28 votes

Tildes, what are your thoughts on the "Earth Strike" movement that's currently being organized?

for those of you unaware, the "Earth Strike" movement (see also: their Reddit, Tumblr, and Twitter pages) is an international planned protest movement that will ultimately culminate in a general, international strike on september 27th, 2019. as of today it's only been in planning for like a week and change (almost exclusively online, as a point of note) so a lot of kinks are still being worked out and i'm not even sure there's a centralized organization to it as of now, but among other things, it internationally seeks the following demands:

An immediate start on global co-operation to reverse the damage done to the earths’ climate, through unambiguous and binding agreements, by both world leaders and corporate entities, following IPCC projections of halving carbon net emissions by 2030 and zero net emissions by 2050;
International, unambiguous and binding commitments to halt the destruction of rain forests and other wildlife habitats, and
International, unambiguous and binding agreements designed to hold corporations accountable for the greenhouse gases they produce.

i think most of us can agree that ultimately, their current demands are not 100% feasible or are actively impossible (at least not without radical, extremely sudden societal change) and that the ship has most likely sailed on keeping climate change from having some serious impacts. but do you think that this movement has any potential of any kind to enact change going forward? is it destined to be another Occupy, where some of its goals are taken up into politics but ultimately the movement itself collapses due to infighting and external factors? can it even be truly successful at all, given its lofty aim of an international general strike? or is it likely to just outright evaporate into functional or actual irrelevancy given enough time?

25 comments

  1. [4]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. Amarok
      Link Parent
      Eh, I'm not quite so pessimistic about that. Quite by accident, we've all ended up with a video and photography studio that has distributed internet storage capability stuffed into our pockets....

      It currently leans heavily in favor of those who wish to implement it.

      Eh, I'm not quite so pessimistic about that. Quite by accident, we've all ended up with a video and photography studio that has distributed internet storage capability stuffed into our pockets. This little toy also has access to, well... literally anything you want to know. Take a minute and appreciate what kind of epic progress that is despite the many shortcomings we've been dealing with in the social arena. An Orwellian scenario is unlikely with that kind of ubiquitous surveillance in the hands of people rather than government.

      I'm much more worried about a brave new world scenario. Our own capacity for self distraction has been kicking our collective asses lately. We have the tools to collaborate in unprecedented ways and be more informed than ever before, but we don't seem to be using them for that purpose.

      I always liked this comic. I think huxley's is closer to the truth today and a lot more dangerous in the long run.

      13 votes
    2. [2]
      Nitta
      Link Parent
      But it's a part of the process of making something (here: environmental pollution) not cool. We live in the world of fads and "avalanches" of acceptability of things. When something becomes...

      it's simply naive to think even a general strike would suddenly get the overarching international capitalist order to suddenly give up all its investment

      But it's a part of the process of making something (here: environmental pollution) not cool. We live in the world of fads and "avalanches" of acceptability of things. When something becomes increasingly good or bad, investments will likely follow. A polluting business in 2038 can become as unacceptable as an openly sexist business today, for example.

      3 votes
      1. Devin
        Link Parent
        Like bernie sanders suddenly making medicare for all a possible idea for Americans to grasp, this needs to be appealing to people that slave 8 to 12 hours a day to make their company more money...

        Like bernie sanders suddenly making medicare for all a possible idea for Americans to grasp, this needs to be appealing to people that slave 8 to 12 hours a day to make their company more money and keep them employed.

  2. [12]
    Algernon_Asimov
    (edited )
    Link
    It all seems to have started with one person making a post on Reddit, in which they admit "I don't fuckin' know how to do this." and go on to say "I just want to get a ball, any ball, some...

    It all seems to have started with one person making a post on Reddit, in which they admit "I don't fuckin' know how to do this." and go on to say "I just want to get a ball, any ball, some god-forsaken-shot-in-the-dark-I-don't-wanna-die-ball, rolling." They don't even sound committed to their own protest, and definitely not enthusiastic about putting in the work involved. Sure, lots of other people are jumping on the virtual bandwagon, but is anyone going to step up and do the real work needed to make this happen?

    It also seems that there is already disagreement about what this movement is trying to achieve. I found this discussion where there's already a problem about whether this movement is pro- or anti-capitalism or politically neutral. The movement may tear itself apart before the first protest can even happen.

    And, even if there is a worldwide strike, will that achieve anything? Coincidentally, I just finished writing a comment about the worldwide protests that occurred leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the "Coalition of the Willing", led by the USA, the United Kingdom, and with Australia tagging along. 10,000,000 people around the world protested that war, but it happened anyway.

    I'm somewhat cynical that this "Earth Strike" movement will achieve its goals.

    12 votes
    1. [3]
      alyaza
      Link Parent
      i think this above all else is by far the biggest problem that any climate movement of this sort is going to face at this point. it goes without saying that the actual process of organizing a...

      It also seems that there is already disagreement about what this movement is trying to achieve. I found this discussion where there's already a problem about whether this movement is pro- or anti-capitalism or politically neutral. The movement may tear itself apart before the first protest can even happen.

      i think this above all else is by far the biggest problem that any climate movement of this sort is going to face at this point. it goes without saying that the actual process of organizing a movement that will have the ability to change institutions in the way a climate change movement would need to is incredibly difficult, but that would seem to pale in comparison to the ideological considerations that would underpin any serious movement to mitigate the damage as best as possible. speaking personally, i just can't see any best path forward that doesn't also involve either radically altering how the capitalist system works now or just outright doing away with it completely in favor of a non-capitalist system--but that's going to be a really hard sell for most people, as demonstrated by the rows going on in the /r/earthstrike subreddit right now (to say nothing of the considerations that would need to go into how to implement a most likely worldwide non-capitalist system in the first place)

      7 votes
      1. [2]
        Amarok
        Link Parent
        This is the same thing that killed OWS. A movement starts up, but the group can't sustain any level of self-organization. Everyone starts bickering about it and trying to put a hundred new goals...

        This is the same thing that killed OWS. A movement starts up, but the group can't sustain any level of self-organization. Everyone starts bickering about it and trying to put a hundred new goals in, shut out viewpoints they don't agree with - and before you know it, your movement is nothing more than a pointless argument echoing across the internet, and it's dead before it even gets started.

        If people want movements like this to work, you pick one and only one goal, and you ruthlessly shut down any attempts to expand or change those goals. Keep it focused, keep it simple, and then it might have a chance. It seems no one has the will to do that in this era of 'free speech' at all costs. We've lost the ability to tell people to shut the fuck up and mean it. :P

        4 votes
        1. roboticide
          Link Parent
          Glad I'm not the only one who immediately thought of OWS. Given that a tiny subreddit of just over 5,000 is apparently already suffering from infighting, I don't really have any expectations this...

          Glad I'm not the only one who immediately thought of OWS. Given that a tiny subreddit of just over 5,000 is apparently already suffering from infighting, I don't really have any expectations this will get off the ground.

          Plus its pretty telling that this comment was notably left hanging:

          What's the working alternative everybody can unite behind?

          While the premise of "Fight climate change" seems pretty straightforward, it's so much more vague than "Women want the right to vote," or "Legally enforce civil rights." It seems somehow wrong, but given that this is an economics issue, its so much harder to implement change than something as "simple" as a social issue.

          "We don't like X, get rid of X" doesn't work when it needs a replacement. Measures like pushing for reduced emissions and the Paris Climate Agreement sound like good ideas, but these guys seem to want more than that.

          3 votes
    2. [6]
      nsz
      Link Parent
      The general strike against the Iraq war could not have changed anything immediate, the machismo needed for diplomacy would not allow it. But there is no predicting what kind pressure it put on...

      The general strike against the Iraq war could not have changed anything immediate, the machismo needed for diplomacy would not allow it. But there is no predicting what kind pressure it put on future decision making.

      Same as with this, sure the immediate effect will be nearly imperceptible, but if it manages to get on at least that days or weeks news cycle their is no telling the kind of awareness raising effect that would have. Climate change is ever present in the English speaking world but outside it much less so. In Russia for instance it's just not a consideration, even seen as a positive, with more of their frozen north becoming usable. I can't imagine it being very different in much of the 3rd world when it's easy to see it as not an issue for them to worry about, their individual effect being so small when compared to big countries. Getting on these countries news cycles will have some sort of effect.

      Besides, something needs to be done, this seems as good as anything else.

      1 vote
      1. [5]
        Algernon_Asimov
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        One could say exactly the same thing about this protest, merely replacing "machismo" with "greed". It's unfortunate that this reminds me of this flawed syllogism: Something must be done! This is...

        The general strike against the Iraq war could not have changed anything immediate, the machismo needed for diplomacy would not allow it.

        One could say exactly the same thing about this protest, merely replacing "machismo" with "greed".

        Besides, something needs to be done, this seems as good as anything else.

        It's unfortunate that this reminds me of this flawed syllogism:

        • Something must be done!

        • This is something.

        • Therefore, this must be done.

        1. [4]
          nsz
          Link Parent
          Yes, and look where we are with regards to American military involvement abroad – complete 180. That's because of the public's perception of the situation, strikes played a not-insignificant part...

          One could say exactly the same thing about this protest, merely replacing "machismo" with "greed".

          Yes, and look where we are with regards to American military involvement abroad – complete 180. That's because of the public's perception of the situation, strikes played a not-insignificant part in that.

          And the syllogism; sure you can make the argument that there are better solutions available, though ultimately nothing, cannot be the solution. So if a strike achieves nothing, it will at least create nucleation points where better solutions can be thought up.

          1. [3]
            roboticide
            Link Parent
            I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'm curious what your basis for this statement is. Because it certainly doesn't look to me like anything has changed. We're still involved in Iraq,...

            I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'm curious what your basis for this statement is. Because it certainly doesn't look to me like anything has changed.

            We're still involved in Iraq, just fighting ISIS now. We're still involved in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban. We've drastically reduced troop numbers, but that's because we were supposed to have "won" over a decade ago. It's because the wars there were more or less "over", or at least at a point where we didn't need 100,000 troops. None of this is because of a protest in 2003.

            We're still running major military exercises in the North Atlantic to practice fighting Russia, and near Japan to practice fighting North Korea.

            We're still building two whole new classes of ships that cost billions of dollars each, despite having no clear need for them, to say nothing of our other weapons in development.

            I really don't think it played a significant part in anything.

            3 votes
            1. nsz
              Link Parent
              I listened to the podcast version of this IQ2 US debate a few years ago. As well as this IQ international depate they both discuss military involvement abroad. I would like to clarify that I think...

              I listened to the podcast version of this IQ2 US debate a few years ago. As well as this IQ international depate they both discuss military involvement abroad.

              I would like to clarify that I think the US has a fear of starting new wars or providing the kind of manpower – 'boots on the ground' – they have previously. The US is happy enough to shoot of rockets or provide air support, but their is just not the political willpower to underpin landing troops, like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Compare that to the involvement that happened/ing in Lydia and Syria.

              I don't think the US is disinterested in projecting military strength, just that the public is, particularly with the type of involvement that entails shipping troops to, ...wherever.

              1 vote
            2. Amarok
              Link Parent
              I'm curious if we've bumped up contractors to compensate. That trend of using private companies to provide troops and support is very worrying.

              We've drastically reduced troop numbers

              I'm curious if we've bumped up contractors to compensate. That trend of using private companies to provide troops and support is very worrying.

    3. [2]
      determinism
      Link Parent
      I think this was actually the original post. Same content but it was cross-posted a lot.

      I think this was actually the original post. Same content but it was cross-posted a lot.

      1. Algernon_Asimov
        Link Parent
        That user posted the same thing in 5 different subreddits, one after another, but the first post, chronologically, was the one in /r/ChapoTrapHouse that I linked. The one you've linked was the...

        That user posted the same thing in 5 different subreddits, one after another, but the first post, chronologically, was the one in /r/ChapoTrapHouse that I linked. The one you've linked was the second post, posted 32 seconds later. (Not that I would ever be that pedantic!)

        1 vote
  3. [2]
    vakieh
    Link
    Humanity doesn't have the collective willpower to do diddly squat about anything pre-emptively. It will take cataclysmic destruction for anything to actually be done.

    Humanity doesn't have the collective willpower to do diddly squat about anything pre-emptively. It will take cataclysmic destruction for anything to actually be done.

    3 votes
    1. AliveProbably
      Link Parent
      I don't disagree, but we wouldn't need the collective willpower needed to enact these changes if we chose to just exert it at select times--when we vote. That's the beauty of a representative...

      I don't disagree, but we wouldn't need the collective willpower needed to enact these changes if we chose to just exert it at select times--when we vote. That's the beauty of a representative system, you're electing others to do the caring for you. You just, you know... need to do the electing.

      To that point, I think it's far more important to combat voter apathy in service to environmental reform, than it is to hold protests and strikes, admirable though they are.

      1 vote
  4. Happy_Shredder
    Link
    I can't imagine it'll be especially effective. But I don't think it's healthy to blindly criticise the idea either. You have to remember that the capitalist elite, the ruling classes, associate a...

    I can't imagine it'll be especially effective. But I don't think it's healthy to blindly criticise the idea either.

    You have to remember that the capitalist elite, the ruling classes, associate a persons value with how much money they make --- you may have seen sentiments such as "he has to be good, he's rich" or "she's contributed so much to society, you can tell because of her wealth". The poor, students, workers, environmentalists, socialists...these people will be ignored by the elite because they fail the wealth test. Hence any protest by these people is generally ineffective because the elite do not think we're worth listening to. I think for many of the elite it's not so much that they think we're subhuman --- rather they just don't think of us at all. And protests by "the rabble" are background noise. The louder we shout the less they here.

    It's even more sobering to consider the entrenched self-serving corruption, the desire to be king for a day, the complete disregard for truth amd facts and principles, within the elite. When an environmentalist tries to communicate the issue of climate change, they won't listen because all they see is a political opponent playing a political game. The elite are happy to make up any nonsense for political or monetary gain and so assume their political oppenents will to. In combination with the propaganda from Exxon et al you end up with an elite who refuse to even consider the planet is changing against us and most life.

    I don't really see any way forward. Locally we can male a difference, but that is not enough. Violent resistence tends towards self destruction, and I don't know if we have the time to migrate to a post-capitalist classless economy.

    2 votes
  5. Neverland
    Link
    This problem requires radical action. This is non-violent radical action. I am all for it. If this “fails,” then it needs to be tried again and again until there is an impact.

    This problem requires radical action. This is non-violent radical action. I am all for it. If this “fails,” then it needs to be tried again and again until there is an impact.

    2 votes
  6. [2]
    harrygibus
    Link
    If nothing else I might get people (especially in the US) thinking about protest and strikes as an actual mode of achieving forward movement when governmental structures across the world are...

    If nothing else I might get people (especially in the US) thinking about protest and strikes as an actual mode of achieving forward movement when governmental structures across the world are increasingly corrupted by the elites and the people's will is circumvented.

    It may be that simple protest with people in the streets is not enough. What if almost everyone called in sick or took a personal day in a united way.

    What if all those millenials decided not to make a student loan payment in the same month? You can be certain that would get the sort attention that the corporate mass media would have a harder time minimizing.

    1 vote
    1. Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      Given that EarthStrike is trying to get people activated and involved around the world, what should non-Americans do to protest?

      What if all those millenials decided not to make a student loan payment in the same month?

      Given that EarthStrike is trying to get people activated and involved around the world, what should non-Americans do to protest?

  7. WithYouInSpirit
    Link
    As it stands right now, these terms simply aren't viable to bring to the table. I appreciate and in some ways agree with their sentiments. Change needs to happen before it's too late. But you...

    As it stands right now, these terms simply aren't viable to bring to the table. I appreciate and in some ways agree with their sentiments. Change needs to happen before it's too late. But you can't just expect to make change while ignoring the way this current society works.

    1 vote
  8. [3]
    CrazyOtter
    Link
    I believe that this recent protest/blockade is a part of this, or is that just a coincidence? Regardless I don't think that this will have any real effect. Protests about climate change have been...

    I believe that this recent protest/blockade is a part of this, or is that just a coincidence?

    Regardless I don't think that this will have any real effect. Protests about climate change have been largely ineffective over the years. A one day general strike isn't sustained enough to force any change.

    1. [2]
      alyaza
      Link Parent
      that would be coincidence, although i think there are connections between that group and the folks planning this general strike. for the most part though earth rebellion is its own thing doing its...

      I believe that this recent protest/blockade is a part of this, or is that just a coincidence?

      that would be coincidence, although i think there are connections between that group and the folks planning this general strike. for the most part though earth rebellion is its own thing doing its own stuff.

      1 vote
      1. CrazyOtter
        Link Parent
        Ah ok well I think the rebellion stuff has more (still small) chance of causing change than the "earth strike".

        Ah ok well I think the rebellion stuff has more (still small) chance of causing change than the "earth strike".