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…

  • 2piradians@lemmy.worldEnglish
    561·
    3 days ago

    I didn’t know about these. Two things can exist at once: The system is failing these people, and people who donate time/effort/wood/money to help others are very generous.

    I don’t like that the article minimizes the altruism. Prepping firewood is hard work, and it’s a hell of a nice thing to do for others.

    • Darkassassin07@lemmy.caEnglish
      17·
      3 days ago

      Considering the articles point on how pretty much everyone only focuses on the altruism; it’s a really nice contrast.

      • 2piradians@lemmy.worldEnglish
        35·
        3 days ago

        I didn’t know about these.

        …and with that I learn about wood banks from a writer that scolds other writers for writing nice things about the generous aspects. There’s nothing to contrast.

        • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
          2·
          2 days ago

          Dude I don’t work the soup line simply because I enjoy it and have nothing better to do. Don’t mistake altruism for a lack of need. I do volunteer work because I know that without my effort, more people are going to suffer needlessly. Part of it IS fueled by a smoldering rage that the state is so devoted to helping nobody but the wealthy. Believe me when I say that of I saw no need for my effort I would certainly save myself the trouble.

    • discocactus@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      All of the chatter about the system failing seems to presuppose that that is a bad thing. More independent, decentralized, robust local economies and communities is a good thing. If that happens to stem from racism and neglect, it doesn’t invalidate a good idea. Would it be better to have a better system that was more inclusive and supported all people? Probably. But realistically our industrial system isn’t something to mourn. Replacing it would be great.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
    152·
    3 days ago

    We can praise the good things while acknowledging the bad things. It’s not either-or.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    3 days ago

    This does remind me of that FB group with the name that is something like “Failures of capitalism disguised as heartwarming stories” or the like…

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      13·
      3 days ago

      The Reddit equivalent is r/orphancrushingmachine, named after a parody news story telling the uplifting fact that an orphan-crushing machine had been taken out of service for repairs and so wouldn’t be crushing orphans for a while. The question of why there had to be an orphan-crushing machine in the first place went unaddressed.

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      11·
      3 days ago

      In that to say people can’t be cold and unable to heat their residence under other systems historically?

  • jwiggler@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    53·
    3 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.caEnglish
      5·
      3 days 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.worksEnglish
        11·
        2 days 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.caEnglish
          1·
          2 days 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.worksEnglish
            1·
            2 days 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.

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    1210·
    3 days ago

    The author seems to be viewing the state as the first line of defense and neighbors helping each other as a last resort to be used only when the state has failed. An alternate view is that neighbors helping each other is the first line of defense, and the need to rely on the state is a sign there isn’t a functioning community.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
      171·
      3 days ago

      Consolidating resources to be used for mutual benefit is what government is for. Clannism is not a community.

      • OfCourseNot@fedia.io
        17·
        3 days ago

        Consolidating resources to be used for mutual benefit is what government is for

        Is it? Since when?

        I would rephrase it as ‘consolidating resources, taken from the poor people’s labor, to be used for the benefit of the state and the powerful is what government is for’.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          7·
          3 days ago

          When enough people develop this view of what their government is for, that’s when that government crumbles into dysfunction and oppression.

      • Makhno@lemmy.world
        34·
        3 days ago

        Kinda hits different when your tax dollars get sent to a shithole red state. Thats not my community, thats not who im trying to support.

        Its not clannism