I’ve tried with local people I know and can vet that aren’t MAGAts. No one was interested. We have an insane level of individualistic thinking in this country.
Define mutual aid. My local group has been recently focused on bolstering the local food bank, since we found out the state funding was getting stuck in the urban area and not making it to the (largely immigrant) communities of people who cant afford to live in the city.
The local food bank is entirely volunteer driven, they only have a facebook page, and no way to accept donations online. It directs people to mail a check, but most people just venmo the urban food bank and assume the money will come our way eventually.
Due to lack of funding, they don’t even have refrigeration, and thus can’t accept fresh produce donations from the local farms or community gardens.
Here in a few weeks, we’re planning a big donation drive and awareness campaign about the lopsided funding structure, and county council has been invited to hear us talk about implementing a more decentralized food distribution system.
Opinions on the fediverse seem to think this is just more ineffective shitlib harm reduction nonsense, and we shouldn’t be wasting our time on it. I want to know why they don’t want us delivering food boxes to neighbors targeted by ICE.
I’m not saying that your plan is bad or wrong but it’s not necessarily mutual aid.
What you are describing is one way aid, unless I am jumping to conclusions about the people who are organizing it. The problem with one way aid or charity is that it doesn’t build parallel systems to protect people when the state takes away things they depend on. This is why it’s not an effective support for direct action. If the people supplying the aid get scared or they lose their privilege, the aid stops.
I’m going to use strike support as an example. Striking workers may get strike pay, but it’s not enough to live off. They depend on the support of friends, family and other workers who are not on strike to meet their needs so that they can continue to strike until a fair(er?) deal is made. The idea is that when these people are back at work they can support another group who is striking.
In a more general example, I am a gardener. I can take my time to teach others how to garden. I can share my seeds and my produce. Maybe my neighbor can put aside his raked leaves for me to mulch my beds with? It might be easier to think of mutual aid as an informal economy where the goal is to distribute resources and knowledge for the purpose of making sure people are taken care of vs profiting. IRL my neighbor has offered his front lawn for more growing space, but I haven’t been able to take him up on it because poor health has stopped me from using all the land I have already. He can’t spare the time or labour to help rn but I know our produce delights him so I’m not going withholding it because I’m not getting anything in exchange.
Seettu is another example although it’s not a static thing and different applications may be closer or further from mutual aid than others.
It might be easier to think of mutual aid as an informal economy where the goal is to distribute resources and knowledge for the purpose of making sure people are taken care of vs profiting.
How is that not what I’m describing though? We want to break away from the formal system, that has failed us, and set up a parallel system of localized support.
I fail to see how bidding on a pot of money is more closely aligned with mutual aid than helping your neighbors distribute produce from the community garden.
How is that not what I’m describing though? We want to break away from the formal system, that has failed us, and set up a parallel system of localized support.
Again, maybe I am not understanding the details.
Are the people who are providing the food/funding/organization realistically likely to depend on this system in the future? I think it’s more important that they understand that they are building a system they will also rely on vs any “there but for the grace of god I go” type thought.
If so, then it’s mutual aid. If instead the parallel system depends on people with no connection to the need, it’s charity.
I fail to see how bidding on a pot of mone
I knew that wasn’t the best article but I didn’t want to depend on my own second hand experience to describe it because I am not Tamil.
The bid example didn’t include uses like the author describes in the beginning:
He depended on Seettu to meet emergency needs: when his wife and children arrived after he sponsored them, he used the money from Seettu to fund their settlement expenses.
It’s pooling money to be dispersed for the good of the community in the manner the community decides. It’s not perfect of course.
I’m getting too wordy here I think but the key idea is that in order for it to be mutual aid, all involved must be building a system they themselves rely on. That removes the power of the state to cut it off by threatening the most privileged.
Maybe I’m wrong but I thought charity was commonly used for tax benefits? Also shame. People donate to avoid looking to closely at themselves. And some people just realise they have more than they need.
I participate in charity, I don’t think it’s the worst thing although I understand the criticisms. If the choices are stretch myself further beyond my current capacity or auto donations to a rent bank I’m going to pick the donations.
I haven’t seen the criticisms you received so I can’t guess at what their issue was. Perhaps they were just starting shit.
None of this gets you a tax benefit, and the state doesn’t count food bank volunteer hours towards your food stamps hours or community service or anything. Another reason I say it’s mutual aid and not a charity.
We’ve also set up a tool library, and somebody is providing barn space for community repair projects. My partner is a carpenter by trade, and while he’s unemployed, he’s been showing people how to safely use the tools. I’m disabled, and unemployed, so I’m designing event fliers and providing web hosting for the group. Most of the group is low-income at best, but we absolutely chipped into a pot when a member had to undergo major surgery.
The criticism of charity that I’ve heard, is that by filling in the gaps left by capitalism, you’re postponing the revolution. People need to understand that capitalism is bad, and for that to happen, capitalism needs to fail utterly. Harm reduction and charity keeps capitalism from failing utterly, and is therefore a bad thing.
But honestly, I think 99% of the talk on the Fediverse about all this really is just people wanting to start shit. It’s easy to just say that Americans are incapable of doing anything, and then be derisive when somebody attempts to do something. I live in a rural town of less than 3k, thousands of miles from DC, so nothing I do will ever be big enough or good enough to change federal policy, and is therefore considered a waste of time by your average commenter here.
I say this with kindness: If a criticism doesn’t apply to you then it doesn’t apply to you. Anyone can get online and say whatever they want. There is a lot of nonsense out there. A lot of people playing fantasy.
I know it’s hard to let people talk shit directly about you and your initiatives but you don’t owe them an explanation and there is no benefit to convincing them if they are strangers on the internet.
It’s easy to just say that Americans are incapable of doing anything, and then be derisive when somebody attempts to do something. I live in a rural town of less than 3k, thousands of miles from DC, so nothing I do will ever be big enough or good enough to change federal policy, and is therefore considered a waste of time by your average commenter here.
Some people might be saying exactly that, but I think people take criticism of the american system really personally and make it about themselves.
When people criticize my government (and there is a lot to criticise) I don’t get defensive because I have no interest in defending the state and I know I am doing what I can to improve conditions locally and disrupt the systems that enable our own brand of imperialism.
Why is cooperation and mutual aid so invisible to americans
I’ve tried with local people I know and can vet that aren’t MAGAts. No one was interested. We have an insane level of individualistic thinking in this country.
Community engagement has been slowly and deliberately eroded by both government and corporate interests.
Social Media is especially insidious. They want to drive everyone online into a space they can control and monitor.
Define mutual aid. My local group has been recently focused on bolstering the local food bank, since we found out the state funding was getting stuck in the urban area and not making it to the (largely immigrant) communities of people who cant afford to live in the city.
The local food bank is entirely volunteer driven, they only have a facebook page, and no way to accept donations online. It directs people to mail a check, but most people just venmo the urban food bank and assume the money will come our way eventually.
Due to lack of funding, they don’t even have refrigeration, and thus can’t accept fresh produce donations from the local farms or community gardens.
Here in a few weeks, we’re planning a big donation drive and awareness campaign about the lopsided funding structure, and county council has been invited to hear us talk about implementing a more decentralized food distribution system.
Opinions on the fediverse seem to think this is just more ineffective shitlib harm reduction nonsense, and we shouldn’t be wasting our time on it. I want to know why they don’t want us delivering food boxes to neighbors targeted by ICE.
I’m not saying that your plan is bad or wrong but it’s not necessarily mutual aid.
What you are describing is one way aid, unless I am jumping to conclusions about the people who are organizing it. The problem with one way aid or charity is that it doesn’t build parallel systems to protect people when the state takes away things they depend on. This is why it’s not an effective support for direct action. If the people supplying the aid get scared or they lose their privilege, the aid stops.
I’m going to use strike support as an example. Striking workers may get strike pay, but it’s not enough to live off. They depend on the support of friends, family and other workers who are not on strike to meet their needs so that they can continue to strike until a fair(er?) deal is made. The idea is that when these people are back at work they can support another group who is striking.
In a more general example, I am a gardener. I can take my time to teach others how to garden. I can share my seeds and my produce. Maybe my neighbor can put aside his raked leaves for me to mulch my beds with? It might be easier to think of mutual aid as an informal economy where the goal is to distribute resources and knowledge for the purpose of making sure people are taken care of vs profiting. IRL my neighbor has offered his front lawn for more growing space, but I haven’t been able to take him up on it because poor health has stopped me from using all the land I have already. He can’t spare the time or labour to help rn but I know our produce delights him so I’m not going withholding it because I’m not getting anything in exchange.
Seettu is another example although it’s not a static thing and different applications may be closer or further from mutual aid than others.
I hope this helps.
Good luck with your food drive.
How is that not what I’m describing though? We want to break away from the formal system, that has failed us, and set up a parallel system of localized support.
I fail to see how bidding on a pot of money is more closely aligned with mutual aid than helping your neighbors distribute produce from the community garden.
Again, maybe I am not understanding the details.
Are the people who are providing the food/funding/organization realistically likely to depend on this system in the future? I think it’s more important that they understand that they are building a system they will also rely on vs any “there but for the grace of god I go” type thought.
If so, then it’s mutual aid. If instead the parallel system depends on people with no connection to the need, it’s charity.
I knew that wasn’t the best article but I didn’t want to depend on my own second hand experience to describe it because I am not Tamil.
The bid example didn’t include uses like the author describes in the beginning:
It’s pooling money to be dispersed for the good of the community in the manner the community decides. It’s not perfect of course.
I’m getting too wordy here I think but the key idea is that in order for it to be mutual aid, all involved must be building a system they themselves rely on. That removes the power of the state to cut it off by threatening the most privileged.
Yes? Who else would care enough?
Maybe I’m wrong but I thought charity was commonly used for tax benefits? Also shame. People donate to avoid looking to closely at themselves. And some people just realise they have more than they need.
I participate in charity, I don’t think it’s the worst thing although I understand the criticisms. If the choices are stretch myself further beyond my current capacity or auto donations to a rent bank I’m going to pick the donations.
I haven’t seen the criticisms you received so I can’t guess at what their issue was. Perhaps they were just starting shit.
None of this gets you a tax benefit, and the state doesn’t count food bank volunteer hours towards your food stamps hours or community service or anything. Another reason I say it’s mutual aid and not a charity.
We’ve also set up a tool library, and somebody is providing barn space for community repair projects. My partner is a carpenter by trade, and while he’s unemployed, he’s been showing people how to safely use the tools. I’m disabled, and unemployed, so I’m designing event fliers and providing web hosting for the group. Most of the group is low-income at best, but we absolutely chipped into a pot when a member had to undergo major surgery.
The criticism of charity that I’ve heard, is that by filling in the gaps left by capitalism, you’re postponing the revolution. People need to understand that capitalism is bad, and for that to happen, capitalism needs to fail utterly. Harm reduction and charity keeps capitalism from failing utterly, and is therefore a bad thing.
But honestly, I think 99% of the talk on the Fediverse about all this really is just people wanting to start shit. It’s easy to just say that Americans are incapable of doing anything, and then be derisive when somebody attempts to do something. I live in a rural town of less than 3k, thousands of miles from DC, so nothing I do will ever be big enough or good enough to change federal policy, and is therefore considered a waste of time by your average commenter here.
I say this with kindness: If a criticism doesn’t apply to you then it doesn’t apply to you. Anyone can get online and say whatever they want. There is a lot of nonsense out there. A lot of people playing fantasy.
I know it’s hard to let people talk shit directly about you and your initiatives but you don’t owe them an explanation and there is no benefit to convincing them if they are strangers on the internet.
Some people might be saying exactly that, but I think people take criticism of the american system really personally and make it about themselves.
When people criticize my government (and there is a lot to criticise) I don’t get defensive because I have no interest in defending the state and I know I am doing what I can to improve conditions locally and disrupt the systems that enable our own brand of imperialism.
We all live 25 miles away from our closest neighbor and we are incredibly stupid also