I don’t understand this argument. On the one had you have sympathy for the average car user who hasn’t the time or resources to struggle with poor transport infrastructure and don’t necessarily have the resources to make preventative purchasing decisions, but then, on the other had you say
Needing to put in the political struggle to take on the corporate interests… takes effort that deviates from your normal life
You don’t seem to have avoided the responsibility being laid at the individual at all. You’ve kept it firmly in the same place. All you’ve done is allowed those individuals to keep their materialistic lifestyle because “It’s OK, I’m an ‘activist’”.
Activism, for most people, is not sacrifice. Its a jolly good day out with a cool social group, sometimes there’s even free music, circus acts, the works. You get to waive a flag, and everyone congratulates you on what an amazing person you are.
What’s properly amazing is taking a slightly less well-paying job because it’s on a bus route, or not going out twice a week so you can afford organic cotton instead of polyester, or avoiding that deal trip to Tibet to meditate with monks to save fuel. Zero social credit, zero visibility.
And if these big companies have the economic system so stitched up that individual choices barely matter, then what on earth makes you think they won’t have the political system similarly stitched up so that individual activism doesn’t make a difference either?
My point is, the important part isn’t assigning blame, it’s taking actions that actually have some path to success. You really can’t ethically consume your way out of climate change. Identifying the corporations and governments most responsible for blocking progress isn’t a mere moral victory, it’s focusing our efforts.
What’s properly amazing is taking a slightly less well-paying job because it’s on a bus route,
Sure, but not everyone can do that. And I don’t mean it’s just difficult, but literally there are a finite number of jobs and housing options that will fit that criteria. As our societies are set up now, it is not physically possible for enough people to make a sacrifice like that for it to make a difference. That’s why collective action is needed to make those big structural changes in the first place.
And if these big companies have the economic system so stitched up that individual choices barely matter, then what on earth makes you think they won’t have the political system similarly stitched up so that individual activism doesn’t make a difference either?
Oh 100%. I’m deeply concerned that there may be no peaceful, democratic way out of this. But that’s step 2. Step 1, regardless of what our strategy ought to be, is organizing. Whether we need voters, protestors, boycotters, or an army, we need people who are able to coordinate with others. It’s not individual activism, it’s collective action.
You say it’s important not to assign blame, yet this entire thread is about blaming companies.
You keep using the word “ethically consume”, as if consumption is this magical shield that saves you from all responsibility. If I want to see a woman raped and I rape a woman and tape it, that’s obviously horrible. But if I instead find someone to PAY to create the video so I can CONSUME it, that suddenly cancels ANY AND ALL responsibility. WTF?
Calling for people to do what they can, which absolutely includes consuming differently, is the only correct choice here. Stop picking and choosing the parts of activism that require no effort from you personally. Stop pretending like the “system” is some kind of nefarious being in a cave we can just slay. We are all the system, we are all responsible to the degree that we have the power to change.
You might agree a little, but then talk about how little power we have. For one, do you think that’s true for feminism, or anti-racism? Me not making sexist jokes has a tiny, tiny impact on patriarchy. Can I then just keep doing that, because it makes no real difference? A bunch of rich patriarchs have so much more power, therefore can I just sit on my lazy ass and never do anything feminist, expect call myself feminist?
Secondly, again, you’re picking and choosing what effort is ok to ask for. You ask for political activism, but draw the line at changing your habits where you can. That is simply non-sensical.
Finally, you’re just wrong. Global climate change is GLOBAL. You do not get to shirk your duty on the pretense of powerlessness. The average American has the power and influence of ENTIRE FAMILIES in poorer countries. You know, the countries likely most affected?
Which presumably is why the left wing spends 100% of it’s time and energy on purity tests, cancelling, essentailist identity politics, and knee-jerk tribalism…
… classic solidarity-building. We should have this problem sorted in no time.
That is exactly what I’m trying to push back against. Guilting people over their tiny contribution to climate change is hurting the cause, not helping it. It’s a problem intrinsic to the consumption-oriented liberal approach to climate activism, but not exclusive to it.
I agree. I was pointing out that (even if perhaps inadvertently), your post just ends up guilting people who don’t do enough activism instead. It turns, not on the problem (reducing carbon emissions), but on your comrades (those who share your concern, but disagree about how best to achieve it).
The responses blaming individuals don’t seem to be exculpating corporations. They’re just adding a dimension they felt was missing.
Solidarity is about accepting into the fold anyone who agrees with a broad aim and working toward that end.
So anyone concerned about our impact on the planet can work together to minimise it. Some by campaigning to reduce consumption, some by campaigning against corporate overreach, some by campaigning for political parties who have better agendas. And each campaign supports and nurtures the other.
What we get instead are endless (and often furious) arguments between each campaign about how they’ve got it wrong and their approach will never work.
I suppose in the vein of “the one thing I don’t tolerate is intolerance”, I’d say the one thing I will always say isn’t going to work is telling every other well-meaning activist that their campaign isn’t going to work.
(The obvious caveat here is determining ‘well-meaning’, but hey, no system is perfect)
I don’t understand this argument. On the one had you have sympathy for the average car user who hasn’t the time or resources to struggle with poor transport infrastructure and don’t necessarily have the resources to make preventative purchasing decisions, but then, on the other had you say
You don’t seem to have avoided the responsibility being laid at the individual at all. You’ve kept it firmly in the same place. All you’ve done is allowed those individuals to keep their materialistic lifestyle because “It’s OK, I’m an ‘activist’”.
Activism, for most people, is not sacrifice. Its a jolly good day out with a cool social group, sometimes there’s even free music, circus acts, the works. You get to waive a flag, and everyone congratulates you on what an amazing person you are.
What’s properly amazing is taking a slightly less well-paying job because it’s on a bus route, or not going out twice a week so you can afford organic cotton instead of polyester, or avoiding that deal trip to Tibet to meditate with monks to save fuel. Zero social credit, zero visibility.
And if these big companies have the economic system so stitched up that individual choices barely matter, then what on earth makes you think they won’t have the political system similarly stitched up so that individual activism doesn’t make a difference either?
My point is, the important part isn’t assigning blame, it’s taking actions that actually have some path to success. You really can’t ethically consume your way out of climate change. Identifying the corporations and governments most responsible for blocking progress isn’t a mere moral victory, it’s focusing our efforts.
Sure, but not everyone can do that. And I don’t mean it’s just difficult, but literally there are a finite number of jobs and housing options that will fit that criteria. As our societies are set up now, it is not physically possible for enough people to make a sacrifice like that for it to make a difference. That’s why collective action is needed to make those big structural changes in the first place.
Oh 100%. I’m deeply concerned that there may be no peaceful, democratic way out of this. But that’s step 2. Step 1, regardless of what our strategy ought to be, is organizing. Whether we need voters, protestors, boycotters, or an army, we need people who are able to coordinate with others. It’s not individual activism, it’s collective action.
You say it’s important not to assign blame, yet this entire thread is about blaming companies. You keep using the word “ethically consume”, as if consumption is this magical shield that saves you from all responsibility. If I want to see a woman raped and I rape a woman and tape it, that’s obviously horrible. But if I instead find someone to PAY to create the video so I can CONSUME it, that suddenly cancels ANY AND ALL responsibility. WTF?
Calling for people to do what they can, which absolutely includes consuming differently, is the only correct choice here. Stop picking and choosing the parts of activism that require no effort from you personally. Stop pretending like the “system” is some kind of nefarious being in a cave we can just slay. We are all the system, we are all responsible to the degree that we have the power to change.
You might agree a little, but then talk about how little power we have. For one, do you think that’s true for feminism, or anti-racism? Me not making sexist jokes has a tiny, tiny impact on patriarchy. Can I then just keep doing that, because it makes no real difference? A bunch of rich patriarchs have so much more power, therefore can I just sit on my lazy ass and never do anything feminist, expect call myself feminist? Secondly, again, you’re picking and choosing what effort is ok to ask for. You ask for political activism, but draw the line at changing your habits where you can. That is simply non-sensical. Finally, you’re just wrong. Global climate change is GLOBAL. You do not get to shirk your duty on the pretense of powerlessness. The average American has the power and influence of ENTIRE FAMILIES in poorer countries. You know, the countries likely most affected?
Yep. Solidarity, collectivism.
Which presumably is why the left wing spends 100% of it’s time and energy on purity tests, cancelling, essentailist identity politics, and knee-jerk tribalism…
… classic solidarity-building. We should have this problem sorted in no time.
That is exactly what I’m trying to push back against. Guilting people over their tiny contribution to climate change is hurting the cause, not helping it. It’s a problem intrinsic to the consumption-oriented liberal approach to climate activism, but not exclusive to it.
I agree. I was pointing out that (even if perhaps inadvertently), your post just ends up guilting people who don’t do enough activism instead. It turns, not on the problem (reducing carbon emissions), but on your comrades (those who share your concern, but disagree about how best to achieve it).
The responses blaming individuals don’t seem to be exculpating corporations. They’re just adding a dimension they felt was missing.
Solidarity is about accepting into the fold anyone who agrees with a broad aim and working toward that end.
So anyone concerned about our impact on the planet can work together to minimise it. Some by campaigning to reduce consumption, some by campaigning against corporate overreach, some by campaigning for political parties who have better agendas. And each campaign supports and nurtures the other.
What we get instead are endless (and often furious) arguments between each campaign about how they’ve got it wrong and their approach will never work.
I suppose in the vein of “the one thing I don’t tolerate is intolerance”, I’d say the one thing I will always say isn’t going to work is telling every other well-meaning activist that their campaign isn’t going to work.
(The obvious caveat here is determining ‘well-meaning’, but hey, no system is perfect)