- cross-posted to:
- hackernews
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews
A wood bank is exactly what it sounds like. People in rural and Indigenous areas still heavily rely on wood heat as the primary fuel source for their homes. Volunteers cut and split firewood, stack it somewhere public, and give it away for free to those who can’t afford it. No paperwork. No means tests. No government forms. Just a pile of hardwood that shows up because someone else’s house would be cold without it.
Most articles about wood banks wrap them in the same tired language. Community spirit. Rural generosity. Neighbors helping neighbors. It’s the kind of coverage you get when journalists focus on the people stacking the wood instead of the conditions that made it necessary. They never mention the underlying reality. Wood banks exist because without them, people would freeze. It’s the same everywhere: Local news crews film volunteers splitting logs while pretending it’s heartwarming, reporting on senior citizens splitting 150 cords a year for neighbors in need as if the story is about kindness instead of the failure that created the need in the first place.
…The volunteers running wood banks aren’t performing resilience. They’re plugging holes in a sinking ship and doing the work the state stopped doing. They are the thin line between a cold snap and another obituary…
But I never said it was more reasonable for people to bypass the state, especially, as you say, a state as large and rich as the US. Im specifically saying that the denial of even granting these communities the terms “inspirational” or “resilient” is Statist, particularly because the fact that wood banks are resilient and the fact that it’s bad thing that State institutions are failing are not mutually exclusive, while the author asserts that, since these acts are indicative of a failing State, they are neither inspirational nor resilient. It’s just a fallacy.
You can avoid the glorification of private solutions to public problems while also granting that a community that engages in communal acts is a good thing.
Yes ^^ but, to me, expected – when your politicians rely on boats of money to get elected, they are beholden to the money and not the community. Especially now it seems, the clear will of the community in the US is of less value than the will of the large donor.
I’ll certainly grant you the Statist label, but I still don’t see how being critical of the state is simping. And I would argue, like the article, that rather than being inspired by these resilient groups, your first response should be an intense anger at the state for failing so badly, with that inspiration or admiration being a distant second.
Sure they’re bemoaning the failing state, but in doing so they’re glorifying State power – maybe that’s a better way to put it. But again, inspiration from community and anger at the State aren’t mutually exclusive – and the author making it out like they are is simping for the State imo.
I think we probably also have a disconnect because I tend to think of the State as an unjust centralization of power that is extremely vulnerable to this exact sorta thing happening, rather than a mechanism to execute the will of the people. Even if you’ve wrangled it enough to provide some material good to normal folk – look how fast it can be taken away at a whim. Communal acts tell me first that free relations between individuals are possible (plausible, or maybe inevitable?) outside of the context of Government and Market, that the Government and the Market are not as inevitable as we’re taught to believe – so I think that there is hope there. Hopefully that kinda illustrates what I’m saying better.
But I do see how a liberal or a socialist may say, “anger first” in this context, so I hear you. Just not that way for me.