread understanding of insufficiency, not worthlessness, when it comes to individualistic actions.
In addition, individual actions can be a way to gain attention to issues precisely because they're baby steps and have a direct personal tie-in. The BDS movement is based, in part, on this. We don't say, "we'll end apartheid by not eating Sabra hummus". They say, "loudly boycott Sabra hummus to apply pressure to companies directly profiting from apartheid", which has the additional impact of bringing attention to that apartheid. Talk to people going into a store, they generally have no idea about any of this.
Legislation supported by whom and under what leverage? These are fundamental issues of capitalist production, effective regulations will cut deeply into profits, and the disconnect between public sentiment and legislative success is pretty massive, particularly when it comes to the interests of the ruling class.
We actually need revolution and a reorganization of production, but we can use attempts at legislation to push the envelope there and maybe get some harm reduction. Maybe. But to do any of this, we need to build a movement that coopts end integrates individuals that want to take action, something that is stymied by the implication of pointlessness to individualistic action. It's not pointless, it's insufficient. If I were to take that purely negative strategy towards folks in this thread, I'd be implying that legislation is pointless, because of course reformism will be insufficient on the face of a problem inherent to capitalism: the need for constant growth and extraction.
You're describing false catharsis, which is indeed exactly what we want to subvert. Simply dismissing "consumer choice" rather than just acknowledging its limitations and dangers is a wasted opportunity that could even be counterproductive. Because they know there's a material - if potentially insufficient - impact to their actions, many will just ignore you. Worse, they may associate socialists with dismissiveness or not caring about the environment. Opportunity lost and for a bad reason. But maybe you get lucky and convince them - now there's a new danger of doomerism, because they've been hit with a one-two punch of thinking their personal actions are pointless and that they must now take on seemingly insurmountable challenges: the entire bourgeoisie and modern industrialized production. They need an on-ramp.
I like this sentiment but I need to emphasize that there is no "we" when it comes to having leverage for passing legislation. We aren't organized enough for that. We need to increase membership in our organizations, create rallying cries to increase membership and provide activism on-ramps for them that include education about these topics and our preferred approach to them.