"Humans do not, under the pressure of an emergency, socially collapse. Rather, they seem to display higher levels of social cohesion, despite what media or government agents might expect…or portray on TV. Humans, after the apocalypse, band together in collectives to help one another—and they do this spontaneously."

@DialMforMara Which makes perfect sense, when you think about it. That's what we evolved to do.


Preconceptions made me click - what the heck did that paragraph have to do with the onion router? And now I have more curiosity - what other interesting and thoughtful essays will I find on a site whose purpose is to convince me to purchase books ? (a practice I am not all opposed to, as witness the ever-growing population of book shelving furniture)

@DialMforMara ...possibly-obvious thought: people who want to write about characters doing things that society prohibits might choose a post-apocalypse setting to help them pass off their characters' destructive actions as Necessary™

without much concern for what would actually happen in such a situation

and then that pattern might replicate itself and become a trope

@DialMforMara interesting how this article neglects how American fantasies of disaster-initiated social collapse and violence are racialized. Solnit's "elite panic" would probably more accurately be called "white panic" in which "violent" non-whites revert to their "natural" state in the absence of white supremacist social control.

race, class, apocalyptic lit Show more

race, class, apocalyptic lit Show more

race, class, apocalyptic lit Show more

@DialMforMara it's almost… as if anarchism works, and only violent suppression prevents it from working for longer than a few years or spreading further than very small communities.

I'm curious about how anarchism scales up; right now my main objection to it is a belief that it does not, and that essential infrastructure like roads and the internet requires some centralization of power

@DialMforMara i'm not even sure democracy scales up very well…
… at least not in very specific forms…
*vaguely gestures at all of the US*

Sadly, I don't even think dictatorship scales up well. But without attempts to scale up democracy (and corporate dictatorship, let's be fair) I would be Net-less and much worse off emotionally. As would a lot of people here, I suspect.

@DialMforMara @meena the failure mode of dictatorship is scaling forwards, not scaling up - once the Benevolent Leader is gone, their replacement is usually not as good at the job

@riking @DialMforMara *points at their birth country which no longer exists*

Tito died in 1980, but it took almost twelve years for Jugoslavija to start falling… "properly"

@DialMforMara i'm not suggesting democracy is a bad model
i'm just trying to say that at specific implementations (winner takes it all) tend towards "Meritocracy" rather than social justice
but even so, most democratic nation states do not lend (social) justice towards all citizens, but rather compromise on the cost (or bribes) of the implementation.
considering the human cost is a rather new fashion

@DialMforMara @meena not to sound contrarian/combative, but I think it's important to ask why you believe roads or internet need centralization. Decentralized mesh networks are viable for internet connectivity on metropolitan scales, and it seems reasonable that cities would negotiate ways to connect with each other. Rural connection is harder, but not impossible, especially since we already have a lot of the infrastructure for it.

@DialMforMara @meena and as for roads, scaling up of construction doesn't seem like the problem, but scaling of planning. But seeing as many of the major interstates and highways in the US are built on top of well established native trade routes, I don't think planning is really an issue either.

Yes, but once these things are built, how do you get the resources to maintain them? Who do we trust to collect taxes and spend them appropriately?

@DialMforMara @meena the answers to this are probably different depending on the specific anarchist ideology, but for me anarchism is moneyless and based in reciprocity, mutual support, etc. If we maintain supply chains, the resources come from the same places they do now in addition to whatever can be supplied locally.

@beezyal @meena that sounds wonderful, and a lot of the utopian fiction I’ve liked best is moneyless (did you know Stephanie Meyer wrote a good book once?), but how do we get from here to there without the process being co-opted by the corporations with most power over the supply chains?

@DialMforMara gonna tag @meena out for now, just to not destroy their notifications 😂

I did not know that about Meyer! What book was it?

And that really is the question. I don't have a perfect answer for it, but I still believe it's possible. Unionization, formation of co-ops, etc are all good starts but also nowhere near enough. One interesting answer I learned of recently is "venture communism." I'll find the thread about it, hold on 😊

@DialMforMara (this is the last tweet in the thread)

Amy's whole thread is good, and I especially like the idea of creating systems where capitalism just isn't viable, which is what venture communism seems to do.

@beezyal "Venture communism" is a great phrase.

The book is called The Host. Earth has been invaded by brain parasites a la Animorphs, but unlike the Yeerks they override their hosts' violent behaviors and the worlds they conquer into peaceful moneyless utopia.

The story is told by a resistance leader and the brain parasite commando who's been sent to Earth to calm her down by any means necessary.

@DialMforMara I'm gonna have to check that out! Thank you for sharing 😊

@beezyal you're welcome! I'm concerned it won't hold up on rereading, but I remember having a strong "I for one welcome our new alien overlords" reaction.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Wandering Shop

The Wandering Shop is a Mastodon instance initially geared for the science fiction and fantasy community but open to anyone. We want our 'local' timeline to have the feel of a coffee shop at a good convention: tables full of friendly conversation on a wide variety of topics. We welcome everyone who wants to participate, so long as you're willing to abide by our code of conduct.