[jl6]

Taking some parts and leaving others is exactly how intersectionalism should work: at an individual level. You throw your lot in with the orgs and movements you like, and leave or oppose the ones you don’t. The intersection is within you.

Unfortunately the fashion is now for orgs and movements to declare their own intersections, which does nothing to further the core issues, while actively repelling those outside the intersection (which, by the time you’ve intersected a bunch of different things, is nearly everyone).

There is nothing inherently “post-Marxist” or “decolonial” about the core ideas here (scare quotes because these are extra-unhelpfully underdefined terms). Framing the project this way just signals that non-post-Marxists (etc.) will not be welcome, which makes it quite hard to enjoy the good bits for people who have been pre-declared to be the enemy.

Successful orgs are laser-focused on their core purpose.

[camgunz]

I think there are successful orgs that do both. The pro-life movement in the US was laser focused on that issue, but it was a manufactured campaign by the Republican party to capture evangelicals. You can't say the Republican party is laser focused, but they're also pretty successful.

I guess I would say, I'm not sure what the basis of your critique is. I guess if you want to sit back and watch a more centrist permacomputing organization push those values without you doing anything, that doesn't seem like a fair ask. If you do want to do something, you could probably make your own website/etc. "Please tailor your activism to my aesthetics/politics" is kinda self-centered.

[philipallstar]

> The pro-life movement in the US was laser focused on that issue, but it was a manufactured campaign by the Republican party to capture evangelicals.

This is silly - people are pro life all over the world. E.g. this guy in the UK[0].

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo

[mrtesthah]

Nope, that poster is correct.

When we showed up with the anti-abortion message at first we failed. The evangelicals who had attended our seminars by tens of thousands when we were launching the first series just were not interested in the abortion issue. At first we were looking at empty seats in places like the Grand Ole Opry we’d filled a few years before.

It took a lot of hard work to change that apathy on the “issue.” And oddly what in the end gave the series credibility were the Republican political leaders who saw the chance to cash in on the issue. The fact they began to pay attention to Dad and me got evangelical leader’s juices flowing: They coveted our new access to power!

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2014/07/the-act...

[camgunz]

People have been anti-abortion since antiquity. The pro-life movement we know today was concocted by Republican operative Paul Weyrich (co-founder of the Heritage Foundation): https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-ri...

[christophilus]

The pro-life movement is huge among trad Catholics, and Catholicism is its roots. I think evangelicals came along pretty early. The Republicans aligned naturally, their base being heavily Christian.

[fmbb]

I think you have the timeline confused.

The pro-life movement is older than the Reagan era courting on Christians to grow the Republican base. So it was not a Christian base that caused a shift, it was the other way around.

[__MatrixMan__]

> Successful orgs are laser-focused on their core purpose.

If putting up a some kind of flag or another is gonna keep people who would otherwise interfere with my core purpose from showing up, that might be the most expedient option for getting shit done. It's like: I'm not religious, but I'll wear a cross if it keeps the vampires at bay.

[bccdee]

"Intersectionality at an individual level" is poison for a social movement. If everyone lends their support only to movements that benefit them personally, that creates a fragmented ecosystem of niche groups that accomplish nothing. Strength lies in solidarity—in big-tent alliances of disparate groups.

The drawback with a big tent is that small subgroups inside that tent may have their concerns ignored. For instance, black women in early feminist movements were treated poorly, but what were they going to do? Start a schism? That'd be a setback for everyone.

Intersectionality is a second-order tool that protects the interests of smaller sub-groups within a big tent. You're wrong to assume that everyone outside the intersection is "actively repelled." When an environmentalist group says they're anticolonial, feminist, BLM, etc., environmentalists are typically fine with it. Sure, it does turn some people off, but that's a feature, not bug. If your group gets co-opted by people who reject some of these values, it makes it difficult to work together with groups that do focus on issues affecting indigenous people, women, etc.

[auggierose]

> Successful orgs are laser-focused on their core purpose.

I think that is capitalist ideology (“make number go up”), not a fact for a non-capitalist definition of “success”. So, you just might not be part of the audience they care about.

Personally, I think there is a certain divide between capitalist and collectivist mindsets that cannot be bridged easily. In the end, it is either-or. In the end, one will win, and the other will lose. That does not mean either mindset is unable to acknowledge and incorporate methods and practices from the other, but it does mean that, in the end, you have to decide what to do when those values clash.

[botanrice]

Consider me (a real person) a case study in exactly this occurring.

Never heard of permacomputing until right now. Super intrigued, very interested in the topic... Saw that whole line of "anti-capitalist, post-marxist, etc." and just got turned off, man. I don't even disagree with any of the principles of those intersections I just don't want to join a movement that labels itself that way.

[monkaiju]

Maybe thats by design? If the org believes that for this to actually be effective it is inherently anti-capitalist, then it would probably want to keep people who are only there for the surface level vibes and dont understand that to stay away.

I've definitely been a part of orgs, in my case working with homeless folks, where people vaguely want to help but become hindrances when the struggle tries to actually start to address core issues like police abusing homeless folks instead of just being a food distro where they can get their pic taken and feel like they did something.

[botanrice]

that's a valid analogy for sure, I get that and see your point. But I'm not sure it applies 1:1 here, though. Whereas the systems you refer to are often structured around this idea of like corporate contribution for good feels, this permacomputing is a novel idea & upstart movement that they want to spread to more people with the goal of a more sustainable society and thoughtful use of electronics.

> more sustainable society and thoughtful use of electronics

This is where I feel there is a difference and disagree with their overt statement of ideologies as the core of the movement. Any environmentalist worth their salt should celebrate any action or idea that just generally supports getting more people to care about, get involved with, or want to protect the environment -- regardless of their age, sex, background, whatever. See: national parks.

And then in the sense of sustainable use of electronics. Who is more sustainable in this sense than the old white dude who runs the computer repair shop or the indian dude running the phone repair place? If I'm on board with permacomputer, I want to look at these guys as the experts in long-lasting & recylable use of electronics... but what's the overlap between those guys and intersectional feminism, ya know?

> Maybe that's by design?

hey man, if they just want a group built around their values to make friends and take on the machine that's fine. who am I to say they shouldn't? anyone should gather with who they please. It's just a shame to turn people off from a movement by defining such a narrow intersection of beliefs, as the OP comment here says. I also would argue that it doesn't have to be strictly *anti-*capitalist as much as pro-socialist/communist/whateveridk.

What do you think?

[beepbooptheory]

People are generally not "post-Marxist" or "decolonial," concepts/frameworks are. These are just theoretical markers, not something necessarily one identifies with in the way you suggest. And I would be curious to know why you are so certain that none of the "core ideas" of permacomputing have bearing to either of these things, if you believe they are so underdefined. Little bit of kettle logic there, no?

This is such a genre of comment on here when you can Ctrl-F 'Marx' on the content, and it just really comes off uncurious and reflexive every time. Like, why is the burden on the authors and not you to sort through the things you care about and don't? Why is it not an opportunity to learn? Do you even care to know where they could possibly be coming from? If there is ever some kind of overlap between something you can get behind and something for whatever reason you feel is bad or "underdefined," doesn't that stir even a bit of curiosity, a chance to learn? Even if it's just sharpening what you already know?

You don't have to end up agreeing with it, but to frame all this as advice on how to "be a successful org" is just not great here imo.

[jl6]

When I don’t put salt in my coffee, it’s not because I’m uncurious about what salt is, and nor does it mean I don’t appreciate salt in other contexts. But if a coffee shop only sells salted coffee, the burden is definitely on them to understand why they have so few customers. (And for my part I’ve seen enough shops that claim to be coffee shops but are actually salt shops).

[beepbooptheory]

Sure, but you're the one saying that you've actually never tasted salt either way, that salt is "underdefined," so I guess I don't know why the coffee shop should care or how they could even anticipate what you project salt to be.

And I gotta say, its just so telling that we jump here so naturally to a metaphor of an enterprising business and its customers. Like could there be anything that exists in the world where you are not a patron whose tastes must be catered to? Not everything you have a strong opinion on needs to be socketed into the genre of Google review.

[wfurney]

Exactly, their introduction seems broadly applicable:

> Whether you are a tech specialist, someone who uses a computer for daily tasks, or deals with technology only occasion, there are steps that you or the group you are involved in can take to reduce the environmental and socio-economic impact of your digital activities.

Sounds great to me, but then they have these:

> To mitigate this situation, this principle calls us to step outside the capitalist model of perpetual consumption and growth.

> The history of computing is deeply intertwined with capitalism and militarism. From playing a role in warfare and geopolitical power struggles to driving the automation of labor, computing has significantly contributed to the increased use of resources and fossil energy. The latest example of this trend is the construction of hyperscale data centers for running generative AI. Despite the promise of increased efficiency, the Jevons Paradox applies: higher efficiency tends to lead to greater resource use. Efficiency is often presented as a technical solution to a political decisions about how and why we use computing —without questioning the extractive business model.

The authors here (fairly or not) signal their in/out group preference. And the implication is that "those not willing or unable to step outside the capitalist model are not able to sufficiently apply the principle to affect change in the way we are wanting."

They're smuggling in an omission of technologists who recognize the benefits of a capitalist system compared to a collectivist one. It reads like they are trying to be careful, but still end up significantly limiting their potential audience.

People with strong capitalist beliefs may be willing to volunteer their time at a repair cafe or in taking other action to incrementally move their communities in the direction they're advocating for. But it seems to me like they would not even want those people to be a part of their movement. If I recognize the historical injustices that marginalized groups have faced but I still believe that a capitalist system is generally preferable to a collectivist one, would I be supported by this movement? I think that I doubt it.

EDIT: I missed on this on their homepage:

> With that said, permacomputing is an anti-capitalist political project. It is driven by several strands of anarchism, decoloniality, intersectional feminism, post-marxism, degrowth, ecologism.

> Permacomputing is also a utopian ideal...

Utopian? No thanks. I expected this to be a technological movement first with politics snuck in, but it sounds like it is the opposite.

[iamnothere]

Much of fringe politics is a social club/hobby. You can really see this in action when fringe groups stumble upon an opportunity to grow support among the mainstream, but then they choose to squander it on counter-signaling to drive away people who aren’t perfectly aligned.

The “Just Stop Oil” people are a great example of this. There’s a lot of headwind behind green energy and moving away from oil, but the activists suck all that air out of the room with destructive stunts and focus the story on themselves.

[bccdee]

The way people talk about Just Stop Oil is interesting. People often say, "Just Stop Oil is doing activism wrong," but I never hear anyone talk about orgs that "do activism right" because the public never talks about them at all.

Like them or not, Just Stop Oil is very good at making headlines and stirring up controversy, which is their goal. If you go into a party with a megaphone and shout about beavers, everyone will eventually be talking and thinking about beavers. Conservatives use this strategy to manufacture controversies like "critical race theory" all the time. As a radical group, simply being in the headlines benefits them.

[iamnothere]

At least in recent years, conservatives don’t usually do radical stunts like throwing junk on paintings, which may be why their activism has been more effective lately. Conservative activists do often say things that cause controversy, but the public seems more forgiving of words alone versus things like defacing art or blocking traffic at random.

Note that I said blocking traffic at random. Targeted roadblocks are actually effective (such as in the ICE protests/interventions) and were also used to great effect by Canadian truckers. (Speaking of the Canadian truckers, maybe you noticed how the useless and constant honking was the thing that turned the public against them.)

This idea that attention alone, even negative attention, is enough is one of the worst mistakes of modern activists, particularly on the left, and it’s completely derailed their effectiveness in many cases.

[hdndjsbbs]

What would an apolitical "permacomputing" look like? The premise is to reduce consumption and conserve resources. It's about recognizing the externalities associated with technology. You can't just do that in a vacuum.

If you just want "MacBook with socketed RAM" there's already other people doing that. You don't need this to be that.

[myrmidon]

You can recognize externalities and deal with it just fine without abolishing capitalism. See leaded gas or CFCs for example.

[stackghost]

Neither leaded gas nor CFCs were eliminated because of capitalism. They were eliminated in spite of it. Companies got dragged kicking and screaming into compliance because of regulatory oversight, which is anathema to pure capitalism.

[wfurney]

Thanks for your comment. I’m not very familiar with permacomputing so am trying to understand it more. I wouldn’t say im advocating for an apolitical movement necessarily, as much as it being open to incremental (instead of revolutionary) change. If permacomputing is fundamentally an anti-capitalist movement then obviously it doesn’t make sense to include capitalists in it, but I’m not sure it needs to be. I guess I disagree with the idea that capitalist systems are unable to reduce consumption/conserve resources.

It seems like this site had a “neoliberal” wiki entry but it got removed, or I at least I can’t access it, I would be interested to see it

[beepbooptheory]

I just want to say, I appreciate you directly getting to the actual ideological disagreement here. If you want to conceive of and fight for a neoliberal permaculture.. well that's something different than what this site is about for sure but I personally would be ready to find some common ground here.

[wolvesechoes]

> I expected this to be a technological movement first with politics snuck in

Then you are naive. Everything that is concerned with how people organize themselves, where and how they allocate resources, how they are supposed to make decisions, what values they should uphold etc. is politics.

[wfurney]

Thank you for your comment. I certainly am not familiar with permacomputing, so I accept your characterization and understand I have more to learn. With that said I feel like you haven’t really engaged with my argument, just sniped at me with a borderline insult.

The goal of my comments on this site is to learn more by engaging with others who may know more than me. Here I tried to point out ways in which the movement may be alienating itself it by excluding capitalists. If it makes me naive to not realize that was its core purpose, so be it

[tolerance]

> Like, why is the burden on the authors and not you to sort through the things you care about and don't?

It isn't a one-way street. The authors have already, in fact, sorted through what they think a reader/participant does and does not care about.

> Why is it not an opportunity to learn? Do you even care to know where they could possibly be coming from? If there is ever some kind of overlap between something you can get behind and something for whatever reason you feel is bad or "underdefined," doesn't that stir even a bit of curiosity, a chance to learn? Even if it's just sharpening what you already know?

This doesn't read like a fair assessment of the negative responses that this page is receiving, at least it doesn't in this case. Or you're missing the entire point.

Not everyone disagrees with things out of ignorance. They may have done their due diligence to investigate what the concepts and frameworks at play are about. Assuming otherwise is a good way to ensure that what you agree with is impervious to debate save for what can be held among "fellow travelers".

The author's of this page are being very direct with their orientation and intentions here. I think even to the extent that their language is "underdefined" there is enough space for someone to reliably speculate about what the substance behind it entails and then come to an educated conclusion about whether they find those things objectionable—in spite of the existence of some principles that they agree with. The degree to which they find the objectionable to affect the unobjectionable can also lead a person to make a conclusion about the organization's viability.

You don't have to concede to these objections, but to frame all this as advice on how not to disagree obviates justifiable dissent.

[beepbooptheory]

If you are a capitalist or imperialist or whatever, its perfectly alright to oppose yourself to this. The thing I target here is this feigned confusion that these things are even applicable followed by some friendly advice on how they could have broader appeal. I just think if you aren't ignorant, than you would be engaging with it directly rather than just blustering at its very inclusion here.

Please, dissent away! I have only seen dismissal so far.

[tolerance]

That sounds fair. I would add that it's also the duty of an organization to educate their audience about why their additional interests are relevant to the broader one that serves as its base, which the wider audience may be intrigued by already.

permacomputing.net doesn't achieve this. Again, communication isn't a one-way street.

The polarity that the upfront inclusion of their politics is obvious in the discussion here. People are either keying in on that or talking about permacomputing in general and indifferent to the group's stated politics. Are the people engaging in the former wrong for that? Tangentially, are the latter critically engaging with the subject in every aspect presented?

Is there anything provided by the website that explicitly piques their curiosity in the way that you encourage? Did the author(s) even care enough to externally link to pages that they are confident would explain what those frameworks mean in such a way that a skeptical visitor may be persuaded to figure out their relevance to permacomputing in general? If not to be entirely persuaded, but at least exit with a more cogent grasp of their own perspective on the practice?

I do like the point that you're making, I just think there's a shared responsibility in this dynamic that should be addressed. Not everyone went to a liberal arts school with a rigorous critical theory curriculum.

If your [their] politics are so important to permacomputing—something that any kind of "nerd" ought to be able to participate in—then you [they] should be able to explain why that is the case. Explain why as effortlessly as said politics are introduced and as fluently as they disappear from the foreground in deference to a rhetoric that positions them as a reliable source about the subject.

Feigning confusion in opposition to a thing that may be valid isn't any less vain than feigning shock that valid opposition exists. Insularity begets them both.