- 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…
You must log in or register to comment.
I didn’t know about these. Two things can exist at once: The system is failing these people, and people who donate time/effort/wood/money to help others are very generous.
I don’t like that the article minimizes the altruism. Prepping firewood is hard work, and it’s a hell of a nice thing to do for others.
Considering the articles point on how pretty much everyone only focuses on the altruism; it’s a really nice contrast.
I didn’t know about these.
…and with that I learn about wood banks from a writer that scolds other writers for writing nice things about the generous aspects. There’s nothing to contrast.
We can praise the good things while acknowledging the bad things. It’s not either-or.
To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. Heartwarming.
This does remind me of that FB group with the name that is something like “Failures of capitalism disguised as heartwarming stories” or the like…
The Reddit equivalent is r/orphancrushingmachine, named after a parody news story telling the uplifting fact that an orphan-crushing machine had been taken out of service for repairs and so wouldn’t be crushing orphans for a while. The question of why there had to be an orphan-crushing machine in the first place went unaddressed.
In that to say people can’t be cold and unable to heat their residence under other systems historically?
NewRepublic simping for the State, fails to see how anything other than the State could be considered inspiring or resilient.
Apparently, acts of solidarity aren’t inspiring and people taking their material wellbeing into their own hands aren’t being resilient because it means the State is non-functional…just…what?
Such a weird article.
It’s a very American view to think that individuals in the community having to step in to keep people from dying is more reasonable than the government of one of the wealthiest nations in the world stepping in to keep people from dying. And somehow criticizing the state for failing to provide for the most basic needs of its citizens is simping.
None of the people using the wood bank are taking their wellbeing into their own hands. They’re relying on their community to support them so they don’t die. And that’s great that it’s happening, but it’s shifty that the government, ostensibly the representative of the community, can’t institutionalize what is clearly the will of the community.
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.
And that’s great that it’s happening, but it’s shifty that the government, ostensibly the representative of the community, can’t institutionalize what is clearly the will of the community
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.
The author seems to be viewing the state as the first line of defense and neighbors helping each other as a last resort to be used only when the state has failed. An alternate view is that neighbors helping each other is the first line of defense, and the need to rely on the state is a sign there isn’t a functioning community.
Consolidating resources to be used for mutual benefit is what government is for. Clannism is not a community.
Consolidating resources to be used for mutual benefit is what government is for
Is it? Since when?
I would rephrase it as ‘consolidating resources, taken from the poor people’s labor, to be used for the benefit of the state and the powerful is what government is for’.
When enough people develop this view of what their government is for, that’s when that government crumbles into dysfunction and oppression.
Kinda hits different when your tax dollars get sent to a shithole red state. Thats not my community, thats not who im trying to support.
Its not clannism
