The solarpunk thread I posted yesterday (https://climatejustice.social/@breadandcircuses/114670279088355579) elicited some interesting reactions, with at least one commenter suggesting that punks and anarchists can’t *possibly* contribute anything constructive or beneficial to civilized society.
So today this cartoon seems appropriate…
#History #Economics #Environment #Climate #ClimateChange #Degrowth #SolarPunk
@Sherry
But hey, if you don't like hardcore punk you don't like hardcore punk. It's certainly not for everyone.
Edit. This song is merely one of thousands dealing with women in a patriarchal society. Punk is a place where many younger women discover these ideas and concepts.
@Sherry On the one hand, I get your point.
On the other hand, Afghanistan is far from the only country. USA is doing all it can to ban books and subjugate women. The government is banning the word "women" from official communications ffs. Europe has toms of femicides.
Anarchists are never going to be good for organized resistance (by definition), but there is common cause with "No Gods, No masters," Elisabeth Cady Stanton
You could just have asked for examples, you know.
But the labour/co-op movement of late 19th century could be seen as anarchist. It empowered women, and on some areas also directly led to women getting a vote (such as Finland).
@breadandcircuses just for fun, no critic.
@lucy_idk @breadandcircuses sorry, I'm missing something...
Can you explain the joke?
@Amoshias @lucy_idk @breadandcircuses
Abandoned area can be seen as a common. That the photographed common is in ruins is an example of the Tragedy of Commons.
Tragedy of Commons being a situation where the society administering the commons vanishes or otherwise loses the ability to administer, leading to antisocial behaviour (for fun and/or profit) destroying the Commons.
In capitalist societies, such destruction to govern is often planned, application of Starve the Beast -principle.
@iju @Amoshias @lucy_idk @breadandcircuses Graffiti is frequently a response to the “society” administering a space — in reality, it’s always a state acting (theoretically) on behalf of that society — failing to respond to the needs or voices of members of that society. It’s not usually “for fun and/or profit”, it’s an expression of what isn’t being heard by the state.
Tragedy of the Commons is usually about resource management.
@quietewe @Amoshias @lucy_idk @breadandcircuses
I think you're not understanding me.
Tragedy of the Commons is resource management problem, which happens when the society administering the commons vanishes or otherwise becomes impotent.
Leading to a single member overgrazing a pasture ("for profit"), or a single (diaturbed) person destroying a nice place ("for fun") due to no nobody feeling it's their job to stop them, or to fix the damage.
@quietewe @Amoshias @lucy_idk @breadandcircuses
(I do know what I'm talking about. Please ask clarification "steelmanning") before assuming mistake. And when there's no chance but to assume mistake, please write in a way to save face -- English discussions in Mastodon tend to get confrontational very fast. I have assumptions as to why, but for now it's safe to say that it happens, and it makes this a less nice place to inhabit.)
@fishidwardrobe @iju @quietewe @lucy_idk @breadandcircuses mmmm...
It's been debunked on the small scale. Communities are generally not susceptible to the tragedy of the commons. Time and time again we see that communities find a way to caretake common resources.
It is definitely true on the large scale. Billionaires and mega corporations clearly act according to the pattern described.
@fishidwardrobe @quietewe @lucy_idk @breadandcircuses So you think because someone described a pattern that perfectly fits a situation, we shouldn't use it for situations it applies to, simply because the article it was first described in in modern times talked about a pasture and a fishery?
And even in that situation, it still applies.
@Amoshias @quietewe @lucy_idk @breadandcircuses I think that if you have a pattern that doesn't quite match the original description you need to find another name for your pattern — *especially* if the original pattern was raised in bad faith by an eugenicist.
eg: we pretty much don't say "aspergers" any more.
(Do I think billionaires fuck up the commons? hell yes. do I think this matches the pattern originally described, which was that the regular folk are incapable of looking after common land? no.)
@Amoshias @quietewe @lucy_idk @breadandcircuses
> The argument is well known. It rests on a thought experiment: a pasture, **shared in common by self-interested herders**, heads toward inevitable ruin because of their individual actions. Hardin’s goal is to demonstrate that common property is incompatible with a sustainable exploitation of resources. Since the publication of the article, many studies have attempted to test Hardin’s argument on the basis of facts. Sociologists, anthropologists, and historians have studied concrete cases of management and invalidated Hardin’s conclusion: for centuries, forests, pastures, and fishery resources have been exploited in common without heading for destruction
https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_RHMC_601_0007?lang=en&contenu=article
@quietewe @Amoshias @lucy_idk @breadandcircuses
As I've gotten some potshots on the above message followed by a block so I can't even dispute, let it be known that yes, I know Garrett Hardin coined the term and gave a bad-faith explanation for the phenomenon (he directly blamed the welfare state), but he wasn't the first nor the last to describe it.
See: https://mastodon.social/@iju/114677500578265881
Even the wikiarticle on the subject has examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
@Amoshias @lucy_idk @breadandcircuses um. You do realise I was making a joke, right? Like, jesus, who shat in your cereal.
Oh wait, empty profile. Who gives a fuck
How much do you know about stateless human societies? You cite First Nations but that's a p narrow group (especially if you only think of the commonly known groups)
Humans in the past had a great diversity in the ways their societies were organized, with varying degrees of hierarchy and egalitarianism, saying they are naturally hierarchical is just not supported by modern science.
I suggest reading "Lifeways of Hunter Gatherers" by Kelly to get more information.
@Sherry
No need to get so defensive - its just that the opinion that humans are "naturally" hierarchical (or "naturally" egalitarian for that matter) are reminiscent of very outdated research and not supported by modern ethnography nor archeology.
They're basically myths that survive as they're useful for pushing political agendas.
See Kelly's book I cited (one of leading authors in the space) on a more detailed assessment of evidence we have.
Well, if your point is that human are naturally hierarchical, I find that to be a very weak argument.
Organization of a family unit doesn't implicitly tell us anything about how the wider society works, and even seeing families as hierarchical is stretching it.
Surely you can see how egalitarian Australian aboriginal moiety based societies are different from, say, Iroquois kinship?
Anyway, there isn't enough characters per toot to discuss this in detail, so I suggest we drop it here.
I don't know, but anarchy is quote "life without someone telling you how to live", ok, but a community automatically creates rules, so in principle anarchy cannot exist.
Living without rules is not possible, even we individually as people give ourselves rules.
@moonshine_fox @qwertz @bargeass @breadandcircuses
Yeah...maybe "anarchy" in general vocabulary means "no rules", but that is not at all a good way to characterize anarchism as a political philosophy.
Anarchy is about cooperation.
@breadandcircuses
Mutual aid, acts of kinship and solidarity, and finding joy in social life are the things that are truly natural and necessary to social animals such as ourselves. We have forgotten the importance of "play" in forging our social bonds, resting our aging psyches, and creating new forms of existing in communion with nature and the fragile ecosystems that sustain us.
They've taken these away, and conditioned them upon us being their wage-slaves.
A better world is possible.
@breadandcircuses I see their statement as being the equivalent of "Atheists can not possibly contribute to theology."
I think their missing the point, makes your point.
Daniel
Bread and Circuses
Michael Busch
Sherry
Kid Mania
RRB
LawChan
Juho Mäntysalo
Marc
L⚝cy idk ⚝ ⁂ ⚝ ⁂ ⚝ ⁂ ⚝ ⁂
Amoshias
Erin
Fish Id Wardrobe
Mx Verda
bargeass
qwertz
yetzt
Moonshine Fox
🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 leastaction
Artemis
Lord Caramac the Clueless, KSC
jwiggler
Murat