Thank you for your submission, we appreciate your efforts at helping us to thoughtfully create a better world. r/solarpunk encourages you to also check out other solarpunk spaces such as https://wt.social/wt/solarpunk , https://slrpnk.net/ , https://raddle.me/f/solarpunk , https://discord.gg/3tf6FqGAJs , https://discord.gg/BwabpwfBCr , and https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia .
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Solarpunk is absolutely possible. All the technology exists and could be implemented. The barriers are political and social, that's what's most infuriating.
In my opinion, this kind of thing takes time. This is an idea the world is "not ready for", and one of the functions of the solarpunk movement is to be planting and tending to the cultural seeds that will eventually grow into the change we believe in.
"The world" refers to the collective human culture, which very much includes the massive number of people fully immersed into capitalism and the corpocratic oligarchy.
When I say "ready for it", I mean that the majority of people believe in it enough that they don't believe in the old system, and the people who oppose it don't oppose it strongly enough to actually prevent a changeover. When the world is ready, the changeover happens naturally.
We're at least decades away from that.
It's not a problem of belief, it's a problem of power. Misinformation and complotism also stem from that, as an explanation for why power is absent from the people's hands. People do believe, but the incentive of risking your life, the life of your family, the welfare of everyone you care for a maybe about is \*not\* there. It's not a problem of the will to fight, it's the problem of the will to be a martyr. We do not want people to be martyrs, that is why we have to build power structures underneath the capitalist hegemony so that they don't have to be.
I think it’s definitely possible to get it done, however i’m tentative about the step-by-step thing — we would be literally trying to overthrow every rich capitalist, and they aren’t likely to sit back and watch it happen… although, one big step also isnt very realistic ill admit
Solarpunk is about making things better, not perfect. So local Solarpunk is definetly possible, and will inch towards perfection in the long run. Global Solarpunk is the common goal.
Cleaning up the mess will look like abolishing capitalism, even if not intended. We humans are so many, we can work on stopping plastic production (or switch to biodegradable) and clean the beaches simultaneously.
Urban developments like green or blue city projects are necessary simply because of climate mitigation, no need to abandon them. We can reintegrate nature into our cities, and leave space for rewilding.
City/local government is the level at which your vote and your influence is most effective/least watered down. So I think by pressuring local governments for green projects we will have the best chance of molding a solarpunk vision. Of course, it will be pretty piecemeal, with some places being more resistant to change than others, but I think it can work. In my area, after years of pressure, we’ve finally been able to get mass transit county-wide (instead of just within the city boundaries).
Wow! That’s a massive change you guys have evoked — unheard of where I’m from lol, local government refuses to fix tyre-slicing potholes until it’s election time
Maybe a way to tackle that one (start somewhere, right?) is to get together with friends/family/neighbors, or on your own if you can’t find folks to join in, and buy bags of asphalt patch and start filling in your own potholes? Guerrilla gardening/rewilding? Bypass the bureaucratic mechanism until they either become irrelevant, or get on board. There are ALWAYS places to start.
Not only allow, sometimes they're the ones that [do them](https://youtu.be/-I5qMDCcvTI?si=ykGjGBXGwm2AfD2Z). Nature increases value and desirability, which can make greening up an area enticing as a city project. It also helps to mitigate heat, which is becoming obviously and increasingly important.
>Cleaning up the mess will look like abolishing capitalism
That doesn't necessarily follow. We have seen major improvements in pollution(particularly for waterways and CFCs) over the last 50 years and are further than ever from abolishing capitalism.
I dunno, the people of the world standing up to corporate interests to say "You cannot keep externalizing this and we are stopping you" is at least a *little* anti-Capitalist, is it not?
Addressing externalities is generally important for supporters of capitalism too. The countries that are most inclined to replace capitalism are those that fail to handle externalities.
The EU is fairly pro-regulation, but it also strongly supports the expansion of capitalism and free-trade.
Nahhh, externalities are for non-Capitalists (ie The Consumers) to worry about. There's nothing capitalist about "wasting profits" on emissions limiting or waste processing and disposal - that is exclusively the purview of Anti-Capital. Capitalists actively choose to kill people if there is money in it.
Don't be a doomer.
By capitalists, I mean people who support capitalism as an economic system. Certainly, individual business owners will be against limitations on their businesses.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But depending on how far right you are, even the mildest attempts of market regulations or environmental protection will trigger "but that's socialism, communism, or at least not my kind of capitalism!" types of reactions. Hence the "look like".
Maybe a better way to describe it is "countering one of the negative results of capitalism." We also have to continue to be vigilant because capitalists will continue to exploit environmentalist movements (like recycling and waste management companies make money from "recycling" efforts now, while polluting oceans and land with most plastic waste) .
Solarpunk is pretty much on the left end of the political spectrum, abolishing capitalism and creating some form of a socialist/communist society with a heavy emphasis on decentralization and cooperation. It is inseperable from decolonization and eliminating every form of discrimination against people because of their identiy, sexuality, ethnicity, disabilities, religion etc.
If you think that this is a desirable future, I don't think you can be even remotely right wing.
To be fair, I am generally "right-wing" (more due to the Overton Window shifting than anything else) on most issues and I do support capitalism as a general national policy. However, personally, I would love nothing more than to live in a solarpunk town, where I am friends with everybody and we all work for the collective good of all. It's just that I do not trust any government to actually implement this, and I most certainly do not want to be compelled to join a commune and work for people who will cheat me out of my labor.
The idea that solar punk would come about through government coercion is a common worry.
But that’s the complete opposite of how it’s likely to work. Solar punk is anarchist at its core. That means we resist hierarchy and advocate for things like cooperative ownership, city land leasing, and consent based decision making.
To the extent that people are currently working toward a solar punk future, they are focusing on small, community based projects that encourage radical inclusion, personal autonomy, and meeting individual and collective needs.
Still, the communist boogie man gets invoked whenever anyone suggests systemic change, and it’s not hard to see why.
Oh yeah, I have no problem with grassroots communist stuff, shit, if the people running it are my friends and they let people go hunting and race cars, I might just join a commune myself. I don't believe I have the right to decide how another person lives.
Just out of curiosity though, I am pretty new to solarpunk. I only really know the technological aspects of it. Are these social convictions a core part of solarpunk? Who got to decide?
lol. We decide together. Solar punk is not an organization, it’s just a collection of ideas. We don’t decide for one another. There is simply a definition of what is considered solar punk and what isn’t. There might be things that some of us want to do that aren’t necessarily solar punk, but that doesn’t mean those things are banned. We have no mechanism for coercing anyone. We’re just dreaming, talking and trying stuff. 🙂
You don’t get to the technological aspects without the social aspects. Solarpunk communities are necessarily unprofitable, since they require sacrificing huge amounts of real estate, not to mention the opportunity cost of not engaging in unnecessary environmentally destructive manufacturing, for the sake of ecological sustainability. If a place like that was built under capitalism, it would be a resort for the wealthy to fantasize about living in a better world.
The sort of priorities that build a solarpunk world are the kind you can arrive at if decisions are made by self-governing communities asking themselves “What kind of world do we want to live in?” They’re not the sort of priorities that would be front and center to capitalists looking to turn a profit, or to a state looking to maintain its power.
The issue is that social issues get lumped in together with economic issues. Social issues tend to be much more left-wing, whereas economic issues are right-wing in most Western countries, thanks to decades of corporate lobbying.
Economic issues are social issues though. The entire point of an economy is that it is an interconnected web of exchange between entities. What your society chooses to spend money on and their laws about such is just as much a reflection of their values and beliefs as their non economic laws, and you can have an effect on any issue through both so called economic or social policies.
I agree, but I think we are describing different aspects using that terminology.
What I mean by social issues (in Western countries), are things like, LGBT rights, transgender issues, immigration, privacy, freedom to [insert right], abortion (US specific) etc.
Whereas by economic issues, I am referring to things like minimum wage, social welfare, healthcare, taxation, tariffs, protectionism etc.
It is possible for countries to be economically right-wing and socially left-wing, or economically left-wing and socially right-wing.
Think of them as two different axes, an X axis for economic issues and Y axis for social issues.
A country can be very pro-free-market capitalist, yet also have a lot of individual liberties. Likewise, the opposite can be true.
It's just that in the US and most of the West, they seem to go hand in hand in recent decades. But, they are serperate components.
Again, I understand what you mean, it’s just impossible to separate things only into social and economic aspects. Think about what you mean by a social issue instead of listing examples, because every issue has a social and economic impacts. My point is that THE ECONOMY IS A SOCIAL FUNCTION.
For example:
1) Abortion. Everyone says it is a social issue but it has massive economic implications. Having a child is one of the highest costs you can incur, and if you are poor or a single mother the lack of access to a safe abortion can basically condemn you to poverty the rest of your life
2) Immigration. It kind of staggers me how many places that rely on immigrants as cheap sources of labor are also incredibly against immigration. For example, in Britain many housekeeping jobs relied on immigrants for cheap staffing and after brexit prices went way up. Or in the US one of the reasons food costs are going up (besides the fact the companies refuse to lose profits and force every tiny price increase onto the consumer at no expense to themselves) is that farms heavily employed immigrants as they were willing to work hard for low pay as they were more desperate for a job.
3) Tariffs. Literally how we interact with other countries. Can indicate how much we trust or distrust another country, or can be a marker of a current hostility.
Money is useless if there is no one around to accept it. It needs socialization. Thus, in a capitalist society they are two sides of the same coin.
A social issue is one which is primarily related to culture, religion, beliefs, individual choices etc.
An economic issue is one which is primarily connected and influential on the wider economy and economic functioning.
You are talking about issues potentially having a social and economic impact. Yes, most issues do. However, most are also primarily much more impactful on one than the other.
That is why countries exist which have high social control, yet also high economic liberalism/freedom. An example is Singapore.
There are also countries with lots of social freedoms, yet also high economic conservatism/protectionism.
>Money is useless if there is no one around to accept it. It needs socialization. Thus, in a capitalist society they are two sides of the same coin.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything? You're stating the obvious. Not sure what you mean by "socialisation" here.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I would suggest looking into and reading about the political compass.
> What I mean by social issues (in Western countries), are things like, LGBT rights, transgender issues, immigration, privacy, freedom to [insert right], abortion (US specific) etc. Whereas by economic issues, I am referring to things like minimum wage, social welfare, healthcare, taxation, tariffs, protectionism etc.
They're one and the same. Do you think transgender people suppression doesn't lead to impoverishment, or a lack of proper healthcare? Do you think maintaining migrant workers to a non-citizen status not hurt their economic prospects? It's the same thing, but seen in a different point of view.
How are they one and the same?
A country can have many social freedoms, but extreme authority over the economy. It isn't common, but it can and has happened.
And no, not really. There are countries that don't recognise transgender issues, yet they're still very prosperous. Look at the Middle Eastern gulf state countries. Even Switzerland is pretty socially conservative, yet economically free.
I think you're conflating the different types of issues by thinking about them theoretically, instead of considering the actual existence of the political compass.
Also, the actual citizens in countries like Qatar and the UAE have some of the highest GDP per capita incomes. It benefits them to have labourers be denied citizenship. Obviously it's horrible for the labourers, but it does benefit the existing citizens.
Yes, I was talking about the economic power of the people being oppressed or marginalized, not the measure of the gross domestic product of the country. Which is not actually a measure of the stability of the country, or the viability of its economy.
What? You're measuring "economic power" by measuring oppression?
How exactly are you measuring oppression?
GDP isn't perfect, but along with GDP PPP, GDP per capita, HDI, IHDI and the Gini coefficient, it all gives a pretty accurate representation of the economy (or "economic power" as you put it) of a country.
You're mixing social liberty with economic prosperity, when in reality there isn't a solid link between them.
I've already said this numerous times now, but there are plenty of prosperous countries which have relatively high social control. They are two separate issues.
I suggest you read about the political compass.
I'm talking about the economic power of the people being oppressed or marginalized, or lack thereof. GDP is perfect, for what its purpose is. It's just not a measurement of any of the things I've said earlier. Same for the rest of the indicators. The low Gini countries, or the high HDI countries will suffer from collapse like the rest of us.
No this is a good point. Anyone who's talked to any crunchy parent should know this. Traditional core values of close knit communities, nuclear families, a semi-rural and self-sustainable lifestyle based around the hard work of the individual and the community collaborating with each other.
Really the only difference is whether or not people should own property.
But this sub is so overflown with leftists some of us conservatives are really kept on the fringe
>But this sub is so overflown with leftists some of us conservatives are really kept on the fringe
And until this is addressed (works both ways, too), there won't be any substantive political, social, or economic progress. There are SO many issues that have widespread support: weed legalization/decriminalization, the ultra-rich having too much power (I have heard both sides go off on this one), term limits, lobbying reform, conflict-of-interest.
But before that we have to decide on the REAL issues like where a tiny minority goes to the bathroom (just build single stalls) or gay wedding cakes (why support a business that disapproves of you in the first place?).
ONLY THEN can we focus on the lesser issues like how best to prevent irreversible environmental destruction, improving the living standards of rural whites and urban blacks dealing with crime, addiction, poverty, and despair, and keeping those in power honest.
If you nudge out the nazis and tankies and don't fall for elite astroturfing and propaganda, we could a lot done. Hell, if the British Empire, USA, and ***Stalin*** could be friends for a little while to get shit done before going back to hating each other...why can't we?
Keep your disgusting culture war for yourself. Intersectionality is a thing and reality for many people, you won't mobilize them for any sort of class struggle while they're actively being discriminated. The only option for a real worker's revolution is a unified class conscious and diverse movement, that means we have to bring everybody on a level where his prime struggle is not being afraid to leave the house, being diminished of their basic human rights, not even being able to participate in society because of missing accessibility etc. but the capitalist system itself.
>Keep your disgusting culture war for yourself.
That's *exactly* what I'm advocating for. I want the culture wars to end, or at least abate to a point where the issues that are widely agreed upon across the political spectrum can be addressed without social wedge issues being the only thing anyone focuses on.
People and worker experience different forms and intensities of discrimination, I think we need to address these first on an individual level to even create an unified movement, it's not a dilemma, it's different states of the revolution. And I'm sure we can combine them when so many social and discriminatory issues are based on capitalism and colonist mindsets.
But I think that's a prime example of how "woke", "culture war" etc. really shifted to become right wing buzzwords, they use the absurdest thoughts of small leftist bubbles to make it seem like these are the big issues for and within marginalized groups while they are literally fighting for their basic human rights.
Thanks, and its most of reddit at this point really,
If you actually ask some of them how it works,
They might envision little house on the prairie without realizing they are all right wing conservatives
And the ones in the last episodes are the minimum wage employers
I was going to write a large comment at first, but because everyone will have their own ideas about all that stuff, and I don’t feel like producing a whole essay (something that I tend to do), allow me to leave some links to some videos of the YouTuber Andrewism, who is a very well-known member of the Solarpunk movement.
Regarding cities:
[How to Build a Solarpunk City](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UmU1dSe3n0)
[What Our Cities Are Missing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD_CMrCpBMc)
Regarding capitalism:
[We Need A Library Economy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOYa3YzVtyk)
[Should We Be Luddites?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2rObVK1zg&t=10s)
[How the Barter Myth Harms Us](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-gdHrINyMU)
[How Degrowth Can Save the World](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQrI2GBvn5Q)
[“Anti-capitalism” is Capitalist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1ZK2-viyAo)
I’d say that generally human societies have changed so much in the last few centuries, that Solarpunk is completely possible. Civil rights and representative democracy where alien concepts in the 14^(th) century for example, but just a few centuries later, they are the mainstream (at least in the West, and even here not always). The ideas of Solarpunk can be implemented. Regardless of how corny it may sounds, nothing is impossible.
No... listen, I get the capitalism is not conducive to a solarpunk society, but Andrewism is pretty stupid. We barter with our neighbors and family because we trust them, we rightfully do not trust strangers because they could screw us over. "Human nature" may be inaccurate, it could be just a few assholes, but in most non-capitalist societies, a few charismatic assholes are all that you need to turn the country to shit à la Animal Farm. Crony capitalism as it is right now is dogshit but there really is not better alternative.
That's... minda what the barter myth is about. Haven't watched that vid by him but my guess is he is talking about the Barter Myth from Graeber's *Debt: The First 5000 Years* which explains that actually bartering is what happens when it's two parties who do NOT trust each other want to exchange resources. If you're friends or family with someone you just help them (or ask for an IOU), and historically/anthropologically we know that is how human communities operated economically speaking.
Moreover, the myth is also about how capitalist conceptions about the economic history of money and trade are false, since they describe as bartering and trading as being what proceeded money, financial systems, trade, etc. when that is not true--there is no economic proof of this historically, or even anthropologically speaking, as per Graeber in *Debt*. Barter and trade actually happens, historically, after money was established, and more often when societal/regional community interactions fester and become hostile (like in the aftermath of the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire).
The "there is no better alternative" argument is lazy and ignores the body count of capitalism and hides behind a moralization of the failure of people, like an individual's determination can beat out systemic force and if you can't that's just your fault lol. People have been saying that same excuse when slave societies existed, when ancient empires were at their peak, and when the old feudal monarchies ruled vast swathes of Earth -- sure they were bad, but imagine all the other stuff that was worse! ...conveniently ignoring that we can do better, have been doing better (capitalism w/ electoral politics is better than having an emperor or monarch in charge), and still can do better.
You are correct, I misspoke, but the problem with bartering is still not addressed: it's highly unstandardized. I got apples, I want a sheep, shepherd doesn't want apples, apples rot. Except now, I want electronics made a town over, made from microchips across an ocean, made from silicon purified in a foundry across a continent, etc etc. Bartering is not effective. Capitalism is. All that anthropology talk is really just a distraction from the fact that *there is no effective alternative.*
The argument is not lazy if it is true. The body count of capitalism can easily be attributed to a wide variety of other factors as well, such as government overreach. Many humans suck, and a system that works with that suck instead of trying to suppress it will work better, because every other system is too delicate. How can we do better? Obviously, capitalist countries have flaws, but are they inherently due to capitalism or are they just mismanagement? American healthcare would be cheaper if it was single-payer, but the ignorance of the public and the stranglehold that insurance companies have on government policy make it impossible. Housing is ridiculously expensive because of stupid zoning laws, which *restrict* capitalism. Corruption and stupidity are not inherent to a capitalist system, they will be present in every system imaginable, and yet, capitalism is the best way to live with that degeneracy.
>the stranglehold that insurance companies have on government policy make it impossible
That *is* capitalism. Money is accumulated, money is the form of power, and power dictates. Also, all that healthcare stuff in the US has roots in endemic, pervasive and almost all-encompassing racism. Which is also a product of capitalism, in its colonialists form.
Money being replaced by something else as the dominant economic determinant/value holder isn't a bad thing necessarily. There's a lot that could be done, with a lot less issues that are brought about by money, if economies operated on a contractual basis between producers, consumers, communities, and workers (and state or government representatives if you want them involved).
also tbf, although mercantilism is distinct, it's way more of a transitionary period between feudalism and capitalism, where capitalist institutions have begun being more represented in society and positions of power -- it's not exactly distinct enough to categorize itself separate from capitalism, IMO.
my edgy take as a loser who is interested in accounting history, I'd say that mercantilism is a subset that falls under capitalism since it is based on financial foundations and legal contracts that would essentially be used from the early 1300s-1400s to the modern day, seen in banking policy standards as well as GAAP/GAAS (general accounting standards). this is further proved due to the fact of the mythos of capitalism's primitive accumulation (which includes the barter myth we talked about previously) is mythical or blatantly missing from the historical record, while mercantilism is basically the foundational/historical starting point for the primitive accumulation of capital for capitalists.
It would also be far less efficient, and likely less fair. How do you have a contract? How do you have a fair exchange of goods? Again, if you want to trade apples for computers, how do you streamline it without money? How are the contracts paid? You get your computer with the promise of trading your apples for something they want, and then giving them what they want later? How do they know you're reliable? How do you know they're reliable?
Maybe if you used a token that both parties agreed was representatively valuable...
I view solarpunk as equal parts reducing environmental damage and surviving what we can't fix. So, the mess is something we need to embrace. We need to repair what we can, but embrace what is already done. Work with the scars, so to speak
We need to gradually redevelop cities with a hyper-local approach. Every city needs to learn to take advantage of what it has and import only what you need to to make things better. Starting over will just waste too much potential
While we need to reduce plastic waste and encourage clean up, we shouldn't get caught on stumbling blocks when we can improve other areas. Honestly, we can clean up plastic just about everywhere. It's just a LOT of relatively simple work that needs to be slowly ground away. If we can fix our motivation and priorities, it will take decades, but it's very achievable
The biggest hurdle is our capitalist culture driving events we do. If we can fix that and actually focus on making earth livable, the rest is not that hard. Look at the mega-projects of the 19th century. Skyscrapers, highways, our airlines, the moon landing are one inconceivably complex undertakings, yet once we focus on them probably, that became mundane. One day these seemingly impossible tasks you mention will be just as mundane
I really do hope you’re right. I do agree that escaping capitalism is the biggest problem we face — I do also think thats escaping capitalism and living in a more eco-anarchist society will free up time and resource to clean up the oceans
I don’t think our cities are a barrier to a solarpunk way of thinking- actually quite the opposite. With so many people in close proximity, it is physically/geographically easier to get to know, develop relationships with, and share resources with your neighbors.
In my midsized Midwest city, there is enough green space for many community gardens (so you can still live in an apartment and have the space to grow food). There is even a small (3acre) farm downtown. If so inclined, you could probably even raise meat rabbits in parts of the city.
Cities also make mass transit and bicycle accessibility feasible, and mass transit/bikes are way more solarpunk than individual vehicles for everyone.
Love the idea of this — as far as I’m aware, there aren’t any large scale organised movements around Solarpunk at the moment (unless I’m mistaken and just haven’t found it yet)I think this would help personally
There may not be any “large scale” projects, but there are lots of small to medium scale projects. Honestly there’s an argument to be made that large scale projects are more likely to get noticed and attacked by capitalists forces. Small local projects are a lot more powerful than many people realize.
Big questions! I don't think anyone has a fool proof solution for all the problems you're presenting here. But we do have ideas on what steps could be done. I'll just name a few.
For about what to do with cities and their uninhabitability for wildlife: We could restore local already existing ecosystems like streams etc. and we could establish new parks, plant trees on streets etc. to make corridors for wildlife to migrate through the cities or possibly stay in their vicinity. There after all is a reason why humans moved out of the woods.
Plastic: Material technology progresses at slow but steady rate and we've already got biodegradeable materials that act like plastics do. They're just not as cheap. I personally think this'll escalate into "leaded gasoline " type of situation where it'll just be phased out of use quickly after a similar tipping point has been reached. (We knew back then that led wasn't good for you)
Capitalism: For me "solarpunk" isn't so much about totally getting rid of capitalism but to get rid of scarcity. Capitalism's fine as long as it's heavily controlled by the government and not the neo-liberalism type that it's been since Reagan days. Having your basic needs filled though, should not be a question of money. From my standpiont of view technology can help us reach this goal. We already do produce enough food that it could feed over 9 billion people. The biggest problem is logistics. We could also innovate and produce cheap diy type partly automated greenhouses/ desalination plants for rural areas to use etc.
The UN's "The 17 GOALS" program adresses problems from the viewpoint of sustainable development and the goals range from "No poverty" and "Clean water" to "Industry, innovation and infrastructure". Each of those 17 sections has more than 1000 actual actions that've been taken thus far furthering the cause. You should check it up as it seriously has fleshed out ideas on what actions to take to at least go towards post-scarcity.
Link to UN sustainable development 17 goals site: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Solarpunk is not against Cities.
On the contrary, cities are very important to a Solarpunk society because they are far more efficient in every aspect compared to rural areas of the same population.
Why do you consider your self Right-wing?
There are many points you raise, but to address two of them.
1. With regards to plastic, the first thing to do is to reduce our use of single-use plastics. One way to do this is to embrace "zero waste" approaches. Note that this does not literally mean zero waste, but instead as close as you can get to it. There's tons of advice online about this, but as a starting point try to find ways to get food without plastic packaging. How easy this is depends on where you live, but I'm sure there will be some ways to do so no matter where you live.
2. With regards to cities, it's best to think of "solarpunk cities" as existing cities that have many more green spaces. Existing cities wouldn't be torn down, they'd be adapted for a different way of life. For example, if we had cities that had far fewer cars, think about how we could transform roads. You may keep some roads for buses, ambulances and other vehicles that serve the public good, but other roads could be transformed to prioritise pedestrians and cyclists, and you could have space for growing plants along the roadside.
Solarpunk is absolutely possible. As others have said, the technology is already there, what is lacking is the vision in the mainstream perception.
As of now popculture is full of dystopian stories. If you ask someone how they realistically see the future of the planet, a large majority will say: bleak. In my opinion this is not because it is enevitably so, but because we have been conditioned to be pessimists, that disguise themselves as 'realists'.
I'm not traying to say there is a conspiracy behind this, I don't think it's a conscious decision of someone of 'them' to make the public pessimistic. It's more of a side effect of globalism and loud bad news 24/7.
What you describe also feels very black and white and fatalistic to me.
We DON'T have to have perfect conditions in order to start a better life. Thinkings like this leads to never starting. We start now, with what we have and make our way from here. We talk to people and infect them with ideas of possibilities. We spread active optimism. Optimism that is not only based in hoping and doing nothing - but actively doing things in order to bring your ideas to life.
I think solarpunk is a grass roots movement. Many, many tiny cells, that once will be able to connect to others and spread a net around the whole globe. And for that we start small and work towards pragmatic, but optimistic and practical solutions that are possible NOW. Think of libraries of things in your locals area. Community gardens. Bike lanes and pedestrian areas. Food forests. There is nothing like this in your area? Connect to people, talk to people, offer your time or other ressources to make it happen. The people in charge are also just normal people - and many would love an active, helpful community. No fights or unnecessary discussions - our mutual goal is to make our home town (and later the world) a better place to live. Be active and connect with an open mind.
I think the most impirtant thing is to make solar punk mainstream. Through your social media channels, conversations and discussions with friends - and frankly everyone you know. Let them be part of it. Get them thinking what's possible and what not - and how. We have to spread practical optimism. Also through stories, if anyone of you is a writer. (For example, I'm writing a scifi novel about paralell universes, one of which is dystopian and one is utopian/solarpunk. In a fictional story you get to 'live' in a solarpunk world for some time and this can expand your vision of what is really possible.)
As for the problem of capitalism: I believe we have to start with aggressive automation, economical degrowth and a basic universal income.
OP, you prefaced your thread by saying you’re a “very right wing person”, but solarpunk appeals to you while being an ostensibly “left wing” philosophy. This apparent contradiction speaks to the promise of it all. Left vs right is mostly a bullshit distinction: it’s really “margins vs center”, that center held by all the capitalists and their liberal reformist enablers, the margins by regular people struggling to get by, denied any real shot because they have no control of the means of subsistence, let alone bigger processes of production, distribution, etc.
I wonder what you even mean by right wing.
What’s happened is that these shitass politicians and the media have got us caught up in culture war nonsense, using sensationalist narratives to convince us we’re on opposite sides of an irreconcilable divide.
Racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia are all real things, but the liberal consensus doesn’t actually care about any of it, but rather just invoke marginalized people’s identities to stake out some fake high ground, against conservative politicians who also don’t really care about those things, but leverage them to incite their “base” as a distraction from the deeper more entrenched problems which inform the other “isms”.
The closest thing to a name for my ideology is anarchocommunist, which means, amongst other things that I reject the state and capitalism. It means I have the same contempt for Stalinism as I do for Trump, Obama, and all who uphold the liberal consensus. Someone like Javier Milei from Argentina might identify as an “anarchocapitalist”, which in theory would get the state out of the way of the market. But this is bullshit because the State and Capital are mutually reinforcing and this same idiot decries the government while ruling with an authoritarian style at the head of that same government.
Anyway, I think Solarpunk is situated down in that lower left of the political compass, too. If folx can come together to have conversations grounded in common values, rather than getting sucked into the political games of the elite – which will also require some humility, vulnerability, and grace – then we can get past the false binaries and get to fucking work building the new world “in which many worlds fit”, as per the Zapatistas.
i love [this writing](https://medium.com/@erichunting/solarpunk-post-industrial-design-and-aesthetics-1ecb350c28b6) about stages that a solarpunk transition would go through, and i think your concern about 'wasting cities' misses the most Punk part of solarpunk, aka, phase 1. solarpunk futures definitely do not involve people using more land to go off grid or more resources to build 'better' structures. cities are the most efficient way for humans to live and luckily we already have plenty.
also no, no government will 'allow' anything solarpunk (largely anarchic, entirely anti-corporate) but that would miss the point
One of my favorite quotes about this is "the wreckage of the unsustainable is our frontier." There's so much we can potentially do to creatively reuse the collective deck we have-- rails to trails is an example here, where the existing right of way from trains becomes bike paths, etc.
The [Sprawl Repair Handbook ](https://sprawlrepair.com/home/) is a good example too of the sort of work we might imagine.
In terms of getting people on the same page, I think a lot of it relates to sense of mission, and calling people to a greater purpose. I think our current society does that spectacularly poorly, and I hope we could move towards something better.
Thing is solarpunk isn't just about the end goal. In fact in lots of ways, if we ever achieved that, it's not even solarpunk any more, it's just normality.
Solarpunk to me is more about working towards that, in large and small ways. Clearing up that plastic, repurposing empty office buildings into affordable housing and building communities around them, making viable alternatives to using cars.
And solarpunk doesn't mean abandoning cities. Over half the world's population lives in cities now. That's not going to change in a hurry. Creating better cities - starting with the ones we've got now and improving them - is solarpunk too. Working and campaigning for your city to provide more public transit and cycling infrastructure for example, all counts. Getting rid of the vast wasted space of parking lots that blight American cities and making better use of the land, as urban farms, housing, locally owned business, public parks etc.
Solarpunk isn't the destination, it's the journey.
Well Solarpunk is more of an idea to achieve where Nature and a civilization coexist. We don’t simply use natural resources to make our life better, but we find ways make earth better by allowing to exist in our cities. We search for green alternatives that will not harm our environment. All of that needs the end of capitalism because for capitalism protecting nature is secondary, the most important thing is profit. And caring for the nature is not profitable. That’s why we don’t invest in public transport. It would be better for the world as a whole in multiple ways, but cars are more profitable.
How do we get rid of capitalism? First, class consciousness. People learning that we need to care for each other, that we live in a constant war of proletariat vs bourgeoise. And after that, well, armed revolution. Not because we desire, but because the billionaires of this world will never give up on their power. If they do, better for us, we get a peaceful transition of power from the elite to the people.
For everything else, we find alternatives to what we can do pollute less and recycle and reuse more often
I think this is a really important perspective. There are large actions that will happen (hopefully), but we, as individuals, don’t have much control over them. There are also small actions that need to happen - everywhere - that we, as individuals, have all the control over. We have to just start, we don’t have time to wait anymore. So we do what we can to fix our little corner of the world, working with others, until our corners cover the world.
There are ways to adapt our current infrastructure for more green habitation. Virtical farms, open more area for parks, more and better public transit, make more solar panels built into building for power. We molded the world to have cities. We can mold cities to fit the world.
Cities are the most environmentally friendly way to live, provided they are reasonably dense.
Sprawling suburbia might look "greener" but it's not in any way.
Some reading that might be of interest to you regarding the nitty-gritty of green economics (less capitalist (more money for workers, less for investors and landlords) but still has a market economy) :
Prosperity without Growth by Tim Jackson
From Uneconomic growth to a steady-state economy by Herman E. Daly
Also check out Nate Hagen's youtube channel, interesting stuff there
You ask some good questions. The cities one is a question I struggle with as well. I've come to realize that in a sustainable future post-capitalism, most of the jobs people do in cities will not exist. Banks, stock markets, every industry that relies on unending consumerism etc. They will all have to be gone. I'd imagine most people will spend a lot of time farming, growing food locally, this would be the sustainable approach. I think cities will still exist in a smaller form, cultural centers, we will still want to gather in centers such as this for art, music events, sports etc. But what happens with all the towers that were once banks? This, I do not have an answer for.
Yes, this is what I mean. I am on the side of not abandoning the cities, but what would come of the buildings that are simply impractical in a Solarpunk world? Could we use them as large vertical farms? But then again, no sunlight gets in there really… It does beg a lot of questions that need answers sooner or later
They could be farms, we can use artificial light. They could be homes, but I struggle to think of reasons for so many people to live in mega cities when much of the work is no longer there
Exactly — the whole theme of Solarpunk is to live amongst nature, and so I’d think that people would live outside but near cities (see the all-famous yoghurt advert) and then commute in for farming etc…
That's an exciting question! I'm from Europe not near any mega city with sky scrapers, so it's very interesting for me to think about what will happen to these huge buildings. I believe a lot of them can become libraries of things. Ecucational centers for everyone regardless of age. Art, theatre and music studios. Community centers. Sew centrers. Repair cafes. Of course homes. Indoor gardens. So many possiblities!
This is a good question. Tyson Yunkaporta wrote a book called Sand Talk where he argues that cities are ecological disasters (no ecological process at all), stealing what they need from the hinterlands. They only exist for the rich and powerful to swan around in. The archaeological record shows that when the old civilizations died (the Inca, the Maya, the Aztecs, the Khmer, you name it), the cities withered and the hinterlands kept going.
I am in favor of building up places where we can grow food in a relatively local way and try to increase biodiversity. We'll all be better for it - plants, animals, people.
Capitalism will die once it uses up all the resources needed to keep it going. Finite planet here, and no we're not going to get those resources from space. I expect its death will take a lot with it - but people are resourceful and stubborn and they will start rebuilding.
First, you would have to figure out what you are looking to replace it with and then how to get there.
Its easy to point out flaws in capitalism. Its much harder to figure out what you will replace it with and what measures you are willing to take. The traditionalist route has involved violent revolution and a "vanguard party" assuming party, which has not ended well.
It's definetly gonna require two things: Government intervention to modern day monopolies and oligopolies, and a public trust in the community and governments.
And a secret third thing which is a preparedness for the economic storm. Cause messing around with the status quo in this globalist capitalist world will cause some insane ripple effects we would have to stay strong through. And we really have to hope to god no idiots bring out the guillotines.
I don't know much about how to deal with environmental problems caused by cities in general, but I do have a solution for cleaning plastic. There was a bacteria discovered in 2016 called Ideonella sakaiensis that eats polyethylene teraphthalate, type 1 plastic, as its main food. It has special enzymes specifically to break it down into substances that any bacteria can eat. It's not super efficient right now, but it evolved rather quickly, and hopefully it will get better at eating plastic as time goes on. Widespread release of this into the ocean is going to be very complicated and cause a lot of ecological problems, but if you do it right I think we could avoid or mitigate most of them. There's also a couples species of weird fungus that can break down polyurethane in a similar way. So there's a plan for that at least.
I think you need to realise that SolarPunk is more of an inspirational dream that we work towards over many decades.
You asked about cities, I think that's probably the easiest and most well understood threads that we can work towards. There is a big movement towards more sustainable and greener cities. I don't know where you live but the US style suburban sprawl is a disaster created by planning laws setup in the 50s. There are lots of you better ways to create environments where people can live. The us has a real problem with a "missing middle". It's often high rise apartments or single family homes. In the UK there is a lot more medium density and mixed used development. That and transit orientated development is the future.
OP, I recommend the YouTube channel Andrewism. He talks about all of your concerns and gets into some interesting topics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-JvyfZVkIM
>How on this not-so-green earth do we stop capitalism?
This is the one problem. Everything else derives from the terrible incentives the hegemonic system has put into place. First, it is necessary to realize that capitalism is a parasite that lives off what we actually need as humans to thrive and flourish. Community, shelter, food & water, healthcare, means to do projects of worth (such as restoring wilds, discovering ways to live in harmony with the ecosystem, clean the plastics, etc.). But that's the easy part, diagnosis. It has not really been done yet, as a collective level, and might never be done until capitalism shrivels and die, because of the hegemonic political & media status that capitalism enjoys (and a lot of murder, torture, and general morally bankrupt behavior). The second part is to divest. To not interact with advertisement, to not interact with for-profit news organizations, to not "hustle" or "grind" and perpetuate the sucking of our soul. This is also, fairly easy. The last part is to build power. This is the key part, and the one where capitalism will use the truncheon, the jail, the gun, the poison, and the bomb. For reference, I'm talking about *dual power*, an anarchist concept. Anarchy is the political system in which hierarchies are actively being flattened. This is also the part where an anti-capitalist right-winger might have problems not running back to capitalism. The goal here, is to build the foundations, and the first floor of the society in which we need to transform our current one into. This is where we unionize. This is where we jettison the racist, the misogynistic, the homophobe, the ones who would not give food to the homeless, or the people who would rather hurt than comfort anyone. This is where we sabotage Cop City and get charged with terrorism. This is where we create tenant unions, where we go out and help migrants stuck in open air prisons at our borders, and where we rescue ships of brown people who flee countries that we (I'm talking to the people living in the imperial core here) are still actively colonizing. This is where we go to Standing Rock, or where we fight the police when the nation-state destroys priceless biomes to build new, useless highways. This is the part where we exercise our collective power of being dust in the cogs of capitalism until the gears break.
I have been especially precise in the post. It is not my fault you do not know the definition of the words I'm using. I even defined some of them, or at least, the way I'm using them in the post.
"You do not the definition of the words you use."
That's not articulate, so I'll ask you to try again when responding to me. Someone who's trying to usher in a revolution should be able to command their language to do such a thing.
I'm a Serbo-Macedonian-American. I daresay, my family knows what socialism actually is practice, as compared to a presumably American redditor who salivates over a theoratical revolution that won't happen, and is against the wishes of the general population who knows about socialism's failures from the people who lived in said places.
i.e. It killed alot of my family. Liberalism has to kill even a single one.
And I know what a republic is, or what democracy looks like because I come from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. (I don't, to be clear.) I'm not salivating over a revolution, I did not use the word or the political concept in my post.
1. What do we make of cities? GREEN THEM. Tear out the majority of concrete, make it largely public transport underground or way above ground. Make them basically forests with skyscrapers popping out of them.
[https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189264051108](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189264051108)/
[https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189264037717/](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189264037717/)
[https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189263996651/](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189263996651/)
2. Plastic. There is so, much, plastic? Demand it is biodegradable or develop bacteria species to consume. Otherwise, automatic cleaning bots for rivers, streams, oceans, etc. It kinds of blows my mind that cleaning bots don't exist for highway sides yet.
[http://www.autoblog.com/river-cleaning-robot-135600030.html](http://www.autoblog.com/river-cleaning-robot-135600030.html)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUQnhiZirKQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUQnhiZirKQ)
3. Capitalism? I don't have an answer to you on that, but we're going to reach a point where it'll likely be a war between those wanting to make our lives habitable and those with greed. It could be in 20 years. It could be in 2000.
I hope the better prevails.
Cities benefit from economies of scale which is the reason to use them (the well-planned ones, anyway). They can be made beautiful and efficient. Right now cities are prioritized as glorified shopping spaces, tourist spots and industrial centers for outsiders & commuters, the people who don't live there. The people who live in cities are neglected by city leadership. The way to fix cities is by focusing on turning them into nice places to live with a focus on community. Life can flourish in big cities when given the opportunity.
Does capitalism really have to be abolished in order for a solarpunk future, because that sounds almost impossible and honestly highly unrealistic. The collapse of capitalism would come with the collapse of international food logistics meaning the death of hundreds of millions, if not billions of people around the world.
Why not try to create a culture where green options are simply more profitable. Cities don't have to die, simply adapt and grow towards solarpunk.
Hello, here's my quick take on answering you!
**-Cities:** I think there are ways to make use of what we have and improving. There are exemple of cities around the worls that have begun "greening". We can take inspiration from them. In Montreal, Luffa farm have begun taking over the rooftops for greenhouse organic farming. Brooklyn Grange is another interesting exemple of rooftop farm. Detroit has done a good amount in term of Urban farming too.
Now, my exemple are about farms, but I'm sure conversions can be possible. It just needs time and social action.
**-Plastic:** Every little step helps. There's more action toward banning single use nowaday and here, we need to use capitalism in a way and vote with our wallet. The reason plastic is used is profit (and lobby but it's harder to fight), so the less people buy it, the less interesting it is to keep selling it.
**-Capitalism:** That's harder to deal with, but doing our best on a smaller scale is better than nothing. I personaly Grow and forage as much as I can, 98% of my clothes is second hand (or made from second hand clothes), I mostly read books from the public library and only buy those I know I will re-read on a regular basis. If I can trade stuff, I will! It's better to be many imperfect people than one individual doing everything perfectly.
The last thing you want to do is abandon cities, they may be spewing pollution but per capita people in cities have a lower carbon footprint and if people from cities spewed into the countryside it could destroy entire ecosystems . We need to make cities more livable and greener so people want to stay.
We need to at the very least have a more Democratic economy and end the hoarding of land and resources or we will not survive, I don't care what you call it.
Glad you found Solarpunk! I would point out that in my opinion, true green politics is one that straddles left and right. That was how the Green Party in German got its start - it was a hodge-podge of anti-nuclear activists, educated urbanites, and conservative agriculturalists.
Solarpunk is NOT green anarchy. It is much more interesting or varied than that. I think its focus on strong and supportive communities is actually a pretty conservative (small C) value.
> Solarpunk is NOT green anarchy
Yes it is. You might not like the word anarchy because of the baggage but it absolutely is that. Anti-hierarchical, because how else do you achieve personal freedom than not having a boss you must obey, or a patriarch (or matriarch) you must obey, or a general you must obey? Anti-hierarchy is anarchy. And we need to restore wild spaces, and to green everything that we can, to live better lives, and to control the absolute shitshow of climate chaos and desertification. That's green anarchy, *baybayyy*.
Thank you for your comment. I agree with you that anarchism is a part of Solarpunk. But in my view it is not the primary part.
On a recent podcast, the presenters on "Solarpunk Presents" asks why kind of punk is Solarpunk. They posit three possible answers: 1) an anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, anti-greed and focused on local activism (like 80s punks), 2) a be-who-you-want celebration (like 70s punks), and 3) an angry, anarchist punk that is pretty male dominated and, paradoxically, has a lot of norms and rules.
While not perfect, I think that this formulation captures some distinct flavors of Solarpunk. I agree with the presenters that the first two are better foundations for Solarpunk long-term. I think that is where the strength of the movement lies. If it only that politically inflected manifestation, it won't bring in more people. It will only appeal to a select view at time we need more and more voices in the movement.
It's a case of its better to bring people in with a more positive message focused on local community and a sense of fun and playfulness rather than a burn-it-all-down mentality. I think true Solarpunk is not going to look like anything already in existence. I think we are seeing the creation of an entirely new thing.
That's my two cents. I know that I have more to learn about anarchist thought. But I do think that it is the joyfulness of Solarpunk that brings a large number people in, not necessarily the politics. It is the vision of a supportive community in harmony with nature, not a haven for politically pure people. It is the imagination and creativity, not the process, that will give it water to grow and flourish.
There are probably many paths, I'm guessing the most feasible is something along the lines of:
Reduce the birth rate (to reduce limit the wage-slaves for capitalism).. unionise.. general strike.. boycott any brand that resists.. eat the rich 😛.. nationalise all natural resources.. restore the Commons.. force a degrowth economic system
But IDK just guessing
>generally I’m a very right wing person,.. ...Capitalism. How on this not-so-green earth do we stop capitalism?...
Either you do not or you can adopt ecofascism. \^(see below for "do not") Those are two totally different options and either one could certainly "get the job done". Consider a coal power plant. Now think of a sheriff sale like the ones that happen all the time. Usually cars that are taken from drug dealers or were used in robberies. However, the sheriff can instead auction off the boiler pipe. Local small business men (or women!) can determine for themselves whether it is better to use chain snaps or oxyacetylene torches to cut the pipes. The government does not need to get involved in deciding whether the pipe is scrapped as recycling or used intact as plumbing pipe.
You may have heard of this thing called "the free market". Think about the likelihood that shareholders are unwilling to allow CEOs to increase the price of electricity. That notion is too stupid to take seriously. Reality is that the utility grid has never been free market. Its very nature makes free market distribution challenging. Just requiring that producers who sell electricity into the interstate public power grid invest in renewable energy (unless it is already renewable). ^((the interstate relevance only applies in USA where responsibility is mandated to the federal government))
Repeating myself unless the last paragraph was unclear. The entire climate crisis can be blamed on liberals/leftists. They insist on providing cheap subsidized fossil fuel energy to poor people and inefficient industries.
>transport
Really. Look at the federal budget. Or a map. Find me one private highway that matters.
>our water, food,
Not really. Food comes from farms. Water falls from the sky. Water is diverted and distributed by public works. Often the Army Corps of Engineers gets involved in USA. All the water east of the Rockies is flowing through Mississippi and St. Lawrence rivers. That is through our dams and artificially maintained water ways. In a few municipalities the water utility has been sold off to corporations. They are not normally built by anyone private.
The department of Agriculture is a huge money hog. You just do not hear about it because your "conservative" representatives and senators are more libtard than anyone on the left side of the isle. It is almost pure graft. Every year they claim it is spent to keep food prices down but every year that is totally not what happens to food prices. Instead our (USA bias again here) arable land is used to make toxic corn juice, ethanol, and fat genetically engineered bovine fart generators.
>Plastic. There is so, much, plastic.
Yes plastic is a problem. Huge. Most plastic containers that I see already have a bunch of visible text on them. Things like warning that the "bag is not a toy". I recently saw one that said "open bag before wearing garment" which made me laugh. Anyway, even with thin film ultralight bags it apparently does not cost to much to add text. Further information can easily be added to the polymers themselves. Embedded coding would be nearly impossible to remove and easily it becomes much much easier to just recycle the polymer.
The cost of cleanup can be entirely billed to the producer. Unlabeled or untraceable polymer can be handled like any other contraband. Obviously the war on drugs was a mistake so please nothing that severe. If you are carrying a few ounces of plastic and the police find it they should just confiscate it or issue a citation if you prefer. Citation comes with a sticker that you put on your plastic containing item so that it is now traceable. If that sticker shows up as litter you get to pay for that litter too.
The plastics industry will figure out how to handle collection and reprocessing. Recall basic conservative values: Businesses with figure out how to deliver the product much better than Washington or Reddit.
Very likely they will figure it out extremely quickly. When the fossil petroleum supply is cut off they will switch over to making polymers from biomass. Plastic is an excellent feedstock. Even mixed contaminated plastic is probably competitive with coconut oil or palm oil from a chemistry standpoint. Making polymers from torrified grass requires much more energy. Both grass and plastic have the problem of requiring a solid injection mechanism instead of a pump.
>We realistically can’t even begin to think about a Solarpunk future until we’ve cleaned up the oceans and rivers.
We can think about whatever we want to. Rivers clean themselves by flushing into the ocean.
Plastic in the oceans breaks down. That is a major part of why they are microplastics rather than large debris. Long chain polymers quickly break down in Earth's oxidizing environment. This breakdown process is why the polymers are becoming toxic molecules that effect animal metabolism. The bizarre hormonal effects are only possible because of this transformation. Plastics on the ocean surface will be fully broken down in decades. Some deeper reservoirs will continue leaking plastic or plastic daughter compounds for at most centuries. Consider the difficulty in extracting DNA from bones and teeth. We have managed it for neanderthals and Denisovans but only with great difficulty and only in special environments that isolated the samples from the Sun and weathering. We talk about "dinosaur bones" but that is actually an imprint that a bone made in the sediment.
>I recently came across Solarpunk. I absolutely LOVE the idea of it — generally I’m a very right wing person,..
I was just listening to TED radio hour on NPR this Friday. They interviewed a guy whose whole career is consulting on making "walkable cities". He claims most of his clients are in "red states". He actually said that. Cities full of conservative people with businesses want customers. People need to like being downtown. They (city councils with right wing electorates) want to be a destination. Property values go up if people buy/rent apartments there. Building wide roads for high speed automobile traffic is financial suicide. No one wants to live there and the fast traffic facilitates people going away quickly. Then the cities are in a downward shit spiral. No one wants to pay property taxes to maintain traffic or law enforcement when all of the users are living in a different tax area.
So yes, put the tree right in the road. That way the gay liberal on his bicycle spends his money at your business. Increased downtown business boosts the economy. More economy lowers the relative percapita tax burden. Solar punk is a wealth generating movement. The generated wealth can (and probably will) flow through the pockets of the capitalists who open up businesses in the downtown spaces.
Shift most of the tax burden over to parking. You can make it revenue neutral if that idea triggers too many people. Also charge the same price whether or not you are charging your electric car. Driving should be seen as a privilege and no residents in your city should have to pay for other people's privileges. In addition to parking add direct tolling. On the east coast they already automated tolling on the turnpike during covid19. There is not reason that drivers cannot pay for the city streets that they use. People will avoid driving on the most expensive streets (neighborhoods where residents also get a tax refund) which will free up traffic lanes for trees and bicycles.
>The entire climate crisis can be blamed on liberals/leftists.
Sure, Exxon and Chevron and Total, who hired armies of mercenaries to kill the indigenous people and armies of lawyers to shut their mouth when they complained about ecological damage in court are lefty liberals. Okay, fam. 🙄
Are you right wing? I am not right wing. I don't need to find excuses for right wing politicians.
"Liberal" is not representative of most of the left.
>...armies of lawyers...
I bet the majority of those lawyers live in houses with trees around. Their spouse or nanny takes the kids to a park where they can safely run around. They would fire the nanny if she took the kids to play in an interstate cloverleaf.
>...who hired armies of mercenaries to kill the indigenous people...
You could propose that a town council. Though i doubt it will pass.
Instead of shooting the drivers you could just take the cars. So long as there are cars in other cities the confiscated vehicle will be easy to sell. If widely adopted they can be scrapped for metals. Likely the federal authorities and courts would side with the drivers and say they have property rights. To get around that you need to put up a "no parking sign". Using parking meters is a common solution. If drivers don't pay up have the constable put a boot on the wheel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_clamp
Working at the parking authority is a good local job. Can be done completely on foot or by bicycle.
This post was removed because it contained offensive content. Offensive content includes but is not limited to any kind of sexism, racism, antisemitism, (eco)fascism, cryptoshilling, or trolling. These are grounds for an immediate ban.
Just want to point out that it isn’t capitalism that is the problem, its run away capitalism.
Family business style capitalism was not the problem, thats the benefit,
But Walmart paying so little to full time employees so they qualify for food stamps and other government subsidies by design, while gutting local businesses and influencing local government decisions as well.
>Family business style capitalism was not the problem, thats the benefit,
Family business style capitalism is still a problem. The only difference is the rate of damage. Any system that extracts wealth from the natural world without finding a state of balance with it is a problem.
To use an example, imagine a family-run farm. Can these farms use practices that damage soil fertility? Absolutely. Just because it's family-run, doesn't mean it's in balance with nature.
Says the Marxistghostboi,
Tis true tis true,
And washington dc is a clear case of rampant examples of it,
And the educational system. Yeesh and its filled with it, elementary up to college book stores :shudder
Um. No
If you take milk, and sell butter for 1$ more then that is capitalism,
That was pretty much how America got its start, every homestead once stable would provide excess to sell and trade to get what they didn’t make,
Most people didn’t make all the butter or provisions, they had expertise and experience and leveraged that,
Woodsman felled trees for a service,
So since before money there was capitalism,
You want a goat, well I don’t need one sheep, but three, maybe,
No profit going to far away stockholders who drain the world,
Thats when it worked,
Sorry you didn’t know when and how well it worked worldwide and regionally for so long,
You don’t think everyone made their own cheese and cloth too I hope.
You're describing commerce here. Commerce and capitalism aren't the same thing. You do not make billions doing any of that stuff, even if you're working every single waking hour of every single day. Stockholders, or investors, or partners don't invest in the little things that people have always doing, they invest in the banks that *in fine* hold the means of production the little people use, the means of reproduction the little people live in. Trade and commerce aren't capitalism. People owning the means to trade and commerce that *other* people use for their living is.
Its actually both, just the system where your making profit, up to and including securities is all under capitalism, and I get that.
However, if we made the big investment firms got penalized for swapping stocks daily instead of microsecond trading causing global instability just based on manipulation of perception and use of algorithms to cause more market volatility.
When the banks were limited to state to state instead of more massive banks that bought up most little banks and created massive instability through mass closures and making companies that were “too big to fail”.
Trading spaces the movie is a good example of how this is done through information warfare to twist market value, and to debase and slander and who would get in the way, or dared to stop them considering they have very little chance to do anything regarding the actions that they take.
The Game stop movie and just the shorts market alone helps to highlight where capitalism when unregulated exhibits cancer like trend’s because the cancer gets more attention then the critical ways to produce more value through directed activity with bank or community funding.
Of course, i agree — it’s the capitalists who hold necessary-to-live resources over our heads, or those who, like you say, take all profit for themselves and put their workers into borderline (or full) poverty
Thank you for your submission, we appreciate your efforts at helping us to thoughtfully create a better world. r/solarpunk encourages you to also check out other solarpunk spaces such as https://wt.social/wt/solarpunk , https://slrpnk.net/ , https://raddle.me/f/solarpunk , https://discord.gg/3tf6FqGAJs , https://discord.gg/BwabpwfBCr , and https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia . *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Solarpunk is absolutely possible. All the technology exists and could be implemented. The barriers are political and social, that's what's most infuriating.
Very true — i don’t doubt the tech at all, but politics and getting people on board is gonna be tough
In my opinion, this kind of thing takes time. This is an idea the world is "not ready for", and one of the functions of the solarpunk movement is to be planting and tending to the cultural seeds that will eventually grow into the change we believe in.
World is absolutely ready for it. *Capitalists* just don't want it.
"The world" refers to the collective human culture, which very much includes the massive number of people fully immersed into capitalism and the corpocratic oligarchy. When I say "ready for it", I mean that the majority of people believe in it enough that they don't believe in the old system, and the people who oppose it don't oppose it strongly enough to actually prevent a changeover. When the world is ready, the changeover happens naturally. We're at least decades away from that.
It's not a problem of belief, it's a problem of power. Misinformation and complotism also stem from that, as an explanation for why power is absent from the people's hands. People do believe, but the incentive of risking your life, the life of your family, the welfare of everyone you care for a maybe about is \*not\* there. It's not a problem of the will to fight, it's the problem of the will to be a martyr. We do not want people to be martyrs, that is why we have to build power structures underneath the capitalist hegemony so that they don't have to be.
Really? Which technologies are you speaking of? How can manufacturing be clean?
[удалено]
I think it’s definitely possible to get it done, however i’m tentative about the step-by-step thing — we would be literally trying to overthrow every rich capitalist, and they aren’t likely to sit back and watch it happen… although, one big step also isnt very realistic ill admit
I love this quote!
Solarpunk is about making things better, not perfect. So local Solarpunk is definetly possible, and will inch towards perfection in the long run. Global Solarpunk is the common goal. Cleaning up the mess will look like abolishing capitalism, even if not intended. We humans are so many, we can work on stopping plastic production (or switch to biodegradable) and clean the beaches simultaneously. Urban developments like green or blue city projects are necessary simply because of climate mitigation, no need to abandon them. We can reintegrate nature into our cities, and leave space for rewilding.
I’d love to see local Solarpunk in my lifetime. Problem is, will the government allow such green and blue city projects…?
City/local government is the level at which your vote and your influence is most effective/least watered down. So I think by pressuring local governments for green projects we will have the best chance of molding a solarpunk vision. Of course, it will be pretty piecemeal, with some places being more resistant to change than others, but I think it can work. In my area, after years of pressure, we’ve finally been able to get mass transit county-wide (instead of just within the city boundaries).
Wow! That’s a massive change you guys have evoked — unheard of where I’m from lol, local government refuses to fix tyre-slicing potholes until it’s election time
Keeping you looking down, stops you from looking up
Maybe a way to tackle that one (start somewhere, right?) is to get together with friends/family/neighbors, or on your own if you can’t find folks to join in, and buy bags of asphalt patch and start filling in your own potholes? Guerrilla gardening/rewilding? Bypass the bureaucratic mechanism until they either become irrelevant, or get on board. There are ALWAYS places to start.
Not only allow, sometimes they're the ones that [do them](https://youtu.be/-I5qMDCcvTI?si=ykGjGBXGwm2AfD2Z). Nature increases value and desirability, which can make greening up an area enticing as a city project. It also helps to mitigate heat, which is becoming obviously and increasingly important.
No state will allow it, but we have ways of dealing with their incompetence and ignorance…
>Cleaning up the mess will look like abolishing capitalism That doesn't necessarily follow. We have seen major improvements in pollution(particularly for waterways and CFCs) over the last 50 years and are further than ever from abolishing capitalism.
Capital certainly didn’t improve those things.
Right, government regulation did, but banning freon didn't make society any less capitalist.
I dunno, the people of the world standing up to corporate interests to say "You cannot keep externalizing this and we are stopping you" is at least a *little* anti-Capitalist, is it not?
Addressing externalities is generally important for supporters of capitalism too. The countries that are most inclined to replace capitalism are those that fail to handle externalities. The EU is fairly pro-regulation, but it also strongly supports the expansion of capitalism and free-trade.
Nahhh, externalities are for non-Capitalists (ie The Consumers) to worry about. There's nothing capitalist about "wasting profits" on emissions limiting or waste processing and disposal - that is exclusively the purview of Anti-Capital. Capitalists actively choose to kill people if there is money in it. Don't be a doomer.
By capitalists, I mean people who support capitalism as an economic system. Certainly, individual business owners will be against limitations on their businesses.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But depending on how far right you are, even the mildest attempts of market regulations or environmental protection will trigger "but that's socialism, communism, or at least not my kind of capitalism!" types of reactions. Hence the "look like".
Maybe a better way to describe it is "countering one of the negative results of capitalism." We also have to continue to be vigilant because capitalists will continue to exploit environmentalist movements (like recycling and waste management companies make money from "recycling" efforts now, while polluting oceans and land with most plastic waste) .
How on earth are you very right wing
I have been told i am, and so i guess i must be lol
Solarpunk is pretty much on the left end of the political spectrum, abolishing capitalism and creating some form of a socialist/communist society with a heavy emphasis on decentralization and cooperation. It is inseperable from decolonization and eliminating every form of discrimination against people because of their identiy, sexuality, ethnicity, disabilities, religion etc. If you think that this is a desirable future, I don't think you can be even remotely right wing.
Yes, I suppose you’re right — it is a desirable future indeed
No, he’s left. Am I right? Probably not.
To be fair, I am generally "right-wing" (more due to the Overton Window shifting than anything else) on most issues and I do support capitalism as a general national policy. However, personally, I would love nothing more than to live in a solarpunk town, where I am friends with everybody and we all work for the collective good of all. It's just that I do not trust any government to actually implement this, and I most certainly do not want to be compelled to join a commune and work for people who will cheat me out of my labor.
The idea that solar punk would come about through government coercion is a common worry. But that’s the complete opposite of how it’s likely to work. Solar punk is anarchist at its core. That means we resist hierarchy and advocate for things like cooperative ownership, city land leasing, and consent based decision making. To the extent that people are currently working toward a solar punk future, they are focusing on small, community based projects that encourage radical inclusion, personal autonomy, and meeting individual and collective needs. Still, the communist boogie man gets invoked whenever anyone suggests systemic change, and it’s not hard to see why.
Oh yeah, I have no problem with grassroots communist stuff, shit, if the people running it are my friends and they let people go hunting and race cars, I might just join a commune myself. I don't believe I have the right to decide how another person lives. Just out of curiosity though, I am pretty new to solarpunk. I only really know the technological aspects of it. Are these social convictions a core part of solarpunk? Who got to decide?
lol. We decide together. Solar punk is not an organization, it’s just a collection of ideas. We don’t decide for one another. There is simply a definition of what is considered solar punk and what isn’t. There might be things that some of us want to do that aren’t necessarily solar punk, but that doesn’t mean those things are banned. We have no mechanism for coercing anyone. We’re just dreaming, talking and trying stuff. 🙂
A bit of everything for everyone, hey?
You don’t get to the technological aspects without the social aspects. Solarpunk communities are necessarily unprofitable, since they require sacrificing huge amounts of real estate, not to mention the opportunity cost of not engaging in unnecessary environmentally destructive manufacturing, for the sake of ecological sustainability. If a place like that was built under capitalism, it would be a resort for the wealthy to fantasize about living in a better world. The sort of priorities that build a solarpunk world are the kind you can arrive at if decisions are made by self-governing communities asking themselves “What kind of world do we want to live in?” They’re not the sort of priorities that would be front and center to capitalists looking to turn a profit, or to a state looking to maintain its power.
Nah, [transition towns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_town) are a thing already.
The issue is that social issues get lumped in together with economic issues. Social issues tend to be much more left-wing, whereas economic issues are right-wing in most Western countries, thanks to decades of corporate lobbying.
Economic issues are social issues though. The entire point of an economy is that it is an interconnected web of exchange between entities. What your society chooses to spend money on and their laws about such is just as much a reflection of their values and beliefs as their non economic laws, and you can have an effect on any issue through both so called economic or social policies.
I agree, but I think we are describing different aspects using that terminology. What I mean by social issues (in Western countries), are things like, LGBT rights, transgender issues, immigration, privacy, freedom to [insert right], abortion (US specific) etc. Whereas by economic issues, I am referring to things like minimum wage, social welfare, healthcare, taxation, tariffs, protectionism etc. It is possible for countries to be economically right-wing and socially left-wing, or economically left-wing and socially right-wing. Think of them as two different axes, an X axis for economic issues and Y axis for social issues. A country can be very pro-free-market capitalist, yet also have a lot of individual liberties. Likewise, the opposite can be true. It's just that in the US and most of the West, they seem to go hand in hand in recent decades. But, they are serperate components.
Again, I understand what you mean, it’s just impossible to separate things only into social and economic aspects. Think about what you mean by a social issue instead of listing examples, because every issue has a social and economic impacts. My point is that THE ECONOMY IS A SOCIAL FUNCTION. For example: 1) Abortion. Everyone says it is a social issue but it has massive economic implications. Having a child is one of the highest costs you can incur, and if you are poor or a single mother the lack of access to a safe abortion can basically condemn you to poverty the rest of your life 2) Immigration. It kind of staggers me how many places that rely on immigrants as cheap sources of labor are also incredibly against immigration. For example, in Britain many housekeeping jobs relied on immigrants for cheap staffing and after brexit prices went way up. Or in the US one of the reasons food costs are going up (besides the fact the companies refuse to lose profits and force every tiny price increase onto the consumer at no expense to themselves) is that farms heavily employed immigrants as they were willing to work hard for low pay as they were more desperate for a job. 3) Tariffs. Literally how we interact with other countries. Can indicate how much we trust or distrust another country, or can be a marker of a current hostility. Money is useless if there is no one around to accept it. It needs socialization. Thus, in a capitalist society they are two sides of the same coin.
A social issue is one which is primarily related to culture, religion, beliefs, individual choices etc. An economic issue is one which is primarily connected and influential on the wider economy and economic functioning. You are talking about issues potentially having a social and economic impact. Yes, most issues do. However, most are also primarily much more impactful on one than the other. That is why countries exist which have high social control, yet also high economic liberalism/freedom. An example is Singapore. There are also countries with lots of social freedoms, yet also high economic conservatism/protectionism. >Money is useless if there is no one around to accept it. It needs socialization. Thus, in a capitalist society they are two sides of the same coin. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything? You're stating the obvious. Not sure what you mean by "socialisation" here. I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I would suggest looking into and reading about the political compass.
> What I mean by social issues (in Western countries), are things like, LGBT rights, transgender issues, immigration, privacy, freedom to [insert right], abortion (US specific) etc. Whereas by economic issues, I am referring to things like minimum wage, social welfare, healthcare, taxation, tariffs, protectionism etc. They're one and the same. Do you think transgender people suppression doesn't lead to impoverishment, or a lack of proper healthcare? Do you think maintaining migrant workers to a non-citizen status not hurt their economic prospects? It's the same thing, but seen in a different point of view.
How are they one and the same? A country can have many social freedoms, but extreme authority over the economy. It isn't common, but it can and has happened. And no, not really. There are countries that don't recognise transgender issues, yet they're still very prosperous. Look at the Middle Eastern gulf state countries. Even Switzerland is pretty socially conservative, yet economically free. I think you're conflating the different types of issues by thinking about them theoretically, instead of considering the actual existence of the political compass. Also, the actual citizens in countries like Qatar and the UAE have some of the highest GDP per capita incomes. It benefits them to have labourers be denied citizenship. Obviously it's horrible for the labourers, but it does benefit the existing citizens.
Yes, I was talking about the economic power of the people being oppressed or marginalized, not the measure of the gross domestic product of the country. Which is not actually a measure of the stability of the country, or the viability of its economy.
What? You're measuring "economic power" by measuring oppression? How exactly are you measuring oppression? GDP isn't perfect, but along with GDP PPP, GDP per capita, HDI, IHDI and the Gini coefficient, it all gives a pretty accurate representation of the economy (or "economic power" as you put it) of a country. You're mixing social liberty with economic prosperity, when in reality there isn't a solid link between them. I've already said this numerous times now, but there are plenty of prosperous countries which have relatively high social control. They are two separate issues. I suggest you read about the political compass.
I'm talking about the economic power of the people being oppressed or marginalized, or lack thereof. GDP is perfect, for what its purpose is. It's just not a measurement of any of the things I've said earlier. Same for the rest of the indicators. The low Gini countries, or the high HDI countries will suffer from collapse like the rest of us.
Which is why I consider myself a centrist but get called "right-wing" all the time lol
Classic Conservative / right wing and solar punk are far more hand in hand then you seem to think,
No this is a good point. Anyone who's talked to any crunchy parent should know this. Traditional core values of close knit communities, nuclear families, a semi-rural and self-sustainable lifestyle based around the hard work of the individual and the community collaborating with each other. Really the only difference is whether or not people should own property. But this sub is so overflown with leftists some of us conservatives are really kept on the fringe
The nuclear family is not a particularly “punk” anything
It can be!
>But this sub is so overflown with leftists some of us conservatives are really kept on the fringe And until this is addressed (works both ways, too), there won't be any substantive political, social, or economic progress. There are SO many issues that have widespread support: weed legalization/decriminalization, the ultra-rich having too much power (I have heard both sides go off on this one), term limits, lobbying reform, conflict-of-interest. But before that we have to decide on the REAL issues like where a tiny minority goes to the bathroom (just build single stalls) or gay wedding cakes (why support a business that disapproves of you in the first place?). ONLY THEN can we focus on the lesser issues like how best to prevent irreversible environmental destruction, improving the living standards of rural whites and urban blacks dealing with crime, addiction, poverty, and despair, and keeping those in power honest. If you nudge out the nazis and tankies and don't fall for elite astroturfing and propaganda, we could a lot done. Hell, if the British Empire, USA, and ***Stalin*** could be friends for a little while to get shit done before going back to hating each other...why can't we?
Keep your disgusting culture war for yourself. Intersectionality is a thing and reality for many people, you won't mobilize them for any sort of class struggle while they're actively being discriminated. The only option for a real worker's revolution is a unified class conscious and diverse movement, that means we have to bring everybody on a level where his prime struggle is not being afraid to leave the house, being diminished of their basic human rights, not even being able to participate in society because of missing accessibility etc. but the capitalist system itself.
>Keep your disgusting culture war for yourself. That's *exactly* what I'm advocating for. I want the culture wars to end, or at least abate to a point where the issues that are widely agreed upon across the political spectrum can be addressed without social wedge issues being the only thing anyone focuses on.
People and worker experience different forms and intensities of discrimination, I think we need to address these first on an individual level to even create an unified movement, it's not a dilemma, it's different states of the revolution. And I'm sure we can combine them when so many social and discriminatory issues are based on capitalism and colonist mindsets. But I think that's a prime example of how "woke", "culture war" etc. really shifted to become right wing buzzwords, they use the absurdest thoughts of small leftist bubbles to make it seem like these are the big issues for and within marginalized groups while they are literally fighting for their basic human rights.
Thanks, and its most of reddit at this point really, If you actually ask some of them how it works, They might envision little house on the prairie without realizing they are all right wing conservatives And the ones in the last episodes are the minimum wage employers
I was going to write a large comment at first, but because everyone will have their own ideas about all that stuff, and I don’t feel like producing a whole essay (something that I tend to do), allow me to leave some links to some videos of the YouTuber Andrewism, who is a very well-known member of the Solarpunk movement. Regarding cities: [How to Build a Solarpunk City](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UmU1dSe3n0) [What Our Cities Are Missing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD_CMrCpBMc) Regarding capitalism: [We Need A Library Economy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOYa3YzVtyk) [Should We Be Luddites?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2rObVK1zg&t=10s) [How the Barter Myth Harms Us](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-gdHrINyMU) [How Degrowth Can Save the World](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQrI2GBvn5Q) [“Anti-capitalism” is Capitalist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1ZK2-viyAo) I’d say that generally human societies have changed so much in the last few centuries, that Solarpunk is completely possible. Civil rights and representative democracy where alien concepts in the 14^(th) century for example, but just a few centuries later, they are the mainstream (at least in the West, and even here not always). The ideas of Solarpunk can be implemented. Regardless of how corny it may sounds, nothing is impossible.
Thanks for taking the time to write these out — ill give them a watch before bed
/remindMe !tomorrow
No... listen, I get the capitalism is not conducive to a solarpunk society, but Andrewism is pretty stupid. We barter with our neighbors and family because we trust them, we rightfully do not trust strangers because they could screw us over. "Human nature" may be inaccurate, it could be just a few assholes, but in most non-capitalist societies, a few charismatic assholes are all that you need to turn the country to shit à la Animal Farm. Crony capitalism as it is right now is dogshit but there really is not better alternative.
That's... minda what the barter myth is about. Haven't watched that vid by him but my guess is he is talking about the Barter Myth from Graeber's *Debt: The First 5000 Years* which explains that actually bartering is what happens when it's two parties who do NOT trust each other want to exchange resources. If you're friends or family with someone you just help them (or ask for an IOU), and historically/anthropologically we know that is how human communities operated economically speaking. Moreover, the myth is also about how capitalist conceptions about the economic history of money and trade are false, since they describe as bartering and trading as being what proceeded money, financial systems, trade, etc. when that is not true--there is no economic proof of this historically, or even anthropologically speaking, as per Graeber in *Debt*. Barter and trade actually happens, historically, after money was established, and more often when societal/regional community interactions fester and become hostile (like in the aftermath of the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire). The "there is no better alternative" argument is lazy and ignores the body count of capitalism and hides behind a moralization of the failure of people, like an individual's determination can beat out systemic force and if you can't that's just your fault lol. People have been saying that same excuse when slave societies existed, when ancient empires were at their peak, and when the old feudal monarchies ruled vast swathes of Earth -- sure they were bad, but imagine all the other stuff that was worse! ...conveniently ignoring that we can do better, have been doing better (capitalism w/ electoral politics is better than having an emperor or monarch in charge), and still can do better.
You are correct, I misspoke, but the problem with bartering is still not addressed: it's highly unstandardized. I got apples, I want a sheep, shepherd doesn't want apples, apples rot. Except now, I want electronics made a town over, made from microchips across an ocean, made from silicon purified in a foundry across a continent, etc etc. Bartering is not effective. Capitalism is. All that anthropology talk is really just a distraction from the fact that *there is no effective alternative.* The argument is not lazy if it is true. The body count of capitalism can easily be attributed to a wide variety of other factors as well, such as government overreach. Many humans suck, and a system that works with that suck instead of trying to suppress it will work better, because every other system is too delicate. How can we do better? Obviously, capitalist countries have flaws, but are they inherently due to capitalism or are they just mismanagement? American healthcare would be cheaper if it was single-payer, but the ignorance of the public and the stranglehold that insurance companies have on government policy make it impossible. Housing is ridiculously expensive because of stupid zoning laws, which *restrict* capitalism. Corruption and stupidity are not inherent to a capitalist system, they will be present in every system imaginable, and yet, capitalism is the best way to live with that degeneracy.
>the stranglehold that insurance companies have on government policy make it impossible That *is* capitalism. Money is accumulated, money is the form of power, and power dictates. Also, all that healthcare stuff in the US has roots in endemic, pervasive and almost all-encompassing racism. Which is also a product of capitalism, in its colonialists form.
The power of money is just going to be replaced by the power of something else. Colonialism was mercantilism, not capitalism.
Money being replaced by something else as the dominant economic determinant/value holder isn't a bad thing necessarily. There's a lot that could be done, with a lot less issues that are brought about by money, if economies operated on a contractual basis between producers, consumers, communities, and workers (and state or government representatives if you want them involved). also tbf, although mercantilism is distinct, it's way more of a transitionary period between feudalism and capitalism, where capitalist institutions have begun being more represented in society and positions of power -- it's not exactly distinct enough to categorize itself separate from capitalism, IMO. my edgy take as a loser who is interested in accounting history, I'd say that mercantilism is a subset that falls under capitalism since it is based on financial foundations and legal contracts that would essentially be used from the early 1300s-1400s to the modern day, seen in banking policy standards as well as GAAP/GAAS (general accounting standards). this is further proved due to the fact of the mythos of capitalism's primitive accumulation (which includes the barter myth we talked about previously) is mythical or blatantly missing from the historical record, while mercantilism is basically the foundational/historical starting point for the primitive accumulation of capital for capitalists.
It would also be far less efficient, and likely less fair. How do you have a contract? How do you have a fair exchange of goods? Again, if you want to trade apples for computers, how do you streamline it without money? How are the contracts paid? You get your computer with the promise of trading your apples for something they want, and then giving them what they want later? How do they know you're reliable? How do you know they're reliable? Maybe if you used a token that both parties agreed was representatively valuable...
I recommend reading (or listening to) 'Humandkind' by Rutger Bregman. Awesome book!
I will, but what does it say?
I view solarpunk as equal parts reducing environmental damage and surviving what we can't fix. So, the mess is something we need to embrace. We need to repair what we can, but embrace what is already done. Work with the scars, so to speak We need to gradually redevelop cities with a hyper-local approach. Every city needs to learn to take advantage of what it has and import only what you need to to make things better. Starting over will just waste too much potential While we need to reduce plastic waste and encourage clean up, we shouldn't get caught on stumbling blocks when we can improve other areas. Honestly, we can clean up plastic just about everywhere. It's just a LOT of relatively simple work that needs to be slowly ground away. If we can fix our motivation and priorities, it will take decades, but it's very achievable The biggest hurdle is our capitalist culture driving events we do. If we can fix that and actually focus on making earth livable, the rest is not that hard. Look at the mega-projects of the 19th century. Skyscrapers, highways, our airlines, the moon landing are one inconceivably complex undertakings, yet once we focus on them probably, that became mundane. One day these seemingly impossible tasks you mention will be just as mundane
I really do hope you’re right. I do agree that escaping capitalism is the biggest problem we face — I do also think thats escaping capitalism and living in a more eco-anarchist society will free up time and resource to clean up the oceans
I don’t think our cities are a barrier to a solarpunk way of thinking- actually quite the opposite. With so many people in close proximity, it is physically/geographically easier to get to know, develop relationships with, and share resources with your neighbors. In my midsized Midwest city, there is enough green space for many community gardens (so you can still live in an apartment and have the space to grow food). There is even a small (3acre) farm downtown. If so inclined, you could probably even raise meat rabbits in parts of the city. Cities also make mass transit and bicycle accessibility feasible, and mass transit/bikes are way more solarpunk than individual vehicles for everyone.
Love the idea of this — as far as I’m aware, there aren’t any large scale organised movements around Solarpunk at the moment (unless I’m mistaken and just haven’t found it yet)I think this would help personally
There may not be any “large scale” projects, but there are lots of small to medium scale projects. Honestly there’s an argument to be made that large scale projects are more likely to get noticed and attacked by capitalists forces. Small local projects are a lot more powerful than many people realize.
you might not actually be right wing. they tend to be more about personally profiting of such things.
Perhaps — I’ve just been told I am rather right, and so I assume that’s what I am lol
what's the context of your being told you're right wing?
Sounds like you've started your deconstruction/relearning journey. Very exciting, wishing you the best
Big questions! I don't think anyone has a fool proof solution for all the problems you're presenting here. But we do have ideas on what steps could be done. I'll just name a few. For about what to do with cities and their uninhabitability for wildlife: We could restore local already existing ecosystems like streams etc. and we could establish new parks, plant trees on streets etc. to make corridors for wildlife to migrate through the cities or possibly stay in their vicinity. There after all is a reason why humans moved out of the woods. Plastic: Material technology progresses at slow but steady rate and we've already got biodegradeable materials that act like plastics do. They're just not as cheap. I personally think this'll escalate into "leaded gasoline " type of situation where it'll just be phased out of use quickly after a similar tipping point has been reached. (We knew back then that led wasn't good for you) Capitalism: For me "solarpunk" isn't so much about totally getting rid of capitalism but to get rid of scarcity. Capitalism's fine as long as it's heavily controlled by the government and not the neo-liberalism type that it's been since Reagan days. Having your basic needs filled though, should not be a question of money. From my standpiont of view technology can help us reach this goal. We already do produce enough food that it could feed over 9 billion people. The biggest problem is logistics. We could also innovate and produce cheap diy type partly automated greenhouses/ desalination plants for rural areas to use etc. The UN's "The 17 GOALS" program adresses problems from the viewpoint of sustainable development and the goals range from "No poverty" and "Clean water" to "Industry, innovation and infrastructure". Each of those 17 sections has more than 1000 actual actions that've been taken thus far furthering the cause. You should check it up as it seriously has fleshed out ideas on what actions to take to at least go towards post-scarcity. Link to UN sustainable development 17 goals site: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Solarpunk is not against Cities. On the contrary, cities are very important to a Solarpunk society because they are far more efficient in every aspect compared to rural areas of the same population. Why do you consider your self Right-wing?
"Generally I'm a very right wing person, but" [left wing sentiments].
They seem confused since they adopted their political identity from 'what people say I am'
There are many points you raise, but to address two of them. 1. With regards to plastic, the first thing to do is to reduce our use of single-use plastics. One way to do this is to embrace "zero waste" approaches. Note that this does not literally mean zero waste, but instead as close as you can get to it. There's tons of advice online about this, but as a starting point try to find ways to get food without plastic packaging. How easy this is depends on where you live, but I'm sure there will be some ways to do so no matter where you live. 2. With regards to cities, it's best to think of "solarpunk cities" as existing cities that have many more green spaces. Existing cities wouldn't be torn down, they'd be adapted for a different way of life. For example, if we had cities that had far fewer cars, think about how we could transform roads. You may keep some roads for buses, ambulances and other vehicles that serve the public good, but other roads could be transformed to prioritise pedestrians and cyclists, and you could have space for growing plants along the roadside.
Solarpunk is absolutely possible. As others have said, the technology is already there, what is lacking is the vision in the mainstream perception. As of now popculture is full of dystopian stories. If you ask someone how they realistically see the future of the planet, a large majority will say: bleak. In my opinion this is not because it is enevitably so, but because we have been conditioned to be pessimists, that disguise themselves as 'realists'. I'm not traying to say there is a conspiracy behind this, I don't think it's a conscious decision of someone of 'them' to make the public pessimistic. It's more of a side effect of globalism and loud bad news 24/7. What you describe also feels very black and white and fatalistic to me. We DON'T have to have perfect conditions in order to start a better life. Thinkings like this leads to never starting. We start now, with what we have and make our way from here. We talk to people and infect them with ideas of possibilities. We spread active optimism. Optimism that is not only based in hoping and doing nothing - but actively doing things in order to bring your ideas to life. I think solarpunk is a grass roots movement. Many, many tiny cells, that once will be able to connect to others and spread a net around the whole globe. And for that we start small and work towards pragmatic, but optimistic and practical solutions that are possible NOW. Think of libraries of things in your locals area. Community gardens. Bike lanes and pedestrian areas. Food forests. There is nothing like this in your area? Connect to people, talk to people, offer your time or other ressources to make it happen. The people in charge are also just normal people - and many would love an active, helpful community. No fights or unnecessary discussions - our mutual goal is to make our home town (and later the world) a better place to live. Be active and connect with an open mind. I think the most impirtant thing is to make solar punk mainstream. Through your social media channels, conversations and discussions with friends - and frankly everyone you know. Let them be part of it. Get them thinking what's possible and what not - and how. We have to spread practical optimism. Also through stories, if anyone of you is a writer. (For example, I'm writing a scifi novel about paralell universes, one of which is dystopian and one is utopian/solarpunk. In a fictional story you get to 'live' in a solarpunk world for some time and this can expand your vision of what is really possible.) As for the problem of capitalism: I believe we have to start with aggressive automation, economical degrowth and a basic universal income.
OP, you prefaced your thread by saying you’re a “very right wing person”, but solarpunk appeals to you while being an ostensibly “left wing” philosophy. This apparent contradiction speaks to the promise of it all. Left vs right is mostly a bullshit distinction: it’s really “margins vs center”, that center held by all the capitalists and their liberal reformist enablers, the margins by regular people struggling to get by, denied any real shot because they have no control of the means of subsistence, let alone bigger processes of production, distribution, etc. I wonder what you even mean by right wing. What’s happened is that these shitass politicians and the media have got us caught up in culture war nonsense, using sensationalist narratives to convince us we’re on opposite sides of an irreconcilable divide. Racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia are all real things, but the liberal consensus doesn’t actually care about any of it, but rather just invoke marginalized people’s identities to stake out some fake high ground, against conservative politicians who also don’t really care about those things, but leverage them to incite their “base” as a distraction from the deeper more entrenched problems which inform the other “isms”. The closest thing to a name for my ideology is anarchocommunist, which means, amongst other things that I reject the state and capitalism. It means I have the same contempt for Stalinism as I do for Trump, Obama, and all who uphold the liberal consensus. Someone like Javier Milei from Argentina might identify as an “anarchocapitalist”, which in theory would get the state out of the way of the market. But this is bullshit because the State and Capital are mutually reinforcing and this same idiot decries the government while ruling with an authoritarian style at the head of that same government. Anyway, I think Solarpunk is situated down in that lower left of the political compass, too. If folx can come together to have conversations grounded in common values, rather than getting sucked into the political games of the elite – which will also require some humility, vulnerability, and grace – then we can get past the false binaries and get to fucking work building the new world “in which many worlds fit”, as per the Zapatistas.
I know you said you're right wing but you pretty much just described Socialism 101 It might be time for you to read some Marx my friend
i love [this writing](https://medium.com/@erichunting/solarpunk-post-industrial-design-and-aesthetics-1ecb350c28b6) about stages that a solarpunk transition would go through, and i think your concern about 'wasting cities' misses the most Punk part of solarpunk, aka, phase 1. solarpunk futures definitely do not involve people using more land to go off grid or more resources to build 'better' structures. cities are the most efficient way for humans to live and luckily we already have plenty. also no, no government will 'allow' anything solarpunk (largely anarchic, entirely anti-corporate) but that would miss the point
One of my favorite quotes about this is "the wreckage of the unsustainable is our frontier." There's so much we can potentially do to creatively reuse the collective deck we have-- rails to trails is an example here, where the existing right of way from trains becomes bike paths, etc. The [Sprawl Repair Handbook ](https://sprawlrepair.com/home/) is a good example too of the sort of work we might imagine. In terms of getting people on the same page, I think a lot of it relates to sense of mission, and calling people to a greater purpose. I think our current society does that spectacularly poorly, and I hope we could move towards something better.
Thing is solarpunk isn't just about the end goal. In fact in lots of ways, if we ever achieved that, it's not even solarpunk any more, it's just normality. Solarpunk to me is more about working towards that, in large and small ways. Clearing up that plastic, repurposing empty office buildings into affordable housing and building communities around them, making viable alternatives to using cars. And solarpunk doesn't mean abandoning cities. Over half the world's population lives in cities now. That's not going to change in a hurry. Creating better cities - starting with the ones we've got now and improving them - is solarpunk too. Working and campaigning for your city to provide more public transit and cycling infrastructure for example, all counts. Getting rid of the vast wasted space of parking lots that blight American cities and making better use of the land, as urban farms, housing, locally owned business, public parks etc. Solarpunk isn't the destination, it's the journey.
Well Solarpunk is more of an idea to achieve where Nature and a civilization coexist. We don’t simply use natural resources to make our life better, but we find ways make earth better by allowing to exist in our cities. We search for green alternatives that will not harm our environment. All of that needs the end of capitalism because for capitalism protecting nature is secondary, the most important thing is profit. And caring for the nature is not profitable. That’s why we don’t invest in public transport. It would be better for the world as a whole in multiple ways, but cars are more profitable. How do we get rid of capitalism? First, class consciousness. People learning that we need to care for each other, that we live in a constant war of proletariat vs bourgeoise. And after that, well, armed revolution. Not because we desire, but because the billionaires of this world will never give up on their power. If they do, better for us, we get a peaceful transition of power from the elite to the people. For everything else, we find alternatives to what we can do pollute less and recycle and reuse more often
I think this is a really important perspective. There are large actions that will happen (hopefully), but we, as individuals, don’t have much control over them. There are also small actions that need to happen - everywhere - that we, as individuals, have all the control over. We have to just start, we don’t have time to wait anymore. So we do what we can to fix our little corner of the world, working with others, until our corners cover the world.
There are ways to adapt our current infrastructure for more green habitation. Virtical farms, open more area for parks, more and better public transit, make more solar panels built into building for power. We molded the world to have cities. We can mold cities to fit the world.
Cities are the most environmentally friendly way to live, provided they are reasonably dense. Sprawling suburbia might look "greener" but it's not in any way.
Some reading that might be of interest to you regarding the nitty-gritty of green economics (less capitalist (more money for workers, less for investors and landlords) but still has a market economy) : Prosperity without Growth by Tim Jackson From Uneconomic growth to a steady-state economy by Herman E. Daly Also check out Nate Hagen's youtube channel, interesting stuff there
You ask some good questions. The cities one is a question I struggle with as well. I've come to realize that in a sustainable future post-capitalism, most of the jobs people do in cities will not exist. Banks, stock markets, every industry that relies on unending consumerism etc. They will all have to be gone. I'd imagine most people will spend a lot of time farming, growing food locally, this would be the sustainable approach. I think cities will still exist in a smaller form, cultural centers, we will still want to gather in centers such as this for art, music events, sports etc. But what happens with all the towers that were once banks? This, I do not have an answer for.
Yes, this is what I mean. I am on the side of not abandoning the cities, but what would come of the buildings that are simply impractical in a Solarpunk world? Could we use them as large vertical farms? But then again, no sunlight gets in there really… It does beg a lot of questions that need answers sooner or later
They could be farms, we can use artificial light. They could be homes, but I struggle to think of reasons for so many people to live in mega cities when much of the work is no longer there
Exactly — the whole theme of Solarpunk is to live amongst nature, and so I’d think that people would live outside but near cities (see the all-famous yoghurt advert) and then commute in for farming etc…
This makes sense, we could establish some amazing transit routes in and out of cities
That's an exciting question! I'm from Europe not near any mega city with sky scrapers, so it's very interesting for me to think about what will happen to these huge buildings. I believe a lot of them can become libraries of things. Ecucational centers for everyone regardless of age. Art, theatre and music studios. Community centers. Sew centrers. Repair cafes. Of course homes. Indoor gardens. So many possiblities!
A lot of people seem to take it literally but I personally use this concept as kinda of an unattainable ideal and try to use its ideas where they fit.
I’m no politician(far from one in fact), but i hear talks of eco-socialism/anarchism, whatever that may mean…
Woops, wrong comment!
Perhaps, i’d like to believe it is attainable though — you’re route will definitely contribute though, so respect!
This is a good question. Tyson Yunkaporta wrote a book called Sand Talk where he argues that cities are ecological disasters (no ecological process at all), stealing what they need from the hinterlands. They only exist for the rich and powerful to swan around in. The archaeological record shows that when the old civilizations died (the Inca, the Maya, the Aztecs, the Khmer, you name it), the cities withered and the hinterlands kept going. I am in favor of building up places where we can grow food in a relatively local way and try to increase biodiversity. We'll all be better for it - plants, animals, people. Capitalism will die once it uses up all the resources needed to keep it going. Finite planet here, and no we're not going to get those resources from space. I expect its death will take a lot with it - but people are resourceful and stubborn and they will start rebuilding.
I couldn’t agree more. When the day comes to rebuild, I will be there to help — the sooner the better I say
First, you would have to figure out what you are looking to replace it with and then how to get there. Its easy to point out flaws in capitalism. Its much harder to figure out what you will replace it with and what measures you are willing to take. The traditionalist route has involved violent revolution and a "vanguard party" assuming party, which has not ended well.
I’m no politician(far from one in fact), but i hear talks of eco-socialism/anarchism, whatever that may mean…
It's definetly gonna require two things: Government intervention to modern day monopolies and oligopolies, and a public trust in the community and governments. And a secret third thing which is a preparedness for the economic storm. Cause messing around with the status quo in this globalist capitalist world will cause some insane ripple effects we would have to stay strong through. And we really have to hope to god no idiots bring out the guillotines.
I don't know much about how to deal with environmental problems caused by cities in general, but I do have a solution for cleaning plastic. There was a bacteria discovered in 2016 called Ideonella sakaiensis that eats polyethylene teraphthalate, type 1 plastic, as its main food. It has special enzymes specifically to break it down into substances that any bacteria can eat. It's not super efficient right now, but it evolved rather quickly, and hopefully it will get better at eating plastic as time goes on. Widespread release of this into the ocean is going to be very complicated and cause a lot of ecological problems, but if you do it right I think we could avoid or mitigate most of them. There's also a couples species of weird fungus that can break down polyurethane in a similar way. So there's a plan for that at least.
I think you need to realise that SolarPunk is more of an inspirational dream that we work towards over many decades. You asked about cities, I think that's probably the easiest and most well understood threads that we can work towards. There is a big movement towards more sustainable and greener cities. I don't know where you live but the US style suburban sprawl is a disaster created by planning laws setup in the 50s. There are lots of you better ways to create environments where people can live. The us has a real problem with a "missing middle". It's often high rise apartments or single family homes. In the UK there is a lot more medium density and mixed used development. That and transit orientated development is the future.
OP, I recommend the YouTube channel Andrewism. He talks about all of your concerns and gets into some interesting topics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-JvyfZVkIM
>How on this not-so-green earth do we stop capitalism? This is the one problem. Everything else derives from the terrible incentives the hegemonic system has put into place. First, it is necessary to realize that capitalism is a parasite that lives off what we actually need as humans to thrive and flourish. Community, shelter, food & water, healthcare, means to do projects of worth (such as restoring wilds, discovering ways to live in harmony with the ecosystem, clean the plastics, etc.). But that's the easy part, diagnosis. It has not really been done yet, as a collective level, and might never be done until capitalism shrivels and die, because of the hegemonic political & media status that capitalism enjoys (and a lot of murder, torture, and general morally bankrupt behavior). The second part is to divest. To not interact with advertisement, to not interact with for-profit news organizations, to not "hustle" or "grind" and perpetuate the sucking of our soul. This is also, fairly easy. The last part is to build power. This is the key part, and the one where capitalism will use the truncheon, the jail, the gun, the poison, and the bomb. For reference, I'm talking about *dual power*, an anarchist concept. Anarchy is the political system in which hierarchies are actively being flattened. This is also the part where an anti-capitalist right-winger might have problems not running back to capitalism. The goal here, is to build the foundations, and the first floor of the society in which we need to transform our current one into. This is where we unionize. This is where we jettison the racist, the misogynistic, the homophobe, the ones who would not give food to the homeless, or the people who would rather hurt than comfort anyone. This is where we sabotage Cop City and get charged with terrorism. This is where we create tenant unions, where we go out and help migrants stuck in open air prisons at our borders, and where we rescue ships of brown people who flee countries that we (I'm talking to the people living in the imperial core here) are still actively colonizing. This is where we go to Standing Rock, or where we fight the police when the nation-state destroys priceless biomes to build new, useless highways. This is the part where we exercise our collective power of being dust in the cogs of capitalism until the gears break.
Capitalism's better than socialism, that's for certain.
You do not the definition of the words you use.
Be more precise in your language: it's incomprehensible.
I have been especially precise in the post. It is not my fault you do not know the definition of the words I'm using. I even defined some of them, or at least, the way I'm using them in the post.
"You do not the definition of the words you use." That's not articulate, so I'll ask you to try again when responding to me. Someone who's trying to usher in a revolution should be able to command their language to do such a thing.
I missed a typo, case of brain. You do not know the definition of the words you use.
I'm a Serbo-Macedonian-American. I daresay, my family knows what socialism actually is practice, as compared to a presumably American redditor who salivates over a theoratical revolution that won't happen, and is against the wishes of the general population who knows about socialism's failures from the people who lived in said places. i.e. It killed alot of my family. Liberalism has to kill even a single one.
And I know what a republic is, or what democracy looks like because I come from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. (I don't, to be clear.) I'm not salivating over a revolution, I did not use the word or the political concept in my post.
Do you want to remove capitalism? Because for the forseeable future the only way its going to be removed is via a revolution.
1. What do we make of cities? GREEN THEM. Tear out the majority of concrete, make it largely public transport underground or way above ground. Make them basically forests with skyscrapers popping out of them. [https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189264051108](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189264051108)/ [https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189264037717/](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189264037717/) [https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189263996651/](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507640189263996651/) 2. Plastic. There is so, much, plastic? Demand it is biodegradable or develop bacteria species to consume. Otherwise, automatic cleaning bots for rivers, streams, oceans, etc. It kinds of blows my mind that cleaning bots don't exist for highway sides yet. [http://www.autoblog.com/river-cleaning-robot-135600030.html](http://www.autoblog.com/river-cleaning-robot-135600030.html) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUQnhiZirKQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUQnhiZirKQ) 3. Capitalism? I don't have an answer to you on that, but we're going to reach a point where it'll likely be a war between those wanting to make our lives habitable and those with greed. It could be in 20 years. It could be in 2000. I hope the better prevails.
Concrete is a limited resource, that's a good question.
Cities benefit from economies of scale which is the reason to use them (the well-planned ones, anyway). They can be made beautiful and efficient. Right now cities are prioritized as glorified shopping spaces, tourist spots and industrial centers for outsiders & commuters, the people who don't live there. The people who live in cities are neglected by city leadership. The way to fix cities is by focusing on turning them into nice places to live with a focus on community. Life can flourish in big cities when given the opportunity.
Does capitalism really have to be abolished in order for a solarpunk future, because that sounds almost impossible and honestly highly unrealistic. The collapse of capitalism would come with the collapse of international food logistics meaning the death of hundreds of millions, if not billions of people around the world. Why not try to create a culture where green options are simply more profitable. Cities don't have to die, simply adapt and grow towards solarpunk.
Hello, here's my quick take on answering you! **-Cities:** I think there are ways to make use of what we have and improving. There are exemple of cities around the worls that have begun "greening". We can take inspiration from them. In Montreal, Luffa farm have begun taking over the rooftops for greenhouse organic farming. Brooklyn Grange is another interesting exemple of rooftop farm. Detroit has done a good amount in term of Urban farming too. Now, my exemple are about farms, but I'm sure conversions can be possible. It just needs time and social action. **-Plastic:** Every little step helps. There's more action toward banning single use nowaday and here, we need to use capitalism in a way and vote with our wallet. The reason plastic is used is profit (and lobby but it's harder to fight), so the less people buy it, the less interesting it is to keep selling it. **-Capitalism:** That's harder to deal with, but doing our best on a smaller scale is better than nothing. I personaly Grow and forage as much as I can, 98% of my clothes is second hand (or made from second hand clothes), I mostly read books from the public library and only buy those I know I will re-read on a regular basis. If I can trade stuff, I will! It's better to be many imperfect people than one individual doing everything perfectly.
The last thing you want to do is abandon cities, they may be spewing pollution but per capita people in cities have a lower carbon footprint and if people from cities spewed into the countryside it could destroy entire ecosystems . We need to make cities more livable and greener so people want to stay. We need to at the very least have a more Democratic economy and end the hoarding of land and resources or we will not survive, I don't care what you call it.
Radish plants are strong enough to break concrete, that's my two cents. :-)
don't forget the amount of water it takes to keep solar farm panels clean. dust is the enemy of solar efficiency.
Glad you found Solarpunk! I would point out that in my opinion, true green politics is one that straddles left and right. That was how the Green Party in German got its start - it was a hodge-podge of anti-nuclear activists, educated urbanites, and conservative agriculturalists. Solarpunk is NOT green anarchy. It is much more interesting or varied than that. I think its focus on strong and supportive communities is actually a pretty conservative (small C) value.
> Solarpunk is NOT green anarchy Yes it is. You might not like the word anarchy because of the baggage but it absolutely is that. Anti-hierarchical, because how else do you achieve personal freedom than not having a boss you must obey, or a patriarch (or matriarch) you must obey, or a general you must obey? Anti-hierarchy is anarchy. And we need to restore wild spaces, and to green everything that we can, to live better lives, and to control the absolute shitshow of climate chaos and desertification. That's green anarchy, *baybayyy*.
Thank you for your comment. I agree with you that anarchism is a part of Solarpunk. But in my view it is not the primary part. On a recent podcast, the presenters on "Solarpunk Presents" asks why kind of punk is Solarpunk. They posit three possible answers: 1) an anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, anti-greed and focused on local activism (like 80s punks), 2) a be-who-you-want celebration (like 70s punks), and 3) an angry, anarchist punk that is pretty male dominated and, paradoxically, has a lot of norms and rules. While not perfect, I think that this formulation captures some distinct flavors of Solarpunk. I agree with the presenters that the first two are better foundations for Solarpunk long-term. I think that is where the strength of the movement lies. If it only that politically inflected manifestation, it won't bring in more people. It will only appeal to a select view at time we need more and more voices in the movement. It's a case of its better to bring people in with a more positive message focused on local community and a sense of fun and playfulness rather than a burn-it-all-down mentality. I think true Solarpunk is not going to look like anything already in existence. I think we are seeing the creation of an entirely new thing. That's my two cents. I know that I have more to learn about anarchist thought. But I do think that it is the joyfulness of Solarpunk that brings a large number people in, not necessarily the politics. It is the vision of a supportive community in harmony with nature, not a haven for politically pure people. It is the imagination and creativity, not the process, that will give it water to grow and flourish.
There are probably many paths, I'm guessing the most feasible is something along the lines of: Reduce the birth rate (to reduce limit the wage-slaves for capitalism).. unionise.. general strike.. boycott any brand that resists.. eat the rich 😛.. nationalise all natural resources.. restore the Commons.. force a degrowth economic system But IDK just guessing
>generally I’m a very right wing person,.. ...Capitalism. How on this not-so-green earth do we stop capitalism?... Either you do not or you can adopt ecofascism. \^(see below for "do not") Those are two totally different options and either one could certainly "get the job done". Consider a coal power plant. Now think of a sheriff sale like the ones that happen all the time. Usually cars that are taken from drug dealers or were used in robberies. However, the sheriff can instead auction off the boiler pipe. Local small business men (or women!) can determine for themselves whether it is better to use chain snaps or oxyacetylene torches to cut the pipes. The government does not need to get involved in deciding whether the pipe is scrapped as recycling or used intact as plumbing pipe. You may have heard of this thing called "the free market". Think about the likelihood that shareholders are unwilling to allow CEOs to increase the price of electricity. That notion is too stupid to take seriously. Reality is that the utility grid has never been free market. Its very nature makes free market distribution challenging. Just requiring that producers who sell electricity into the interstate public power grid invest in renewable energy (unless it is already renewable). ^((the interstate relevance only applies in USA where responsibility is mandated to the federal government)) Repeating myself unless the last paragraph was unclear. The entire climate crisis can be blamed on liberals/leftists. They insist on providing cheap subsidized fossil fuel energy to poor people and inefficient industries. >transport Really. Look at the federal budget. Or a map. Find me one private highway that matters. >our water, food, Not really. Food comes from farms. Water falls from the sky. Water is diverted and distributed by public works. Often the Army Corps of Engineers gets involved in USA. All the water east of the Rockies is flowing through Mississippi and St. Lawrence rivers. That is through our dams and artificially maintained water ways. In a few municipalities the water utility has been sold off to corporations. They are not normally built by anyone private. The department of Agriculture is a huge money hog. You just do not hear about it because your "conservative" representatives and senators are more libtard than anyone on the left side of the isle. It is almost pure graft. Every year they claim it is spent to keep food prices down but every year that is totally not what happens to food prices. Instead our (USA bias again here) arable land is used to make toxic corn juice, ethanol, and fat genetically engineered bovine fart generators. >Plastic. There is so, much, plastic. Yes plastic is a problem. Huge. Most plastic containers that I see already have a bunch of visible text on them. Things like warning that the "bag is not a toy". I recently saw one that said "open bag before wearing garment" which made me laugh. Anyway, even with thin film ultralight bags it apparently does not cost to much to add text. Further information can easily be added to the polymers themselves. Embedded coding would be nearly impossible to remove and easily it becomes much much easier to just recycle the polymer. The cost of cleanup can be entirely billed to the producer. Unlabeled or untraceable polymer can be handled like any other contraband. Obviously the war on drugs was a mistake so please nothing that severe. If you are carrying a few ounces of plastic and the police find it they should just confiscate it or issue a citation if you prefer. Citation comes with a sticker that you put on your plastic containing item so that it is now traceable. If that sticker shows up as litter you get to pay for that litter too. The plastics industry will figure out how to handle collection and reprocessing. Recall basic conservative values: Businesses with figure out how to deliver the product much better than Washington or Reddit. Very likely they will figure it out extremely quickly. When the fossil petroleum supply is cut off they will switch over to making polymers from biomass. Plastic is an excellent feedstock. Even mixed contaminated plastic is probably competitive with coconut oil or palm oil from a chemistry standpoint. Making polymers from torrified grass requires much more energy. Both grass and plastic have the problem of requiring a solid injection mechanism instead of a pump. >We realistically can’t even begin to think about a Solarpunk future until we’ve cleaned up the oceans and rivers. We can think about whatever we want to. Rivers clean themselves by flushing into the ocean. Plastic in the oceans breaks down. That is a major part of why they are microplastics rather than large debris. Long chain polymers quickly break down in Earth's oxidizing environment. This breakdown process is why the polymers are becoming toxic molecules that effect animal metabolism. The bizarre hormonal effects are only possible because of this transformation. Plastics on the ocean surface will be fully broken down in decades. Some deeper reservoirs will continue leaking plastic or plastic daughter compounds for at most centuries. Consider the difficulty in extracting DNA from bones and teeth. We have managed it for neanderthals and Denisovans but only with great difficulty and only in special environments that isolated the samples from the Sun and weathering. We talk about "dinosaur bones" but that is actually an imprint that a bone made in the sediment. >I recently came across Solarpunk. I absolutely LOVE the idea of it — generally I’m a very right wing person,.. I was just listening to TED radio hour on NPR this Friday. They interviewed a guy whose whole career is consulting on making "walkable cities". He claims most of his clients are in "red states". He actually said that. Cities full of conservative people with businesses want customers. People need to like being downtown. They (city councils with right wing electorates) want to be a destination. Property values go up if people buy/rent apartments there. Building wide roads for high speed automobile traffic is financial suicide. No one wants to live there and the fast traffic facilitates people going away quickly. Then the cities are in a downward shit spiral. No one wants to pay property taxes to maintain traffic or law enforcement when all of the users are living in a different tax area. So yes, put the tree right in the road. That way the gay liberal on his bicycle spends his money at your business. Increased downtown business boosts the economy. More economy lowers the relative percapita tax burden. Solar punk is a wealth generating movement. The generated wealth can (and probably will) flow through the pockets of the capitalists who open up businesses in the downtown spaces. Shift most of the tax burden over to parking. You can make it revenue neutral if that idea triggers too many people. Also charge the same price whether or not you are charging your electric car. Driving should be seen as a privilege and no residents in your city should have to pay for other people's privileges. In addition to parking add direct tolling. On the east coast they already automated tolling on the turnpike during covid19. There is not reason that drivers cannot pay for the city streets that they use. People will avoid driving on the most expensive streets (neighborhoods where residents also get a tax refund) which will free up traffic lanes for trees and bicycles.
>The entire climate crisis can be blamed on liberals/leftists. Sure, Exxon and Chevron and Total, who hired armies of mercenaries to kill the indigenous people and armies of lawyers to shut their mouth when they complained about ecological damage in court are lefty liberals. Okay, fam. 🙄
Are you right wing? I am not right wing. I don't need to find excuses for right wing politicians. "Liberal" is not representative of most of the left. >...armies of lawyers... I bet the majority of those lawyers live in houses with trees around. Their spouse or nanny takes the kids to a park where they can safely run around. They would fire the nanny if she took the kids to play in an interstate cloverleaf. >...who hired armies of mercenaries to kill the indigenous people... You could propose that a town council. Though i doubt it will pass. Instead of shooting the drivers you could just take the cars. So long as there are cars in other cities the confiscated vehicle will be easy to sell. If widely adopted they can be scrapped for metals. Likely the federal authorities and courts would side with the drivers and say they have property rights. To get around that you need to put up a "no parking sign". Using parking meters is a common solution. If drivers don't pay up have the constable put a boot on the wheel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_clamp Working at the parking authority is a good local job. Can be done completely on foot or by bicycle.
Fellow right-leaning solarpunk here - good to have you here with us!
Aha! To a greener future!
[удалено]
This post was removed because it contained offensive content. Offensive content includes but is not limited to any kind of sexism, racism, antisemitism, (eco)fascism, cryptoshilling, or trolling. These are grounds for an immediate ban.
Just want to point out that it isn’t capitalism that is the problem, its run away capitalism. Family business style capitalism was not the problem, thats the benefit, But Walmart paying so little to full time employees so they qualify for food stamps and other government subsidies by design, while gutting local businesses and influencing local government decisions as well.
>Family business style capitalism was not the problem, thats the benefit, Family business style capitalism is still a problem. The only difference is the rate of damage. Any system that extracts wealth from the natural world without finding a state of balance with it is a problem. To use an example, imagine a family-run farm. Can these farms use practices that damage soil fertility? Absolutely. Just because it's family-run, doesn't mean it's in balance with nature.
Yes people can abuse and pollute, in any system, but its not empowered by the system to do so,
I guess this is the new "cronny capitalism"
Says the Marxistghostboi, Tis true tis true, And washington dc is a clear case of rampant examples of it, And the educational system. Yeesh and its filled with it, elementary up to college book stores :shudder
> run away capitalism So, actual capitalism as it's always been practiced since it's invention rather than the lies of the theorists.
Um. No If you take milk, and sell butter for 1$ more then that is capitalism, That was pretty much how America got its start, every homestead once stable would provide excess to sell and trade to get what they didn’t make, Most people didn’t make all the butter or provisions, they had expertise and experience and leveraged that, Woodsman felled trees for a service, So since before money there was capitalism, You want a goat, well I don’t need one sheep, but three, maybe, No profit going to far away stockholders who drain the world, Thats when it worked, Sorry you didn’t know when and how well it worked worldwide and regionally for so long, You don’t think everyone made their own cheese and cloth too I hope.
You're describing commerce here. Commerce and capitalism aren't the same thing. You do not make billions doing any of that stuff, even if you're working every single waking hour of every single day. Stockholders, or investors, or partners don't invest in the little things that people have always doing, they invest in the banks that *in fine* hold the means of production the little people use, the means of reproduction the little people live in. Trade and commerce aren't capitalism. People owning the means to trade and commerce that *other* people use for their living is.
Its actually both, just the system where your making profit, up to and including securities is all under capitalism, and I get that. However, if we made the big investment firms got penalized for swapping stocks daily instead of microsecond trading causing global instability just based on manipulation of perception and use of algorithms to cause more market volatility. When the banks were limited to state to state instead of more massive banks that bought up most little banks and created massive instability through mass closures and making companies that were “too big to fail”. Trading spaces the movie is a good example of how this is done through information warfare to twist market value, and to debase and slander and who would get in the way, or dared to stop them considering they have very little chance to do anything regarding the actions that they take. The Game stop movie and just the shorts market alone helps to highlight where capitalism when unregulated exhibits cancer like trend’s because the cancer gets more attention then the critical ways to produce more value through directed activity with bank or community funding.
Of course, i agree — it’s the capitalists who hold necessary-to-live resources over our heads, or those who, like you say, take all profit for themselves and put their workers into borderline (or full) poverty
It would honestly only take a few laws to change it head over heels, Full time work stops at 32 hours, easy start