Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

selver wrote (edited )

Not only climate change, but other issues as well. We live in a world with a proliferation of nuclear weapons and all sorts of other ways that groups can really fuck up other parts of the world. Localism is insufficient, each local will always be under constant threat of being destroyed if power is not being similarly fought in other places. The modern world is too small & connected.

Not that I think it's likely possible to do that, but the author doesn't really acknowledge the problem. If you're espousing localism, you sort of need to accept a fully nihilistic position about the hopes of continued survival for radical communities, as you are in a way completely giving up your power to defend what you've built.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. I think that localism here is assuming that there will be resistance everywhere to some degree and that there will also be communication and organisation between localised groups where it is immediately useful or just desired.

And problems like the possibility of nuclear attack I think are assumed (that is, I think that the people in these localised places will simply live under that threat, though presumably there will still be (state?) actors doing work to prevent it), but I agree that there's room for it to be thought about more.
I guess since I'm living in sub-saharan Africa I think less about direct nuclear attacks since there seems to be little reason to bomb here relative to other places.
I'd be interested in hearing from you a more fleshed out version of what it might look like to have a non-localised approach to this situation.