Not my OC but what I’ve believed for years: there’s no conflict between reducing your own environmental impact and holding corporations responsible. We hold corps responsible for the environment by creating a societal ethos of environmental responsibility that forces corporations to serve the people’s needs or go bankrupt or be outlawed. And anyone who feels that kind of ethos will reduce their own environmental impact because it’s the right thing to do.

Thoughts?

  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Part of the point of the mutual aid is to make life better without needing the money. That’s why I put “poor” in quotations and specified in the eyes of the economy.

    • cinnamonTea
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fair, I should have made the effort to use “poor” in quotations, too. I love the idea of mutual aid working that way. I guess I’d be worried about relying on it for anything as potentially life-or-death as healthcare, but that’s a few steps further down the line than we’re discussing here

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, you take the steps you can when you can. The ultimate point is to create a real alternative to the existing power structure. The anti consumerism is a by-product.

        Edit: maybe the anti-consumerism is necessarily interwoven in the project, because you are freeing yourself from reliance on consumer goods and from the entire consumer identity.