113

Firewood Banks Aren’t Inspiring. They’re a Sign of Collapse. (newrepublic.com)

submitted 2 days ago by Delta_V@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A wood bank is exactly what it sounds like. People in rural and Indigenous areas still heavily rely on wood heat as the primary fuel source for their homes. Volunteers cut and split firewood, stack it somewhere public, and give it away for free to those who can’t afford it. No paperwork. No means tests. No government forms. Just a pile of hardwood that shows up because someone else’s house would be cold without it.

Most articles about wood banks wrap them in the same tired language. Community spirit. Rural generosity. Neighbors helping neighbors. It’s the kind of coverage you get when journalists focus on the people stacking the wood instead of the conditions that made it necessary. They never mention the underlying reality. Wood banks exist because without them, people would freeze. It’s the same everywhere: Local news crews film volunteers splitting logs while pretending it’s heartwarming, reporting on senior citizens splitting 150 cords a year for neighbors in need as if the story is about kindness instead of the failure that created the need in the first place.

...The volunteers running wood banks aren’t performing resilience. They’re plugging holes in a sinking ship and doing the work the state stopped doing. They are the thin line between a cold snap and another obituary...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

NewRepublic simping for the State, fails to see how anything other than the State could be considered inspiring or resilient.

Apparently, acts of solidarity aren't inspiring and people taking their material wellbeing into their own hands aren't being resilient because it means the State is non-functional...just...what?

Such a weird article.

[-] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 3 points 1 day ago

It's a very American view to think that individuals in the community having to step in to keep people from dying is more reasonable than the government of one of the wealthiest nations in the world stepping in to keep people from dying. And somehow criticizing the state for failing to provide for the most basic needs of its citizens is simping.

None of the people using the wood bank are taking their wellbeing into their own hands. They're relying on their community to support them so they don't die. And that's great that it's happening, but it's shifty that the government, ostensibly the representative of the community, can't institutionalize what is clearly the will of the community.

[-] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But I never said it was more reasonable for people to bypass the state, especially, as you say, a state as large and rich as the US. Im specifically saying that the denial of even granting these communities the terms "inspirational" or "resilient" is Statist, particularly because the fact that wood banks are resilient and the fact that it's bad thing that State institutions are failing are not mutually exclusive, while the author asserts that, since these acts are indicative of a failing State, they are neither inspirational nor resilient. It's just a fallacy.

You can avoid the glorification of private solutions to public problems while also granting that a community that engages in communal acts is a good thing.

And that’s great that it’s happening, but it’s shifty that the government, ostensibly the representative of the community, can’t institutionalize what is clearly the will of the community

Yes ^^ but, to me, expected -- when your politicians rely on boats of money to get elected, they are beholden to the money and not the community. Especially now it seems, the clear will of the community in the US is of less value than the will of the large donor.

[-] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago

I'll certainly grant you the Statist label, but I still don't see how being critical of the state is simping. And I would argue, like the article, that rather than being inspired by these resilient groups, your first response should be an intense anger at the state for failing so badly, with that inspiration or admiration being a distant second.

[-] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Sure they're bemoaning the failing state, but in doing so they're glorifying State power -- maybe that's a better way to put it. But again, inspiration from community and anger at the State aren't mutually exclusive -- and the author making it out like they are is simping for the State imo.

I think we probably also have a disconnect because I tend to think of the State as an unjust centralization of power that is extremely vulnerable to this exact sorta thing happening, rather than a mechanism to execute the will of the people. Even if you've wrangled it enough to provide some material good to normal folk -- look how fast it can be taken away at a whim. Communal acts tell me first that free relations between individuals are possible (plausible, or maybe inevitable?) outside of the context of Government and Market, that the Government and the Market are not as inevitable as we're taught to believe -- so I think that there is hope there. Hopefully that kinda illustrates what I'm saying better.

But I do see how a liberal or a socialist may say, "anger first" in this context, so I hear you. Just not that way for me.

this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025

113 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26659 readers

2071 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News