117
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
117 points (99.2% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15917 readers
3 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I don’t think vandalizing an archaeological site is going to suddenly change Big Oil’s mind. If you want to take down Big Oil, direct action against it is a good place to start. These rich kids just put an unnecessary burden on the working class people who now have to clean up their mess. This self-indulgent shit pisses me off.
These protests do work. And is suspected to be largely behind why a fair fraction of the population care about climate change. And working class people will be pressed into cleaning up the mess of direct action too, so I don't understand the argument there.
Fucking up rich people's pretty shit is a perfectly valid, if somewhat toothless, response. Yes, direct action is better, but is also more heavily violently cracked down on, the mass movement needed to make it viable isn't there.
I think the heatwaves and floods and winters without snow are why a fair fraction of the population cares about climate change.
I know a couple people who outspoken about climate change for scientific or observable reasons.
But I know more who are outspoken because they're polarised against fuddy-duddy conservative anti-climate-protestor attitudes.
Fair.
I wasn't really talking about the scientific measurement of heatwaves and floods and winters without snow, though. I was more speaking to the phenomenal experience of climate change. We're all living through and suffering the physical effects every day.
This claim lacks evidence.
It's one thing to create unnecessary burdens for working class people by doing some self-indulgent shit, but quite another to do so when you're actively fighting for the future of the entire working class. And no, rich kids who vandalize historical sites and works of art aren't doing that.
The claim does lack evidence, I agree! I'm only speaking anecdotally - But that's a little more evidence than the claim that the protests don't work.
No? There is not how evidence works. Anecdotally evidence don't count as proper evidence precisely because it is not falsifiable, i.e. inevaluable. And lack of proper evidence of something is evidence that this something doesn't exist. Therefore, when there is insufficient evidence that X is true, we assume that X is false, until we have evidence to the contrary.. There's even a Latin expression for that in legal disputes. "semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit".
But let’s ignore how logic works for now. What if I told you that I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary? That every single person offline that I’ve talked to about the subject thinks these protests are ridiculous? That I saw a tweet mocking the protesters that got a few thousand likes? See how you get nowhere if you start considering anecdotal evidence?
I already know and agree with what you've said here. I would happily concede that both of our positions lack good evidence for a wide, systematic effect.
I can only share my experience which is proof that, at least in my tiny part of the world, these protests have worked. You're very welcome to have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, I was just sharing my own and I'm unsure why I'm getting logic'd for it. I think perhaps you're inferring a much larger claim from my words than I was trying to make.
It’s not going to change big oil’s mind. Nothing short of torturing executives and hanging their bodies off a bridge will change their minds. But at least this makes people mad which is the next best thing.
If you plan well, you can, by choosing your targets very carefully, disrupt the board of directors of a major oil company and thus affect its activities for some time. The most direct and effective way to do this, however, is by sabotage. I am not particularly advocating any of these strategies, I firmly believe that the only solution to climate change is socialist revolution, but these kinds of tactics can culminate in a revolutionary movement, while this other one that you say that "makes people mad" apparently does nothing to develop a revolutionary spirit.
So you're saying these protests create jobs?
NO? Did you know that there are permanent cleaning jobs regardless of the size of the mess? You sound like the punk kid who kicks trash cans down the street claiming he's making sure cleaners have jobs.
I'm 32 and I worked as a janitor for 4 years.
There's no such thing as "permanent" jobs. If people are considerate and always cleaned up after themselves then fewer people get hired to clean and the inverse is also true, if people make more messes they hire more cleaners. In the end it doesn't matter, the boss always makes sure to force the maximum amount of work onto the fewest people. You can't actually make their job easier.
This isn't even a bad cleaning job. At least no one shit anywhere.
You are right. I have to remind myself that even in my country, where garbage collectors and janitors working in government facilities used to be civil servants with relative protections (they couldn't be fired without just cause), that's absolutely not the case anymore. Now, most of the cleaning work here is outsourced and are contracted on demand.
The revolution won't be televised. Direct action is largely toothless. Iirc somebody lit themselves on fire to protest climate change and it was barely reported on. But somebody puts paint on the Stonehenge or even mildly inconveniences the public and it draws attention via outrage for a while. Literally all a protest is trying to do is draw attention to an issue. And this is one of the only methods I've seen that still works. Srsly why bother with direct action when it won't achieve anything
That's because lighting yourself on fire is counterproductive and doesn't work. Direct action is fundamentally mass action and the action of groups, not individuals.
Strikes are a prime example of direct action. It's also important that workflow is disrupted. Other forms of protest are nil, really.
Strikes, sabotage, political assassination, anything is better than this kind of protest, which only succeeds in turning people against the cause and giving the protesters a self-indulgent sense that they have done their part.
But thats the thing, are strikes even effective anymore? I haven't seen one that succeeded in the way that the ones described in the 30s did.
Yes, workers organizing, forming unions, going on strikes, and making demands are effective. They're not enough by themselves, but they are effective.
Taft Hartley did a number on union activity
They are not as effective as they used to be because of the whole historical context (for starters, we no longer have a great socialist nation serving as a practical example of what can happen to the bourgeoisie if it decides to completely ignore the demands of the workers) and the fact that the working class has never been less ideologically organized than it is today. Still, strikes continue to be one of the most effective ways to force the machine of capital to listen to the demands of the working class. The problem is organizing these demands.
Is anything Actually working anymore? It seems like the Capitalist diaspora learned from earlier movements and now they can defeat any protest or direct action or strike easily. Sorry to be doomer here but IDK what we're supposed to do that isn't
It stops being
when you and a lot of friends are doing it
Some countries still have fairly effective strikes, France is one
What
That's a public display of total despair, not direct action against the responsible group.
I think that in large part direct action has become less effective as corporations have learned how to deal with them. And the way they deal with them is by ignoring the problem until people forget about it.
State your proposed alternative to direct action.
I dont know is the problem. For example I'm boycotting Nestle and i have been for years at this point. They're the worst they dont think water is a human right etc. I tell everyone about it it when it comes up. But at the end of the day i dont think its doing anything to Nestle.
I support protesting however you can i guess, but I'm also very pessimistic about odds of success
Well if your only form of action is consumer activism I'm not surprised you're pessimistic. That's literally never worked ever.
I disagree boycotts are absolutely effective. Montgomery bus boycott. Even the starbucks boycott going on right now. If you hurt a companys source of income they tend to act pretty quickly.and it doesnt just apply to consumerism it applys to celebrities and politicians through cancelling and or not voting.
I didn't say boycotts are worthless.
I said if your only form of action is a boycott its never going to work. Every effective boycott was accompanied by mass demonstration, public agitation, and organizing. Sometimes vandalism and even violence.
Fair enough I see your point