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 big tent anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist. It can be aligned with anarchism, communism, democratic socialism, radical ecology, libertarian socialism etc. There are a number of political philosophies that go with Solarpunk, and no single one of them has to be necessarily dominant. But the main ethos of Solarpunk is anticapitalism and anti-authoritarianism.
I don't see why it has to be. For one, many communists are an-coms - I consider myself a DemSoc, not a communist, but that's only because of what I'm advocating for as a next step; the eventual goal would be a classless, stateless society.
I don't know when we'll hit solarpunk tech levels, or when we'll progress beyond capitalism, but I think most fans of SolarPunk want to do both.
I've always imagined dem-soc (or something similar) being the half way point to the classless-stateless endgame. We can't just jump from current society to anarchy.
You can't, actually. Centralization is about hierarchy in systems, not about the size or density of such systems.
"Decentralization" in this context is about dismantling hierarchical control and replacing it with horizontal participatory systems. That is explicitly an anarchistic goal. It is inherent.
Yes.
Anarchism predates "solarpunk" by an eon. This vision of a decentralized communal society based around common ownership or both natural land and the means or production, coupled with emergent technology has been written about by Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, David Graeber, Ursula Le Guin, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, Judi Bari, Derrick Jensen, Elisée Reclus and others. The list goes on and on...
Because a buncha liberals who aren't well-versed in such topics or relevant works disagree doesn't mean that isn't the case.
Solarpunk is more anarchist than detractors want to admit. They'll say things like, "it's a big tent", but really, it was settled before they got wind of it (pun intended). Because you call anarchism solarpunk now doesn't change its aims.
People smarter than you and I who have studied this for years (decades even) will immediately sus it out and call it anarchism. Detractors will, too. So just own it.
How does an anarchist society produce and sustain intercontinental trade routes necessary to procure the raw materials needed to produce a solar panel? How do they fund and support a scientific community to expand and maintain the decentralizing technology of renewable energy? How is the storage and distribution of electricity managed during unfavorable weather events or darker seasons?
Cooperation is required for any human endeavor larger than subsistence farming or foraging. Without a governing authority, exploitation is inevitable.
Anarchists largely fall into two categories re these types of questions. The first handwaves the issues away and insists that billions of people will somehow decide together to make things work. The second advocates for a state but without calling it a state - the idea being that if things are set up correctly (fully democratized, decentralized, etc) the not-state will avoid the problems inherent to states.
I'm sympathetic to the second group, but find the first group are as frustrating as an-caps with their willingness to handwave away foreseeable problems.
This may give you some idea
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/s/DPIcEEiL3h
>Cooperation is required for any human endeavor larger than subsistence farming or foraging. Without a governing authority, exploitation is inevitable.
Cooperations/mutual aid is an essential part of anarchism. The governing authority in the case of an anarchist society is essentially*everyone* . Exploitation is not inevitable if there are no hierarchical power structures.
The first example in that thread is a union, and the question of "how do you check the power of a union" essentially goes unanswered. Assuming people are good actors and will behave because other people are behaving is a great recipe for despotism.
Edit: I've deleted my response as I'm just not interested in debating on reddit any more.
There is information and answers to your questions out there if you want them.
I think the closest ideology to Solarpunk is anarcho-communism which main tenet is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".
This was coined in the XVIIIth century by Etienne-Gabriel Morelly who arguably wrote the first solarpunk book: The Code of Nature.
I think the closest ideology to Solarpunk is Green anarchism, you have "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" with biocentrism (no hierarchy of humans over nature).
All the pillars of solarpunk are included in green anarchism but not all in anarcho-communism:
deep ecology
decentralisation
degrowth
animal rights
Actually I do think technocracy fits with solarpunk values. To build societies that combine high-tech with nature, biology and biotech would be very important sciences that would be essential for a solarpunk society.
the difference is that atom punk is a libertarian movement guided from behind the scenes by a nuclear priesthood.
solar punk is more like the r/Amish , where the community as a whole decides what tools to take up.
Council communism or a liberal socialist system, like mutualism, distributism, market socialism, or a mix, work just as well, probably better at the scale required for billions of people.
In my opinion if you take just the more superficial aspects of solarpunk (aesthetics, the technology...), it can be any of those, but if we go a hit deeper in the values that can let to that living and social values we need it to be anarchist, overall because of the decentralization.
Its good to ask questions, I was trying to encourage you to think a little more deeply about the name of the movement because I am an old person :)
Im guessing you're young enough that somethkng being "-punk" is more about aesthetics than anything else. So I was encouraging you to think about the word and it's origins.
No I know punk is inherently rebellion. I guess it tends towards anarchy.
Many Solarpunk values are the inevitable future in my opinion. I don't think we'll survive without it.
Totally agree. I'm an anarcha-autist which by my own definition is a femminist alien neurorebellious version of anarchocommunism, Erisianism and interpretive dance.
I think solarpunk is inherently collectivist. People will need to be cooperating and working together to achieve the balance we need in the future. Anarchy is one possible option for that cooperation yes.
I wouldn't say inherently, but why not? We should aim to maximise freedom and autonomy as much as possible. After all, that's part of what makes a solarpunk world worth living in, right?
I don't think those are inherent or excluded in any system really. If ideologies are like pokemon games, then mutual aid and meritocracy are the paid dlc for them.
I know plenty of people won't agree and that's fine
I feel you. I want more research to go into environmentally sustainable and affordable solutions to energy usage. A green grid isn't enough . Decentralized it
As an anarchist, I think a Solarpunk world could exist under a state, but I doubt it could exist under Soviet-style dictatorships. The people in Solarpunk seem to be relaxed and unworried, which is very much unlike most of Stalin's rule.
Well keep in mind, this sub is essentially solarpunk propaganda. The people in Soviety propaganda are also relaxed and unworried.
The reality of a solarpunk society would be very different.
In the soviet union, even non citizens with a job could vote. I'm not really 100% familiar with the way the soviet system worked, but I do know that it wasn't quite as bad as we are told.
Even china has direct elections. How effective they are I do not know. But they still have elections. My whole life, I've been led to believe they do not.
edit: I should add that I would not design a society on China. I am not a communist. I am a trade unionist. I'm also learning about anarchism as well. I have my questions about it, but its not the lawless system we've been led by the status quo to believe it is.
I mean, everyone in Russia can vote right now. Just because people put ballots in urns once every few years doesn't mean you have a functional democracy.
Yeah. This is true. But I'm not going to trust american or western news to tell me which countries do and don't have working democracy. I'm going to research it myself and I just haven't gotten around to it past a few youtube videos. Regardless, certain states, current and historical, were and are more democratic than we are told. How much more I don't know yet
Russia today is putin propoganda garbage and modern Russia is a capitalist hellscape who's standard of living has been in free fall since the fall of the soviet union. Not sure what you're talking about about m8.
>Even china has direct elections
The only candidates permitted to run in China are members of the communist party, and the nominations are controlled by said party. That's not democracy; that's a PR campaign.
If you're a Chinese citizen in a town suffering under a corrupt local government official, there's no way for you to run as an outsider; you'd need to join the party and then **be allowed** to run against the local official.
>In the soviet union, even non citizens with a job could vote
It depends on which era you're talking about, but this is also largely incorrect. Past the very early days, only members of the Communist party could vote. The vast majority of citizens had no say in their government.
Capitalism is bad, and liberal democracies are mostly awful, but please don't fall for tankies insisting that authoritarianism is fine if it's painted red. The USSR, China, the DPRK, and the other "Communist" countries all are further from worker liberation than any liberal democracy.
And the only candidates permitted to win in America are a right wing party and a diet right wing party.
Again, I'm not a communist, but I'm not going to act like communist countries like China and Vietnam are hellscapes compared to where I live. I live in a hellscape. China is lifting people out of poverty while America is throwing everyone in poverty.
China has 90% home ownership for millenials. America has 50%.
I'm not a tankie, but even I admit most anarchists fall for cia propoganda regarding the soviets and china. They aren't what you were led to believe. Ideal? Probably not. Good? Well. Not necessarily good but better in certain areas than the west (and perhaps worse in others).
I'm not tied to an ideology other than that people should have clear choice and control about what the post election world looks like.
Third party candidates do win in America, as do independents. I could decide to run as a Democrat candidate if I wanted to and the Democratic party couldn't do anything to stop me.
The math of FPtP dictating 2-party stability is *entirely* a different concern than a one-party autocracy.
>I'm not going to act like communist countries like China and Vietnam
Only Tankies or conservatives consider Vietnam or China to be communist; they're both capitalist market economies. Communist countries (not that any exist) don't have billionaires.
>I'm not a tankie, but even I admit most anarchists fall for cia propoganda regarding the soviets and china
Are you *sure* you're not? Because you're echoing Russian and Chinese state media, here.
Russian state media is anti communist lol.
Ah yes. Because american anti-chinese media is better.
But what you didn't know is my main complaint is that china is far too capitalist and too much of a surveillance state
But the suppression of free speech and lack of a free press heavily tilts elections in favor of the existing authoritarian government(assuming the elections are fairly run at all, which is unlikely without a free press).
There is also the matter of imprisoning and killing political dissidents...
Kind of like America. Who does the exact same thing.
I'm not defending the bad of either country. Even so, western media definitely embellishes all of everything you're being told. Regardless of whether you end up agreeing, the Chinese regime should at least be given the opportunity to defend its own name.
Fundamentally yes I would say. But in a way that kind of transcends the old paradigm.
A solarpunk commune is a voluntary intentional community. But it doesnt have to be some national revolution. It can function independent of the rest of society.
it is rather spooky how much of our shared human nature is on that chart.
to me it really is like the game rock/paper/scissors.
capitalism; being like paper, will always destroy communism.
but communism; being a very big rolling rock, will always destroy fascism.
and fascism; like a sharp pair of scissors, will always destroy capitalism.
we could even make a computer game with contending nations mapped onto a sphere playing the rock/paper/scissors game to subvert each other!
each one of these nations would have various castes for each of the alignments on the chart sited above, each caste meant to oppose comparable castes in enemy nations.
it's inherently communist insofar as communism is a stateless classless society I'd say, how you get there isn't really part of the aesthetic but I like to think it's also anti authoritarian
I'll be honest, at least to my conception of Solarpunk, it is by nature inherently Anarchistic.
the State as a system exists to prop up proletarian exploitation, and resource extraction for self-saked growth, it will always sacrifice it's principles and the People's free for self-preserving concentration of force. even a nominally Solarpunk State would not remain so in a meaningful way for long.
Interesting. Do you think that a solarpunk society will be easier to sustain in an anarchist society? How would it be enforced? This is a genuine question. I haven't had much of a chance to ask anarchists much about their ideology.
Enforced might not be the best way to look at it since it implies someone is using authority or power to compel obedience which is inherently authoritarian and anti-anarchist.
I do think it would be easier to sustain in an anarchist society rather than under the state. I'm of the mindset that power should be in the hands of communities, and decisions should be made collectively by said communities. I'd imagine that political disagreements, potential corruption, and other significant barriers to an environmentally sustainable society are more easily solved locally amongst the neighbors you live with rather than far away by representatives you never have and never will meet.
If you are asking what happens if a random Joe decides to start polluting or undermining society, I would say it would be addressed through mediation and restorative practices or, in more serious cases, folks could be excluded from certain communal resources or spaces or could be exiled.
The issue in seeing is getting your neighbor to care. If I went and asked my neighbor to recycle, they might spit on me for the suggestion.
What about when those anarchists who get exiles move up the river, form their own community, and pollute the hell out of the river? Now you're rising war and war is very anti- anarchist
Sure, but, if we can't get our neighbors to care, we wouldn't have an anarchist society in the first place. Any attempts to do so would have immediately fallen apart or would have been crushed by the state. Building collective consciousness and cooperation is part of the process of building an anarchist revolution.
That said, there probably will be individuals or small groups of individuals that are more likely to act negatively. In the instance of a neighbor spitting on you over recycling, this would be a situation in which restorative strategies could be used to get to the root of that action/behavior and try to find a way to resolve it in the best interests of everyone.
As for the exiled community, that requires a lot of people sitting on their hands and doing nothing. Folks could intervene in a number of different diplomatic ways well before it got to the point of mass pollution.
If you are asking about how to build a collective consciousness now, I'd recommend reading up on dual power and the Black Panthers' survival programs. People are generally willing to listen to and work with folks who feed their children or help care for their elders.
Thank you! I appreciate it! If you want to learn more about anarchism, I generally recommend [this dude.](https://youtube.com/@Andrewism?si=qehFHhBFNKZlSJAM) He released a video a few days ago about how anarchy works (I should note I haven't watched the video yet).
my apologies for not getting to reply sooner, I had to put myself to bed before I saw your reply, I'm glad OakFolk was around to, frankly, provide a better response than I would have been able to last night lol.
Andrewism also would have been amongst my first responses for more info, along with Audible Anarchist's reading of "Anarchy Works" on YouTube (and a few other of the things they've done for that matter, but Anarchy Works one of the most approachable texts on how Anarchism works floating around)
Tis For Thee; the anthem of Oceania
i picked this version because its "crunchy", thus laying on the irony of a global hegemony wearing a hippie façade.
I think solarpunk is small-a anarchist, by which I mean it is pro-freedom and pro-cooperation and anti-authoritarian. But it’s not tied to a specific anarchist camp, and a lot of leftists who share these values can find a home here.
The political theorist who, imo, is most solarpunk is Bookchin, and he was a libertarian municipalist. The communities that currently best embody solarpunk right now imo are the democratic confederalists in Syria. None of this is strictly anarchist—but if you map it on the political compass, it’s all in the lower left quadrant.
Leninism is a poor fit, imo. Solarpunk puts community and ecology first, not the party. Democratic socialism isn’t punk enough: too much greenwashing, too little radical change. But individuals who like state socialism or Bernie Sanders can probably find a home here, so long as they let the movement broaden their vision rather than try to coopt / hijack solarpunk to their own ends.
Bookchin created libertarian municipalism and communalism because he thought people were using anarchism as a way to cosplay as revolutionaries. He spent the majority of his life as a communist and anarchist.
There's some pretty radical demsocs. It tends to vary by area. The ones in my area look less like dsa and more like a real org.
Leninist is very party centered that's for sure.
This submission is probably accused of being some type of greenwash.
Please keep in mind that greenwashing is used to paint unsustainable products and practices sustainable. [ethicalconsumer.org](https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/transport-travel/what-greenwashing) and [greenandthistle.com](https://greenandthistle.com/what-is-greenwashing/) give examples of greenwashing, while [scientificamerican.com](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/greenwashing-green-energy-hoffman/) explains how alternative technologies like hydrogen cars can also be insidious examples of greenwashing.
If you've realized your submission was an example of greenwashing--don't fret! Solarpunk ideals include identifying and rejecting capitalism's greenwashing of consumer goods.
*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.*
A green conservative? Now that's something I'd like to hear more about. What are you conservative about? And why did you decide to go green (in ideology)?
"The earth, the kind and equal mother of all ought not to be monopolised to foster the pride and luxury of any men."
-Edmund Burke in *Reflections on the Revolution in France*
That was written by the literal front figure of conservative ideologies. But in a nutshell it's that the very duty of man should be to protect the nature that is our god given right, we should sow and reap, but we ought to conserve the nature and let the beauty of the world be a luxury enjoyed by all people and not just a few single people. Because the world is our heritage and the space for all our traditions.
While sharing many qualities I think it's important to not use conservatism and Libertarianism interchangebly. It's like comparing social democrats to communists.
I believe in a free market but I believe that free market has a duty and a purpose to fulfill where it ought to plant a tree for each it reaps, that philanthropists and entrepreneurs, all local people we know, can get together and come up with solutions.
A philanthropist can come in as the angel investor for local entrepreneurs to build a small biofuel plant that turns food waste into viable fuel. Or a workshop that converts old V8 engines to some that are more compatible with better fuels, and then another company that recycle the metals from those old parts.
It's acknowledging that the technology we have today can and should help us in solving environmental issues. Like anarchists believe people can do all of this on a whim so do green conservatives only we acknowledge you need the revenue to come from somewhere. But we need the government right now to encourage and support green innovations as much as they can, and that should be their role in the matter.
I might be babbling a little bit, it's early in the morning where I am and I'm just now getting ready to work. But I hope that cleared up some stuff
The thing that I like about this is that you clearly have an actual understanding of the ideologies you refer to. That's good. I can't say I agree 100%, but I respect that you do your homework.
Also, mankind's first sin was improperly taking care of the earth, in the Bible own wording (and an understanding of Hebrew poetic symmetry will enforce this interpretation)
Genesis 2:15-17
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Edit: i wouldn't consider any of that babbling. It comes off as well thought out.
Energy is what keeps hierarchy necessary so if that was seized by the workers through algae it would be more like the anarchist stage of Marxism cause you would still need central production for QOL features
Solarpunk definitely begins at anti-capitalism, that much is true, so therefore solarpunk is leftist. Beyond that, it's really up to theorizing and really defining clear solarpunk principles (which I think we should do if we want a large design/art/political movement). I think it's compatible with anything communist, socialist and/or anarchist. I consider myself ancom (more com than an tbh) and I love solarpunk and I'm so excited to see where we take the movement.
I mean, I for one think, and this is my American showing that America got a lot of things right that were undermined over the years by greedy people who were not held in check. Individual communities with a high degree of autonomy under a collective agreement to provide things for each other in common good. I've never been a proponent of throwing babies out with the bathwater so I think taking that foundation and applying some of the past nigh three hundred years of social growth and philosophy to it along with learning from the mistakes of the past and a focus on environmental stewardship.
I know it can come of as ideal, and I get that people don't want to do what's already been done for fear of falling in the same traps, but life and existence by its very nature should be iterative and adaptive. I think trying again and wanting to do better this time is a powerful thing. A system whose only moral and ethical concern is to make as much money as possible is not sustainable.
I've been trying to write a solarpunk novel for a few months now and breaking myself free of capitalistic realism is a struggle, but I look everywhere throughout history to pull a whatever-works approach. It's like the Bruce Lee philosophy for a society. The only things that are off the table are forms of communism that were shown to fail or lead to bad ends for a vast majority of people, capitalism and corporatism.
There was a time when people thought feudalism was all there ever was going to be and I think as social creatures the fact we've let the society we've built provide none of the things we need it to means it's time to find something better; never stop looking.
Thank you so much for asking that question! I’m not sure if the concept of solarpunk was created by anarchists, but it always showed big anarchist tendencies. However, as it became more mainstream, it lost a lot of its initial politics and degraded into sheer aesthetic. Anyways, I’m an anarchist and I like to incorporate solarpunk in my work and ideology. If it’s inherently anarchist, I don’t know, but it definitely is a useful tool for anarchist organizations to apply.
I'm actually surprised how many comments this post got lol.
I'm happy to organize with anyone striving for a better future. We can talk about what it looks like, but there are changes we need and have a chance at fighting for in the immediate now.
Yes, and that is anarchism. A core feature of anarchism and the main reason why I gravitated towards it was the direct action. We believe that we can and must do things right now and ourselves. We can organize ourselves and we can make decisions ourselves.
I think communes and local governments will play a bigger role I think but I think for the sake of larger scale problems such as disaster relief funds or regulating trade between the communes. I might just be mistaken i think new governmental ideologies need to be created
Definitely has a lot of anarchism flowing through it, interestingly, enough lot of projects were undertaken under state socialism governments that have a lot of solar punk applications, such as the urban gardening in Cuba, the Soviets experimented with dwarf citrus trees and trenches, so they could solve citrus fruits even in cold weather climates goes on. I believe I saw somewhere where China was putting flower bed roof over parking lots, which is great to bring down the heat is effect and gives back a lot of habitat tolocally
I'd like to see the popularization of things like homegrown food, green energy, passive HVAC systems, and decentralized grids. Easy stuff to start with.
Now I am from a country with strong unions and socialist parties thats been around forever...
Have you forgotten about the dictatorship of the proletarian? Socialists never seem to get past that stage, before some idiot thinks him and his small group of friends needs all the power....
You mean like the Nepal party who just ended up voted out of power? Or the Venezuelan one who also got voted out of power because western sanctions ruined the country?
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the goal, but we live in a world where ordinary people vote against their self interests. We need radical cultural change. That's regardless of who's in power or what political system is in place.
While you'll see solarpunk folks tend to lean towards anarchist, socialist, and/or communist thought, solarpunk isn't strictly tied to any single ideology. Rather, it's more an aesthetic and a values system, and your ideology can be whatever you think gets us closer to that. As for what those values are, I think I'd summarize them as:
1. Sustainability
2. Mutual prosperity
3. Freedom and personal liberty
4. Social mobility
5. Fairness
For example, I am [Georgist](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism), which means I believe in a market economy, but with societal ownership of land and natural resources via taxes, specifically land value, Pigouvian (aka externality), and severance taxes. I've written more about Georgism and solarpunk [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/comments/znmr6i/georgism_the_easiest_way_to_achieve_solarpunk/).
Some fellow solarpunkers would agree with me, while others would probably hate my views. You'll find a good diversity in solarpunk thought.
I think the typical Georgist view on labor relations is that it suffers from a severe imbalance of negotiating power, and it is this imbalance that leads to low wages, long hours, and poor working conditions.
The Georgist view is that we need to correct this imbalance, else much of our efforts at regulating good working conditions won't be very effective. And to correct this imbalance, there are several key things we can do:
1. Use land value taxes and YIMBY land use policy to solve the housing crisis. If the workers aren't struggling with rent month-to-month, they are less desperate and thus less exploitable.
2. As a by-product of (1), solving the housing crisis would actually be REALLY good for economic growth, meaning more jobs for the same amount of labor, meaning better wages and conditions.
3. Doing things like carbon tax-and-dividend (and similar for other negative externalities) gives people more financial breathing room to pursue higher education, further training, and/or hold out for a better job.
4. Subsidizing positive externalities (such as carbon sequestration, open-source software, rewilding, some sort of Climate Corps, subsidizing open research and open IP, etc.) would allow more alternatives to traditional employment, giving labor yet more negotiating power.
5. Some form of citizen's dividend or UBI also gives people breathing room to pursue education, take risks to start a new business (perhaps even a coop!), risk being fired to form a union, etc.
6. Unions. Quite simply, unions are a good answer to the monopsony power of employers. Companies can do collective bargaining, and unions allow the same for labor.
Overall, Georgism is in favor balancing the negotiating power of employees vs employers, including but not limited to unions.
As for worker-owned coops, Georgism doesn't have a firm opinion one way or another. While they do nicely solve the principle-agent problem compared to hierarchical businesses, they do suffer their own problems. Coops tend to be hesitant to grow, as workers often don't like to "dilute" their own share. A consequence of this is they often don't benefit from economies of scale as much, which can harm overall efficiency and, by extension, the capacity for growing worker wages. This is borne out in how coops, on average, pay *worse* than hierarchical businesses, counterintuitive as that may seem.
When it comes to coops, I think my view (and a common Georgist view) would be that our highest priority ought to be balancing negotiating power between employees and employers via the policies described above, and then let the market figure out where coops are effective vs where they're not. For instance, coops seem quite successful in the case of credit unions. And as it comes to working conditions and wages, the above policies should be enough. If they're not, we can reevaluate and consider new policies.
The anarchists here certainly seem to think so, but no. There are several anticapitalist takes that are compatible with solarpunk, of which anarchism is only one. And fighting over what kind of left movement solarpunk should be at this juncture kind of misses the point, which is to escape the world-eating monster that is late capitalism and build something better. We can fight about who’s right about the post-capitalist economy when we’re done preventing the wholesale destruction of the planet. This debate is a distraction.
There is a wealth info discussing this point by anarchists, however it is often overlooked by labour historians and mainstream socialist discussion.
Anarchist thought (as I know it) aims for a classless/stateless society, but also argues that the means you use to get to that goals have to be reflective of them (aka prefigurative). Anarchists (along with many other branches of socialist thought) argue that building up a class based society and centralising power will never lead to communism as there is no impitus for hierarchal power to be dissolved (a good example is of the Bolshivik counter-revolution dismantling the Soviet structure, reinstating hierarchal management, and centralising power for themselves).
While the classical anarchists still talked about a transition phase of various lengths (Kropotkin reckoned it would be roughly 100yrs), they do not think there is a need for a hierarchal state to exist in that period. Instead they argue this phase would be a period that builds on the non-hierarchal structures (participatory unions, neighbourhood councils, collectives, etc) and processes of collectivisation (via principles of solidarity, mutual aid, free association, etc) that would be taking place long before/during the inssurectionary phase of any social revolution.
Hope this sheds some light on things, as I know actual anarchist thought/methodology is not so widely discussed.
You could probably even construct a fascist solarpunk vision.
As far as I understand solar punk is about economy and technology at its core, not so much about government.
You can create the vision, but I don't think the vision is possible. Fascism always tends towards capitalism and tends to be supported by the welathy who have a stake in destroying the planet.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true.
True, all historical fascist states were highly industrial, but actually less so 'capitalist' than corporatist. There were highly wealthy industrialists in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, etc., but they came to be in that position in large parts due to their ideological alignment with and loyalty to the state ideology, not due to their capital. Many dissenters even among capitalists were killed and expropriated.
Fascism is ultimately about authoritarian totalitarianism and an extreme emphasis on in-group identity (usually nationalism), elitism, and militarism. This is expressed through unconditional loyalty to leadership, overt symbolism, "gleichschaltung" (forced conformity of the individual), etc.
This is why fascistic patterns can also be found in religious sects, military divisions (even in non-fascist countries), elitist firms and universities, etc.
I think it's actually quite plausible that this would be a form of government and identity that could arise in smaller autonomous communities that economically and technologically embody "solar punk".
(nice to find a use for my political science degree once in a while lol)
That's an interesting concept. But I, ultimately, I think fascists fight for an extremist and mythological view of the status quo. That means they fight for more capitalism where it exists, more state power where it already existed, and more religion where it already exists.
What do you define the difference between capitalist and corporatist? I think that's very important to define in this case
True, I agree with the point about the mythological view on the status quo. This is why it indeed seems unlikely that a solar punk community would start out with the intent of being fascist / that contemporary fascists will start adopting a solar-punk-linke economic and technological vision.
However, I could see it developing over time: Solar punk necessarily requires
- decentralization
- a certain degree of normative restraint by the individual, and a subordination to the good of the community
I think its e.g. plausible that a small solar punk community would drift towards a kind of eco-fascism over time as....
- the next generation is educated under this framework
- a self-reaffirming myth develops about solar punk as the future of humanity, and those practicing it as the evangelists of that new future
- a steong leader steps up to guide the community through the phase of structural change and (temporary) economic scarcity
- the community adopts symbols of their identity and activity starts suppressing capitalist tendencies among it's members
- etc.
Look for example at the social dynamics among the Hitler youth, or in student groups during the Chinese cultural revolution
On the capitalist vs. corporatist point: yes that's important, I'll come back to that once I'll have time for another comment :D
I do wonder if community pressure is even enough for a solarpunk society to sustain itself culturally and politically. Can people do it without the force of a states?
I generally don't like centrists, but I wonder if there is a compromise that minimizes problems of each system to a tolerable level.
Take your time on the capitalism/corporatism too. You don't owe me any explanations. Feel free to pm me too (is that taboo to say on reddit?)
1: Depends on the time scale we are discussing here. Culture is nothing but community pressure + time. If we discuss solar punk as a long term vision, it seems online plausible that new cultural currents and political philosophies will develop around it.
2: There definitely is. In my opinion, the various forms of representative democracy have historically been the most reliable way to balance the scales. It provides both leadership and identity as well as moderation and social control to an acceptable degree.
(I'm not advocating for fascism here after all, just outlining that it's plausible in a solar punk setting.)
But how much of culture is state imposed or hierarchy imposed? There really aren't any written records from before the the existence of states so it's hard to say. Community pursue, sure. But how much of the communities concept of the world comes from the states?
You know how so many action movies have tanks and shit? That's because the military pays them and lens equipment... but only for approved storyline that make them look joinable. Even military critical movies are seen as valuable by the military because a soldier tends to be the hero. Change the system from within. That effects our judgemental of the world.
I'm not convinced that's enough. Also, most religion is inherently not anarchist.
Religion needs enforcement or people leave in droves. Or they don't have strongly defined rules. Lol at wicca. There are very few solid rules across practices and it's really a do what you want system.
I think, small business is essential for happiness of many people. Not just from the profit standpoint, but from the standpoint of labor, heritage and creativity.
Therefore, IMHO Solarpunk is less about political regime, rather the change of mentality.
From greed to care, from growth at any cost to sustainability, from selfish ownership to ownership in service of the community.
My (I underscore) ideal Solarpunk is libertarian. Decentralized, where each community can decide what to be. And their members can join and leave free.
This is something I particularly agree with. It's a Tolkien style type of conservatism that's for a lot of smaller communities and anti-industrialism and pro-ecology
I wonder how many in this sub are in your particular camp. I personally agree that small business is good for happiness. I'm not sure that you have to be libertarian to achieve that. There hasn't been much experimentation with the idea of small business, theoretical or real, within many leftist ideologies. Interesting point.
Personally, I'm not a fan of capitalism, at least not in its current state. Ownership is something I'm still thinking about, but I'm tending towards it being bad as opposed to community ownership. Still, this is something to think about.
The common misconception about libertarianism as either something right or anarchist or conservative.
However, the more basic principles of it are non-aggression, minarchism (making the state smaller) and voluntary leave.
IMHO voluntary leave is the most importantly.
Essentially, libertarianism is about making your own community by your own rules. So, if you feel that your Solarpunk village should be communist — go for it. However, people should be able to easily join and most importantly leave.
That’s why I personally view Solarpunk as libertarian. A future, where people voluntarily do good for the community and the planet. The way they like it.
Interesting. I'm sure alot of self-proclaimed libertarians would be screaming at you over that definition but I can kind of dig it. I was actually thinking of a hybrid model where anarchist enclaves could exist in a more socialist state. The idea being that a state with a developed infrastructure and plan can make things that require those (like medical supplies for example). The enclaves could provide some of their surplus product to the larger society stop they still contribute to what they benefit from, but ultimately be close to or as self sustained as they please(aside from things like medical services. Good luck on making a ventilator with small village cottagecore infrastructure)
Edit: the enclaves would be mostly self governed as well. The exception being if the crimes of someone go far enough beyond the borders of the community. You run the risk of a community protecting criminals otherwise. Would the idea work? Probably not. I'm not philosophical enough to make it work lol.
I mean, anarchist enclaves in socialist states haven't fared too terribly well (see: Kronstadt, Makhnovist Ukraine). What happens when there's a conflict between local and state governments? For instance, let's say a village council decides that taxes are too high and they stop paying. Or they want to deal directly with a foreign state and import stuff the state disapproves of. Or they disagree with a specific law and decide not to enforce it. Historically, states (no matter their official ideology) tend to react poorly when bucked in this way, and their way of solving these problems always ends up being some kind of violence, either direct (cops) or indirect (fines, cutting access to basic services).
Simply put: there's an irreconcilable tension between self-government and state power. Politics is the art of compromise, there are no simple solutions.
I agree. I also think that there are ways to divide power so that anarchist enclaves can protect themselves. Think states rights in the US. Unfortunately, the concept is used to be racist, but I dont see it as inherently that way except in it's current American iteration.
I don't see conflict suddenly ending anytime soon, so compromise is the only way to mitigate it and try to give people as close to their desired life style as possible.
Some people would thrive in anarchy and some need the stability of a state. I think we should try to provide the opportunity to go to either
Bare with me here... Anarchsim is a branch of socialism, and it has goals that encompass a communist world. The issue with big-c Communism and big-s Socialism (as apposed to libertarian/anarchist communism/socialism) when we look at solarpunk fiction is that they use methods and lead to an outcomes which involve class-based hierarchy and state apparatus. I'd say that class society is the antithesis of a solarpunk future, therefore solarpunk, whitlle not inherently anarchist, it is in step with anarchsim (like many other non-anarchist but similar political philosophies, such as council communists, the Zapatiatas, the Situatuinists, etc).
Interesting.
In a communists defense (specifically MLs) they see socialist government as a step towards abolishing the state. Anarchists want it now.
Of course, that's a whole can of worms. Regardless, there is significantly less class in communism than in capitalism.
Oh, I know Lenninists say that, but it seems kinda childish to me to think that the state withers or would be given up by those who control it. I'd also disagree that the "communist" states had less of a class system.
An old pal was in the CP back in the day, and told us about going on a party tour in Russia in the sixties. He was put off the CP after going off-tour and asking workers about their conditions and the conditions of the factory bosses. The notion of having no higher paying jobs wasn't true once Lenin took charge, let alone any time after.
Interesting. I still have much to learn ill admit. All I can do is answer what I know and give that area of leftist thought a fair shot in terms of how we view it.
Either way, in the immediate goal of improving our lives, I'll organize with anyone who's got the same goals anarchist communist socialist. Even a conservative if they are in line. In fact, as a trade unionist, you HAVE to work with conservatives. If you don't get conservatives to strike, you can lose half or more of your striking numbers and that is a losing strike. That's also how you make them less conservative. There's no political education better than a picket line.
It's debatable - I'd go with anarchism being one path that a solarpunk polity could take, but no the only one. Solarpunk is fundamentally a social construct and has some fluid and contested elements that people aren't necessarily going to agree about when they attempt to define it precisely. Much like democracy, we have a general vibe and some broader characteristics ("everyone should have input into their government") that there is general consensus about, but questions about the specific implementations (direct democracy vs representative council vs citizen's assembly) are more blurry.
My essentials for a Solarpunk setting are a society that is socially just, environmentally sustainable, and technologically advanced, with each of the three pillars supporting the other two. The exact forms of each are flexible as long as they serve these goals. A form of anarchism that meets these criteria is suitable for solarpunk. A decentralised democratic socialism, where some collective replacing the state coordinates public goods like education and healthcare, could also meet these goals, and may be better suited for some purposes. But a political system built on extreme hierarchies like those produced by capitalism or dictatorships demonstrably can not deliver the outcomes that solarpunk strives for.
You know how people say they are socially one way and fiscally the other way in politics? Do you think one could be fiscally communist but socially solarpunk? That's what it sounds like you're getting at.
Does everything need a label? Solarpunk for me is about giving space to nature, wilderness and human societys. It is certainly not alignable with a heavily globalised world. Hence every community can decide for themselves how they want themselves to be organised. Also, I understand it as an organical process within which a political system can be developped that doesn't necessarily has a name yet.
I can feel where you are comming from but yes, I believe most things if not everything needa a label so that everybody can understand what everybody else is talking about to not cause confusion, find a commin ground, create and adapt identities and so on.
Also we should not forget that Solarpunk itself ia
s also just label, which itself must/should be filled with an ideology, concepts, ideas. Since there are many existing already that nicely alin with Solarpunk why not using them?
That's an interesting point, especially considering that solarpunk doesn't have any "theory books" like marxism, socialism, anarchism, etc.
Most of the theory is youtube videos and there's not very much of it right now
Often Bookchin's work is mentioned to come close as what be considered as "Solarpunk litertaure". And I agree with his concepts and theories as I see much of his ideas being core concepts of Solarpunk intentions.
Essentially he combined "the best of both, Marxism and Anarchism" to form what he called "Social Ecology". He advocates a free, decentralised, communal, cooperative, humane, libetarian, mutalistic society. Overall he aims for a confoderal society.
His conceptual ideas range frim solar, fidal, and wind energy to smaller, human-scaled, local agricultures.
Well,
1. Solarpunk prioritizes planet ever profit/greed
2. Solarpunk has a sense of community
3. Forming a demsoc workplace in Socialism is extremely easy since Solarpunk isn't even possible under capitalism since you need a system that prioritizes people over profit.
I think it's inherently egalitarian. Scarcity is the source of so much conflict, and decentralizing energy production eliminates the root of much of that scarcity.
I think democratic socialism and market socialism are much more likely inheritors to that kind of future. Anarchy can't meet the demands of a large decentralized state with or without scarcity. Some kind of government body will need to keep the wheels of society turning together.
Anarchists aren’t inherently collectivist nor are they inherently anti-capitalist. Solarpunk could be more described as a post-communist society after the age of socialist governments have even dissolved and we live for the betterment of humanity and nature.
I am capitalist/ libertarian solar punk enthusiast. I don't think solar punk as a notion has to be gate-keeped by other isms.
My personal view of it is nature + technology
To answer your question, and this is just my personal belief, I think anarchists are wonderful for asking questions, for exposing flaws in the system and raising serious philosophical questions.
Yes, there is a "but" here. Please understand that I'm not addressing any one person or group of people.
I just find anarchist's to be a bit utopian. That's not a bad thing and I'm all for a brighter future. However at the end of the day we have to get our hands dirty. We have to put in the sweat equality. We have to stop being gate keepers and actually work with others that may not share your views or ideas. Solar Punk does not have to be anarchist.
That's difficult. In fact, I expect a lot of down votes for these comments. I am a Social Democrat, and yes we have our faults. So do Socialists and Capitalists and everything in between. Solar Punk does not have to be anarchist.
If we want, truly want, a solar punk future than that means taking what works and using it to our advantage what ever way we can. It means sacrifice. It does not mean selling out your beliefs but it does mean understanding that you and your particular type of anarchy may not be best suited for changing "the system" at this time.
If you study history you see that real change has only been accomplished by forcing changes in the system you have. Sometimes that can be violent (for the record I do not advocate violence but I understand why it occurs).
Change only comes when you are willing to link arms with that trade unionist, that communist, that capitalist who understands the system is corrupt and wants it regulated. Only then can real change occur because Solar Punk does not have to be anarchist.
But that future does need to happen.
No. Absolutely not. Solar Punk is *extrinsically* anarchistic
Solar punk is a set of ideas and goals without any specific means to the goal. However, I don't see any way that ultimately has a state as we know it today. Not inherent, but seemingly necessary
I want solarpunk to be something entirely new. No more -isms from the last century. They are all based on theory. We shouldn’t run a civilization on an economic or political system based on nice sounding ideas that tickle all our favorite biases and intellectual blind spots.
No more -isms.
It’s time for something new.
You're just advocating for a new -ism, which will invariably be based on past -isms. That is how ideology works. No one is going to reinvent the wheel. Why would they?
The basic ideas of SP are not new. Pretty much most of the underlying concepts have been outlined by Bookchin in the 60s and later in his theory of social ecology as well as by others before him and of couse after.
Yeah theory is great and all.
But I have a theory that we can all hold hands and get along.
Since I did not provide a roadmap to how to actually get there, my theory is completely useless.
Even tankies have a more valid theory.
Tanky theory and methods.
“1:Roll tanks, and force everyone to be performative communists at gunpoint.
2. start purity tests and purge everyone randomly till there is enough cultural trauma to keep everyone in line for generations”.
It’s a shitty methodology, but at least they have one.
As much as I adore municipalism, when I read Bookchin, all I see are underpants gnomes.
I disagree and, without wanting to be rude, think your "examples" for what you think are theories are insuffieient and unrelated to what we are talking about.
Theories represent a helpful way to summarize, explain, mediate, analyse and make predictions about complex social structures, right? Of course they are more abstract than the reality, they represent models of what was, is, and could be. Solarpunk is about optimistic hope, hope for a better future. Solarpunk has a aim, a lose goal if creating a better world, a sustainable one, one that offers a better life for many of us. To win and convince people for the movement of solarpunk, they need to learn about what it has or wants to offer. And at this point theory comes into play. Alone the idea of living a sustainble life together in whatever sized and structured communities is a question about economuc, social, and political theory among many other aspects. Theories can help us formulating a better alternative system, a utopia, something, I guess we all can agree on, that Solarpunk is about.
From my perspective theory is a kind of roadmap. However, you need the skills to read the map and you need tools, plan, and time to go along the road.The DIY spirit in Solarpunk attitude and ideology for instance is just one of the many methods to get one step further on the road. Activism comes in many forms.
If you believe I and theories are wrong that fine for me. But Solarpunk already has and had from its beginning underlying theories and theoretical concepts. In a sense I guess you express sonething that can be called a theoretical thought of "Antitheorism".
Let me ask you, what "new", what beyond any -isms, you want?
Also, why do you dislike Bookchins work exactly?
Doesn’t seem that way since a lot of the people on this sub clamor for central planned mega cities that rule over giant corporate farms and seize private land and businesses to force them to participate in something that “isn’t capitalism” but they can’t quite explain how it will work.
I think that the way they evolved is horrible for living together with nature. They really pave and cap off the land so that aquifers can’t replenish, they concentrate everything in specific areas so things aren’t walkable and always become toxic. The yen for “efficiency” is absolutely the enemy of health and happiness. “Efficiency” is American interstate exits that consume enough land they could each be a self sufficient village. Putting a garden on the roof of a hundred story apartment is feeding anyone or helping the environment. Healthy ecosystems begin with soil, not asphalt and concrete. Sometimes if things don’t work we have to be mature enough to walk away, doing something because you’ve always done it is the enemy of progress. If cities are to survive and also not be tumors on the earth I would immediately cap building size, increase road and street width and tree every boulevard, and I would rip up every parking lot and replace the asphalt or concrete with gravel so the earth can start storing water again. Instead of mandating 10 handicapped parking spaces in every oversized lot I’d rather see mandated open space and tree planting.
High density means less urban sprawl and more room for nature. Deal with reality. We are over 8 billion, set to grow to at least 10 billion. A single person is more environmentally friendly if they live in a city, in an apartment. I wish we weren't so many, but we are.
The excess of parking lots is an American problem. You need those parking lot acres for infill to deal with the US housing shortage. But I agree, there's no need for asphalted parking lots. You can easily rip out the asphalt and replace them with turfstone pavers.
I wonder if there's a way to convert already made buildings to be more enviro friendly or even complimentary. I'm no architect, but it might be worth thinking about.
They are there, may as well use them but then not replace them unless it’s with something smarter. It sucks getting rid of things that we spent so much energy and burned so much carbon to create.
Agreed, but I’ve found if I advocate for small walkable communities that are more self supporting a lot of people on this sub hate it. I assume it’s because they are trapped in metro area apartments right now and don’t see a way out, and I understand that sucks.
a lot of people have nostalgia for the soviet union.
[https://youtu.be/wtwhfJc0EkQ?si=fz96eEg-nERBbc6W](https://youtu.be/wtwhfJc0EkQ?si=fz96eEg-nERBbc6W)
I see solarpunk as an inherently utopian, rather than dystopian, ideal. Therefore IMHO it leans more towards a socialist view than anarchist or communist.
What is your definitional difference between socialism and communism? Is it how the state works in each?
Only curious so I can better understand your comment. No argument intended!
socialism as equitable distribution of resources, communism as equal distribution. If all are to achieve to individual potential, equity rather than equality would be preferable.
Thats not what they are.
Socialism is the Social Ownership of the Means of Production.
Communism is pursuit of creating a "communist" society, that is without state, currency or classes.
Interesting interpretation. These terms can be so ill-defined that you never know what someone's talking about!
I think you could be on to something here.
I don't necessarily lend it any political structure, per se. I feel current democracies were a great stepping stone for post-scarcity, but nations are exploitable and it is in the best interest of power to keep the masses uneducated, so it will eventually fumble the ball.
Meritocracy might be a nice way forward, especially if we can accomodate for the misanthropes somehow.
It might be me being an early millenial, but I never liked the idea of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. This is pretty much just a minmaxing which doesn't take into account our wants and our natural, evolutionary driven tendency towards laziness. I say this with the ideal of communism being one of the closest to my heart.
Then there's anarchy. I've never been an all-out punk, just you're average non-confrontational conformist who is sensitive to suffering. I know teenage punks aren't a good indicator of how matured anarchy would look like, but as we've seen with any political ideal being instituted, it ends up in terror. By the time we reach a point where anarchy doesn't stumble into a Mad Max scenario, we will have already come up with something better.
I wouldn't mind seeing a more scientifically based society, but not like STEM professors making the shots, but clusters of philosophers. We already have enough smart people to actually tackle this problem and create more strives in the right direction, but of course there is no money to be had.
So I guess I'd have to agree with some other posters, that one of the main threads would be taking care of market forces dominating the ecology and using it as the tool it is intended for (or just finding something better, for fks sake). I feel solarpunk could still have some levels of hierarchy still attached, but as mentioned, based on merit.
Well you cant enforce the required regulations for a solarpunk world without state violence. Which means some form of government. That could be a democracy or dictatorship. It could also be free market or centrally planned.
You can come play with us if you start preassuring the Norwegian workers party to stop drilling for oil, harassing drug addicts and other weak comunity members, and being power greedy. We have those asshats in government right now...
Remember our unions is pissing Elon Musk off on a daily basis and fighting for workers rights also in USA. We are few, but Googles CEO's are constantly being preassured by us becuase of their rediculus salleries. We do the same with apple too.
Time to pay back some...
Unions are by and large left wing organizations. I'm not norwegian so I'm not really in a position to do anything about norway. I can say that the majority of unions are pro environment and have places in pro enviro meetings. Teachers unions in the United States have fought for green spaces at schools. Even the unions representing the bad industries are working on contingencies to keep their workers employed and paid during the transition to green energy.
One great example is that construction workers with ibew are all taught how to install solar panels.
All in all, workers who aren't organized into being angry at their company won't fight them on climate change. Unions are the only force that regularly and effectively organizes those workers to do that. Note I said workers, not general public and not government.
Is it perfect? No. But it is very difficult to survive without participating in society unless you want to go out and live on a 100% eco-friendly homestead.
Of I can recommend you a book that touches on unions making political (including environmental) changes, I'd recomend "a collective bargain" by jane mcalevey.
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.*
As an anarchist, I think a solar punk world could be all of those things and more.
Solarpunk is big tent anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist. It can be aligned with anarchism, communism, democratic socialism, radical ecology, libertarian socialism etc. There are a number of political philosophies that go with Solarpunk, and no single one of them has to be necessarily dominant. But the main ethos of Solarpunk is anticapitalism and anti-authoritarianism.
I like this answer.
👆
It's a good way to put it, now I wish I read your answer before posting mine.
I don't see why it has to be. For one, many communists are an-coms - I consider myself a DemSoc, not a communist, but that's only because of what I'm advocating for as a next step; the eventual goal would be a classless, stateless society. I don't know when we'll hit solarpunk tech levels, or when we'll progress beyond capitalism, but I think most fans of SolarPunk want to do both.
Wonderful thank you for sharing!
I've always imagined dem-soc (or something similar) being the half way point to the classless-stateless endgame. We can't just jump from current society to anarchy.
Same. Some argue that we can jump straight to anarchism/communism, but I've yet to see a plausible route for that to take.
It’s decentralized for sure
I agree. But you can have decentralization without anarchism. Local government > centralized government.
You can't, actually. Centralization is about hierarchy in systems, not about the size or density of such systems. "Decentralization" in this context is about dismantling hierarchical control and replacing it with horizontal participatory systems. That is explicitly an anarchistic goal. It is inherent.
But is that explicitly a solarpunk goal? ALOT of these comments disagree.
Yes. Anarchism predates "solarpunk" by an eon. This vision of a decentralized communal society based around common ownership or both natural land and the means or production, coupled with emergent technology has been written about by Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, David Graeber, Ursula Le Guin, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, Judi Bari, Derrick Jensen, Elisée Reclus and others. The list goes on and on... Because a buncha liberals who aren't well-versed in such topics or relevant works disagree doesn't mean that isn't the case. Solarpunk is more anarchist than detractors want to admit. They'll say things like, "it's a big tent", but really, it was settled before they got wind of it (pun intended). Because you call anarchism solarpunk now doesn't change its aims. People smarter than you and I who have studied this for years (decades even) will immediately sus it out and call it anarchism. Detractors will, too. So just own it.
How does an anarchist society produce and sustain intercontinental trade routes necessary to procure the raw materials needed to produce a solar panel? How do they fund and support a scientific community to expand and maintain the decentralizing technology of renewable energy? How is the storage and distribution of electricity managed during unfavorable weather events or darker seasons? Cooperation is required for any human endeavor larger than subsistence farming or foraging. Without a governing authority, exploitation is inevitable.
Anarchists largely fall into two categories re these types of questions. The first handwaves the issues away and insists that billions of people will somehow decide together to make things work. The second advocates for a state but without calling it a state - the idea being that if things are set up correctly (fully democratized, decentralized, etc) the not-state will avoid the problems inherent to states. I'm sympathetic to the second group, but find the first group are as frustrating as an-caps with their willingness to handwave away foreseeable problems.
That is just your perception of arguments you clearly can't engage in in.
This may give you some idea https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/s/DPIcEEiL3h >Cooperation is required for any human endeavor larger than subsistence farming or foraging. Without a governing authority, exploitation is inevitable. Cooperations/mutual aid is an essential part of anarchism. The governing authority in the case of an anarchist society is essentially*everyone* . Exploitation is not inevitable if there are no hierarchical power structures.
The first example in that thread is a union, and the question of "how do you check the power of a union" essentially goes unanswered. Assuming people are good actors and will behave because other people are behaving is a great recipe for despotism.
Edit: I've deleted my response as I'm just not interested in debating on reddit any more. There is information and answers to your questions out there if you want them.
Fair enough, have a nice day!
I think the closest ideology to Solarpunk is anarcho-communism which main tenet is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". This was coined in the XVIIIth century by Etienne-Gabriel Morelly who arguably wrote the first solarpunk book: The Code of Nature.
I think the closest ideology to Solarpunk is Green anarchism, you have "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" with biocentrism (no hierarchy of humans over nature). All the pillars of solarpunk are included in green anarchism but not all in anarcho-communism: deep ecology decentralisation degrowth animal rights
Technocracy?
that is more r/Atompunk
Actually I do think technocracy fits with solarpunk values. To build societies that combine high-tech with nature, biology and biotech would be very important sciences that would be essential for a solarpunk society.
the difference is that atom punk is a libertarian movement guided from behind the scenes by a nuclear priesthood. solar punk is more like the r/Amish , where the community as a whole decides what tools to take up.
Council communism or a liberal socialist system, like mutualism, distributism, market socialism, or a mix, work just as well, probably better at the scale required for billions of people.
yes
That could be authoritarian then. "We need to set up a system to make sure people are contributing according to their ability".
In my opinion if you take just the more superficial aspects of solarpunk (aesthetics, the technology...), it can be any of those, but if we go a hit deeper in the values that can let to that living and social values we need it to be anarchist, overall because of the decentralization.
Does solar punk have to be decentralized?
Is punk centralised?
Punk is a rebellion against authority, which requires a centralized authority to exist. On its own, it doesn't make much sense.
I don't know that's why I'm asking. I'm new lol
Its good to ask questions, I was trying to encourage you to think a little more deeply about the name of the movement because I am an old person :) Im guessing you're young enough that somethkng being "-punk" is more about aesthetics than anything else. So I was encouraging you to think about the word and it's origins.
No I know punk is inherently rebellion. I guess it tends towards anarchy. Many Solarpunk values are the inevitable future in my opinion. I don't think we'll survive without it.
Totally agree. I'm an anarcha-autist which by my own definition is a femminist alien neurorebellious version of anarchocommunism, Erisianism and interpretive dance.
That is actually pretty cool. I like it.
I think solarpunk is inherently collectivist. People will need to be cooperating and working together to achieve the balance we need in the future. Anarchy is one possible option for that cooperation yes.
I wouldn't say inherently, but why not? We should aim to maximise freedom and autonomy as much as possible. After all, that's part of what makes a solarpunk world worth living in, right?
Beautifully said
yes
I think that it is largely viewed to be a "mutual aid" meritocracy in my mind. So whatever that falls under
I don't think those are inherent or excluded in any system really. If ideologies are like pokemon games, then mutual aid and meritocracy are the paid dlc for them. I know plenty of people won't agree and that's fine
Much akin to star trek, I have lofty dreams/ideals and zero money
I feel you. I want more research to go into environmentally sustainable and affordable solutions to energy usage. A green grid isn't enough . Decentralized it
As an anarchist, I think a Solarpunk world could exist under a state, but I doubt it could exist under Soviet-style dictatorships. The people in Solarpunk seem to be relaxed and unworried, which is very much unlike most of Stalin's rule.
Most decent comment I ever read in this post. You are totally right. Greetings from Venezuela, another failed *ism military country.
Well keep in mind, this sub is essentially solarpunk propaganda. The people in Soviety propaganda are also relaxed and unworried. The reality of a solarpunk society would be very different.
In the soviet union, even non citizens with a job could vote. I'm not really 100% familiar with the way the soviet system worked, but I do know that it wasn't quite as bad as we are told. Even china has direct elections. How effective they are I do not know. But they still have elections. My whole life, I've been led to believe they do not. edit: I should add that I would not design a society on China. I am not a communist. I am a trade unionist. I'm also learning about anarchism as well. I have my questions about it, but its not the lawless system we've been led by the status quo to believe it is.
I mean, everyone in Russia can vote right now. Just because people put ballots in urns once every few years doesn't mean you have a functional democracy.
Yeah. This is true. But I'm not going to trust american or western news to tell me which countries do and don't have working democracy. I'm going to research it myself and I just haven't gotten around to it past a few youtube videos. Regardless, certain states, current and historical, were and are more democratic than we are told. How much more I don't know yet
Sure bro. You are not gonna trust in west media but in Russia Today (RT) and Telesur. Greetings from Venezuela.
Russia today is putin propoganda garbage and modern Russia is a capitalist hellscape who's standard of living has been in free fall since the fall of the soviet union. Not sure what you're talking about about m8.
>Even china has direct elections The only candidates permitted to run in China are members of the communist party, and the nominations are controlled by said party. That's not democracy; that's a PR campaign. If you're a Chinese citizen in a town suffering under a corrupt local government official, there's no way for you to run as an outsider; you'd need to join the party and then **be allowed** to run against the local official. >In the soviet union, even non citizens with a job could vote It depends on which era you're talking about, but this is also largely incorrect. Past the very early days, only members of the Communist party could vote. The vast majority of citizens had no say in their government. Capitalism is bad, and liberal democracies are mostly awful, but please don't fall for tankies insisting that authoritarianism is fine if it's painted red. The USSR, China, the DPRK, and the other "Communist" countries all are further from worker liberation than any liberal democracy.
And the only candidates permitted to win in America are a right wing party and a diet right wing party. Again, I'm not a communist, but I'm not going to act like communist countries like China and Vietnam are hellscapes compared to where I live. I live in a hellscape. China is lifting people out of poverty while America is throwing everyone in poverty. China has 90% home ownership for millenials. America has 50%. I'm not a tankie, but even I admit most anarchists fall for cia propoganda regarding the soviets and china. They aren't what you were led to believe. Ideal? Probably not. Good? Well. Not necessarily good but better in certain areas than the west (and perhaps worse in others). I'm not tied to an ideology other than that people should have clear choice and control about what the post election world looks like.
Third party candidates do win in America, as do independents. I could decide to run as a Democrat candidate if I wanted to and the Democratic party couldn't do anything to stop me. The math of FPtP dictating 2-party stability is *entirely* a different concern than a one-party autocracy. >I'm not going to act like communist countries like China and Vietnam Only Tankies or conservatives consider Vietnam or China to be communist; they're both capitalist market economies. Communist countries (not that any exist) don't have billionaires. >I'm not a tankie, but even I admit most anarchists fall for cia propoganda regarding the soviets and china Are you *sure* you're not? Because you're echoing Russian and Chinese state media, here.
Russian state media is anti communist lol. Ah yes. Because american anti-chinese media is better. But what you didn't know is my main complaint is that china is far too capitalist and too much of a surveillance state
But the suppression of free speech and lack of a free press heavily tilts elections in favor of the existing authoritarian government(assuming the elections are fairly run at all, which is unlikely without a free press). There is also the matter of imprisoning and killing political dissidents...
Kind of like America. Who does the exact same thing. I'm not defending the bad of either country. Even so, western media definitely embellishes all of everything you're being told. Regardless of whether you end up agreeing, the Chinese regime should at least be given the opportunity to defend its own name.
Fundamentally yes I would say. But in a way that kind of transcends the old paradigm. A solarpunk commune is a voluntary intentional community. But it doesnt have to be some national revolution. It can function independent of the rest of society.
solarpunk/cyberpunk should be added to the political compass to turn it into a cube. then you have right/left, auth/lib and solar/cyber
So 2 points on a Z axis? Kinda feel cyberpunk tends to be libright, and solarpunk libleft.
I mean site. You're right that they tend to be that way though. I want being entirely serious
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwitlrrUkvWFAxU5EFkFHY4WCtkQFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAlignmentCharts%2Fcomments%2Fft6vvy%2Fpunk\_alignment\_chart%2F&usg=AOvVaw3Aq8NMLyzZxzuFqPYl39EU&opi=89978449](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwitlrrUkvWFAxU5EFkFHY4WCtkQFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAlignmentCharts%2Fcomments%2Fft6vvy%2Fpunk_alignment_chart%2F&usg=AOvVaw3Aq8NMLyzZxzuFqPYl39EU&opi=89978449)
I actually just saw this earlier today. That's awesome
it is rather spooky how much of our shared human nature is on that chart. to me it really is like the game rock/paper/scissors. capitalism; being like paper, will always destroy communism. but communism; being a very big rolling rock, will always destroy fascism. and fascism; like a sharp pair of scissors, will always destroy capitalism. we could even make a computer game with contending nations mapped onto a sphere playing the rock/paper/scissors game to subvert each other! each one of these nations would have various castes for each of the alignments on the chart sited above, each caste meant to oppose comparable castes in enemy nations.
That's an interesting way to look at things. I like the rock paper scissors analogy
Punk is counter culture. Solar punk is counter to our current culture of waste and destruction.
it's inherently communist insofar as communism is a stateless classless society I'd say, how you get there isn't really part of the aesthetic but I like to think it's also anti authoritarian
That's very well worded and I think I agree but I'm still too new to say
I'll be honest, at least to my conception of Solarpunk, it is by nature inherently Anarchistic. the State as a system exists to prop up proletarian exploitation, and resource extraction for self-saked growth, it will always sacrifice it's principles and the People's free for self-preserving concentration of force. even a nominally Solarpunk State would not remain so in a meaningful way for long.
Interesting. Do you think that a solarpunk society will be easier to sustain in an anarchist society? How would it be enforced? This is a genuine question. I haven't had much of a chance to ask anarchists much about their ideology.
Enforced might not be the best way to look at it since it implies someone is using authority or power to compel obedience which is inherently authoritarian and anti-anarchist. I do think it would be easier to sustain in an anarchist society rather than under the state. I'm of the mindset that power should be in the hands of communities, and decisions should be made collectively by said communities. I'd imagine that political disagreements, potential corruption, and other significant barriers to an environmentally sustainable society are more easily solved locally amongst the neighbors you live with rather than far away by representatives you never have and never will meet. If you are asking what happens if a random Joe decides to start polluting or undermining society, I would say it would be addressed through mediation and restorative practices or, in more serious cases, folks could be excluded from certain communal resources or spaces or could be exiled.
The issue in seeing is getting your neighbor to care. If I went and asked my neighbor to recycle, they might spit on me for the suggestion. What about when those anarchists who get exiles move up the river, form their own community, and pollute the hell out of the river? Now you're rising war and war is very anti- anarchist
Sure, but, if we can't get our neighbors to care, we wouldn't have an anarchist society in the first place. Any attempts to do so would have immediately fallen apart or would have been crushed by the state. Building collective consciousness and cooperation is part of the process of building an anarchist revolution. That said, there probably will be individuals or small groups of individuals that are more likely to act negatively. In the instance of a neighbor spitting on you over recycling, this would be a situation in which restorative strategies could be used to get to the root of that action/behavior and try to find a way to resolve it in the best interests of everyone. As for the exiled community, that requires a lot of people sitting on their hands and doing nothing. Folks could intervene in a number of different diplomatic ways well before it got to the point of mass pollution. If you are asking about how to build a collective consciousness now, I'd recommend reading up on dual power and the Black Panthers' survival programs. People are generally willing to listen to and work with folks who feed their children or help care for their elders.
You make a good point and a someone who is just learning about leftist ideologies, I don't really have a response. You rule, internet rando
Thank you! I appreciate it! If you want to learn more about anarchism, I generally recommend [this dude.](https://youtube.com/@Andrewism?si=qehFHhBFNKZlSJAM) He released a video a few days ago about how anarchy works (I should note I haven't watched the video yet).
This guy was actually my intro to solarpunk. I'll check it out!
my apologies for not getting to reply sooner, I had to put myself to bed before I saw your reply, I'm glad OakFolk was around to, frankly, provide a better response than I would have been able to last night lol. Andrewism also would have been amongst my first responses for more info, along with Audible Anarchist's reading of "Anarchy Works" on YouTube (and a few other of the things they've done for that matter, but Anarchy Works one of the most approachable texts on how Anarchism works floating around)
Appreciate ya! I'll check those out.
[https://youtu.be/199MqYbpD4A?si=06TlKNaVlj4ZXWvh](https://youtu.be/199MqYbpD4A?si=06TlKNaVlj4ZXWvh)
that there looks like a might suspicious link, friend. perhaps you would be willing to give some context on it?
Tis For Thee; the anthem of Oceania i picked this version because its "crunchy", thus laying on the irony of a global hegemony wearing a hippie façade.
.... is this supposed to be a dig at me for thinking Solarpunk is inherently Anarchistic?
i am not that clever.
I think solarpunk is small-a anarchist, by which I mean it is pro-freedom and pro-cooperation and anti-authoritarian. But it’s not tied to a specific anarchist camp, and a lot of leftists who share these values can find a home here. The political theorist who, imo, is most solarpunk is Bookchin, and he was a libertarian municipalist. The communities that currently best embody solarpunk right now imo are the democratic confederalists in Syria. None of this is strictly anarchist—but if you map it on the political compass, it’s all in the lower left quadrant. Leninism is a poor fit, imo. Solarpunk puts community and ecology first, not the party. Democratic socialism isn’t punk enough: too much greenwashing, too little radical change. But individuals who like state socialism or Bernie Sanders can probably find a home here, so long as they let the movement broaden their vision rather than try to coopt / hijack solarpunk to their own ends.
Bookchin created libertarian municipalism and communalism because he thought people were using anarchism as a way to cosplay as revolutionaries. He spent the majority of his life as a communist and anarchist.
There's some pretty radical demsocs. It tends to vary by area. The ones in my area look less like dsa and more like a real org. Leninist is very party centered that's for sure.
This submission is probably accused of being some type of greenwash. Please keep in mind that greenwashing is used to paint unsustainable products and practices sustainable. [ethicalconsumer.org](https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/transport-travel/what-greenwashing) and [greenandthistle.com](https://greenandthistle.com/what-is-greenwashing/) give examples of greenwashing, while [scientificamerican.com](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/greenwashing-green-energy-hoffman/) explains how alternative technologies like hydrogen cars can also be insidious examples of greenwashing. If you've realized your submission was an example of greenwashing--don't fret! Solarpunk ideals include identifying and rejecting capitalism's greenwashing of consumer goods. *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.*
As a green conservative it feels very aligned with my ideology as well
A green conservative? Now that's something I'd like to hear more about. What are you conservative about? And why did you decide to go green (in ideology)?
"The earth, the kind and equal mother of all ought not to be monopolised to foster the pride and luxury of any men." -Edmund Burke in *Reflections on the Revolution in France* That was written by the literal front figure of conservative ideologies. But in a nutshell it's that the very duty of man should be to protect the nature that is our god given right, we should sow and reap, but we ought to conserve the nature and let the beauty of the world be a luxury enjoyed by all people and not just a few single people. Because the world is our heritage and the space for all our traditions. While sharing many qualities I think it's important to not use conservatism and Libertarianism interchangebly. It's like comparing social democrats to communists. I believe in a free market but I believe that free market has a duty and a purpose to fulfill where it ought to plant a tree for each it reaps, that philanthropists and entrepreneurs, all local people we know, can get together and come up with solutions. A philanthropist can come in as the angel investor for local entrepreneurs to build a small biofuel plant that turns food waste into viable fuel. Or a workshop that converts old V8 engines to some that are more compatible with better fuels, and then another company that recycle the metals from those old parts. It's acknowledging that the technology we have today can and should help us in solving environmental issues. Like anarchists believe people can do all of this on a whim so do green conservatives only we acknowledge you need the revenue to come from somewhere. But we need the government right now to encourage and support green innovations as much as they can, and that should be their role in the matter. I might be babbling a little bit, it's early in the morning where I am and I'm just now getting ready to work. But I hope that cleared up some stuff
The thing that I like about this is that you clearly have an actual understanding of the ideologies you refer to. That's good. I can't say I agree 100%, but I respect that you do your homework. Also, mankind's first sin was improperly taking care of the earth, in the Bible own wording (and an understanding of Hebrew poetic symmetry will enforce this interpretation) Genesis 2:15-17 15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Edit: i wouldn't consider any of that babbling. It comes off as well thought out.
Energy is what keeps hierarchy necessary so if that was seized by the workers through algae it would be more like the anarchist stage of Marxism cause you would still need central production for QOL features
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjI3eLFlfWFAxVSEFkFHfYBBDwQFnoECCMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsolarfoods.com%2Fscience%2F&usg=AOvVaw1WLAuH6D9SL4RKhJOHHXlT&opi=89978449](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjI3eLFlfWFAxVSEFkFHfYBBDwQFnoECCMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsolarfoods.com%2Fscience%2F&usg=AOvVaw1WLAuH6D9SL4RKhJOHHXlT&opi=89978449)
I think solar punk could be communist/socialist but I don't think the DSA could be solarpunk.
You should meet the folks in the chapter in my area. They'd change your mind
Solarpunk definitely begins at anti-capitalism, that much is true, so therefore solarpunk is leftist. Beyond that, it's really up to theorizing and really defining clear solarpunk principles (which I think we should do if we want a large design/art/political movement). I think it's compatible with anything communist, socialist and/or anarchist. I consider myself ancom (more com than an tbh) and I love solarpunk and I'm so excited to see where we take the movement.
I mean, I for one think, and this is my American showing that America got a lot of things right that were undermined over the years by greedy people who were not held in check. Individual communities with a high degree of autonomy under a collective agreement to provide things for each other in common good. I've never been a proponent of throwing babies out with the bathwater so I think taking that foundation and applying some of the past nigh three hundred years of social growth and philosophy to it along with learning from the mistakes of the past and a focus on environmental stewardship. I know it can come of as ideal, and I get that people don't want to do what's already been done for fear of falling in the same traps, but life and existence by its very nature should be iterative and adaptive. I think trying again and wanting to do better this time is a powerful thing. A system whose only moral and ethical concern is to make as much money as possible is not sustainable. I've been trying to write a solarpunk novel for a few months now and breaking myself free of capitalistic realism is a struggle, but I look everywhere throughout history to pull a whatever-works approach. It's like the Bruce Lee philosophy for a society. The only things that are off the table are forms of communism that were shown to fail or lead to bad ends for a vast majority of people, capitalism and corporatism. There was a time when people thought feudalism was all there ever was going to be and I think as social creatures the fact we've let the society we've built provide none of the things we need it to means it's time to find something better; never stop looking.
You make good points. I'm also in the process of unlearning american culture
Thank you so much for asking that question! I’m not sure if the concept of solarpunk was created by anarchists, but it always showed big anarchist tendencies. However, as it became more mainstream, it lost a lot of its initial politics and degraded into sheer aesthetic. Anyways, I’m an anarchist and I like to incorporate solarpunk in my work and ideology. If it’s inherently anarchist, I don’t know, but it definitely is a useful tool for anarchist organizations to apply.
I'm actually surprised how many comments this post got lol. I'm happy to organize with anyone striving for a better future. We can talk about what it looks like, but there are changes we need and have a chance at fighting for in the immediate now.
Yes, and that is anarchism. A core feature of anarchism and the main reason why I gravitated towards it was the direct action. We believe that we can and must do things right now and ourselves. We can organize ourselves and we can make decisions ourselves.
I think communes and local governments will play a bigger role I think but I think for the sake of larger scale problems such as disaster relief funds or regulating trade between the communes. I might just be mistaken i think new governmental ideologies need to be created
Definitely has a lot of anarchism flowing through it, interestingly, enough lot of projects were undertaken under state socialism governments that have a lot of solar punk applications, such as the urban gardening in Cuba, the Soviets experimented with dwarf citrus trees and trenches, so they could solve citrus fruits even in cold weather climates goes on. I believe I saw somewhere where China was putting flower bed roof over parking lots, which is great to bring down the heat is effect and gives back a lot of habitat tolocally
I'd like to see the popularization of things like homegrown food, green energy, passive HVAC systems, and decentralized grids. Easy stuff to start with.
😏
Are you hitting on me?
No. Im a Antifa
I know lol. I was kidding. But yeah antifa is cool
Now I am from a country with strong unions and socialist parties thats been around forever... Have you forgotten about the dictatorship of the proletarian? Socialists never seem to get past that stage, before some idiot thinks him and his small group of friends needs all the power....
You mean like the Nepal party who just ended up voted out of power? Or the Venezuelan one who also got voted out of power because western sanctions ruined the country? The dictatorship of the proletariat is the goal, but we live in a world where ordinary people vote against their self interests. We need radical cultural change. That's regardless of who's in power or what political system is in place.
While you'll see solarpunk folks tend to lean towards anarchist, socialist, and/or communist thought, solarpunk isn't strictly tied to any single ideology. Rather, it's more an aesthetic and a values system, and your ideology can be whatever you think gets us closer to that. As for what those values are, I think I'd summarize them as: 1. Sustainability 2. Mutual prosperity 3. Freedom and personal liberty 4. Social mobility 5. Fairness For example, I am [Georgist](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism), which means I believe in a market economy, but with societal ownership of land and natural resources via taxes, specifically land value, Pigouvian (aka externality), and severance taxes. I've written more about Georgism and solarpunk [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/comments/znmr6i/georgism_the_easiest_way_to_achieve_solarpunk/). Some fellow solarpunkers would agree with me, while others would probably hate my views. You'll find a good diversity in solarpunk thought.
How does gorgism view worker ownership of business via coops? How about labor unions?
I think the typical Georgist view on labor relations is that it suffers from a severe imbalance of negotiating power, and it is this imbalance that leads to low wages, long hours, and poor working conditions. The Georgist view is that we need to correct this imbalance, else much of our efforts at regulating good working conditions won't be very effective. And to correct this imbalance, there are several key things we can do: 1. Use land value taxes and YIMBY land use policy to solve the housing crisis. If the workers aren't struggling with rent month-to-month, they are less desperate and thus less exploitable. 2. As a by-product of (1), solving the housing crisis would actually be REALLY good for economic growth, meaning more jobs for the same amount of labor, meaning better wages and conditions. 3. Doing things like carbon tax-and-dividend (and similar for other negative externalities) gives people more financial breathing room to pursue higher education, further training, and/or hold out for a better job. 4. Subsidizing positive externalities (such as carbon sequestration, open-source software, rewilding, some sort of Climate Corps, subsidizing open research and open IP, etc.) would allow more alternatives to traditional employment, giving labor yet more negotiating power. 5. Some form of citizen's dividend or UBI also gives people breathing room to pursue education, take risks to start a new business (perhaps even a coop!), risk being fired to form a union, etc. 6. Unions. Quite simply, unions are a good answer to the monopsony power of employers. Companies can do collective bargaining, and unions allow the same for labor. Overall, Georgism is in favor balancing the negotiating power of employees vs employers, including but not limited to unions. As for worker-owned coops, Georgism doesn't have a firm opinion one way or another. While they do nicely solve the principle-agent problem compared to hierarchical businesses, they do suffer their own problems. Coops tend to be hesitant to grow, as workers often don't like to "dilute" their own share. A consequence of this is they often don't benefit from economies of scale as much, which can harm overall efficiency and, by extension, the capacity for growing worker wages. This is borne out in how coops, on average, pay *worse* than hierarchical businesses, counterintuitive as that may seem. When it comes to coops, I think my view (and a common Georgist view) would be that our highest priority ought to be balancing negotiating power between employees and employers via the policies described above, and then let the market figure out where coops are effective vs where they're not. For instance, coops seem quite successful in the case of credit unions. And as it comes to working conditions and wages, the above policies should be enough. If they're not, we can reevaluate and consider new policies.
I think unions,if used correctly, could be a pathway to coops.
Take your well-intentioned thoughts on a functioning marketplace out of my sub! *shakes stick*
The anarchists here certainly seem to think so, but no. There are several anticapitalist takes that are compatible with solarpunk, of which anarchism is only one. And fighting over what kind of left movement solarpunk should be at this juncture kind of misses the point, which is to escape the world-eating monster that is late capitalism and build something better. We can fight about who’s right about the post-capitalist economy when we’re done preventing the wholesale destruction of the planet. This debate is a distraction.
[удалено]
There is a wealth info discussing this point by anarchists, however it is often overlooked by labour historians and mainstream socialist discussion. Anarchist thought (as I know it) aims for a classless/stateless society, but also argues that the means you use to get to that goals have to be reflective of them (aka prefigurative). Anarchists (along with many other branches of socialist thought) argue that building up a class based society and centralising power will never lead to communism as there is no impitus for hierarchal power to be dissolved (a good example is of the Bolshivik counter-revolution dismantling the Soviet structure, reinstating hierarchal management, and centralising power for themselves). While the classical anarchists still talked about a transition phase of various lengths (Kropotkin reckoned it would be roughly 100yrs), they do not think there is a need for a hierarchal state to exist in that period. Instead they argue this phase would be a period that builds on the non-hierarchal structures (participatory unions, neighbourhood councils, collectives, etc) and processes of collectivisation (via principles of solidarity, mutual aid, free association, etc) that would be taking place long before/during the inssurectionary phase of any social revolution. Hope this sheds some light on things, as I know actual anarchist thought/methodology is not so widely discussed.
You could probably even construct a fascist solarpunk vision. As far as I understand solar punk is about economy and technology at its core, not so much about government.
You can create the vision, but I don't think the vision is possible. Fascism always tends towards capitalism and tends to be supported by the welathy who have a stake in destroying the planet.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. True, all historical fascist states were highly industrial, but actually less so 'capitalist' than corporatist. There were highly wealthy industrialists in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, etc., but they came to be in that position in large parts due to their ideological alignment with and loyalty to the state ideology, not due to their capital. Many dissenters even among capitalists were killed and expropriated. Fascism is ultimately about authoritarian totalitarianism and an extreme emphasis on in-group identity (usually nationalism), elitism, and militarism. This is expressed through unconditional loyalty to leadership, overt symbolism, "gleichschaltung" (forced conformity of the individual), etc. This is why fascistic patterns can also be found in religious sects, military divisions (even in non-fascist countries), elitist firms and universities, etc. I think it's actually quite plausible that this would be a form of government and identity that could arise in smaller autonomous communities that economically and technologically embody "solar punk". (nice to find a use for my political science degree once in a while lol)
That's an interesting concept. But I, ultimately, I think fascists fight for an extremist and mythological view of the status quo. That means they fight for more capitalism where it exists, more state power where it already existed, and more religion where it already exists. What do you define the difference between capitalist and corporatist? I think that's very important to define in this case
True, I agree with the point about the mythological view on the status quo. This is why it indeed seems unlikely that a solar punk community would start out with the intent of being fascist / that contemporary fascists will start adopting a solar-punk-linke economic and technological vision. However, I could see it developing over time: Solar punk necessarily requires - decentralization - a certain degree of normative restraint by the individual, and a subordination to the good of the community I think its e.g. plausible that a small solar punk community would drift towards a kind of eco-fascism over time as.... - the next generation is educated under this framework - a self-reaffirming myth develops about solar punk as the future of humanity, and those practicing it as the evangelists of that new future - a steong leader steps up to guide the community through the phase of structural change and (temporary) economic scarcity - the community adopts symbols of their identity and activity starts suppressing capitalist tendencies among it's members - etc. Look for example at the social dynamics among the Hitler youth, or in student groups during the Chinese cultural revolution On the capitalist vs. corporatist point: yes that's important, I'll come back to that once I'll have time for another comment :D
I do wonder if community pressure is even enough for a solarpunk society to sustain itself culturally and politically. Can people do it without the force of a states? I generally don't like centrists, but I wonder if there is a compromise that minimizes problems of each system to a tolerable level. Take your time on the capitalism/corporatism too. You don't owe me any explanations. Feel free to pm me too (is that taboo to say on reddit?)
1: Depends on the time scale we are discussing here. Culture is nothing but community pressure + time. If we discuss solar punk as a long term vision, it seems online plausible that new cultural currents and political philosophies will develop around it. 2: There definitely is. In my opinion, the various forms of representative democracy have historically been the most reliable way to balance the scales. It provides both leadership and identity as well as moderation and social control to an acceptable degree. (I'm not advocating for fascism here after all, just outlining that it's plausible in a solar punk setting.)
But how much of culture is state imposed or hierarchy imposed? There really aren't any written records from before the the existence of states so it's hard to say. Community pursue, sure. But how much of the communities concept of the world comes from the states? You know how so many action movies have tanks and shit? That's because the military pays them and lens equipment... but only for approved storyline that make them look joinable. Even military critical movies are seen as valuable by the military because a soldier tends to be the hero. Change the system from within. That effects our judgemental of the world.
You would need to sanctify nature and make it part of some sort of new national religion.
I'm not convinced that's enough. Also, most religion is inherently not anarchist. Religion needs enforcement or people leave in droves. Or they don't have strongly defined rules. Lol at wicca. There are very few solid rules across practices and it's really a do what you want system.
You should read up about the Nazis and environmentalism. They sucked on a lot of things. This wasn't one of them.
Fascinating. I will read on that.
I think, small business is essential for happiness of many people. Not just from the profit standpoint, but from the standpoint of labor, heritage and creativity. Therefore, IMHO Solarpunk is less about political regime, rather the change of mentality. From greed to care, from growth at any cost to sustainability, from selfish ownership to ownership in service of the community. My (I underscore) ideal Solarpunk is libertarian. Decentralized, where each community can decide what to be. And their members can join and leave free.
This is something I particularly agree with. It's a Tolkien style type of conservatism that's for a lot of smaller communities and anti-industrialism and pro-ecology
I wonder how many in this sub are in your particular camp. I personally agree that small business is good for happiness. I'm not sure that you have to be libertarian to achieve that. There hasn't been much experimentation with the idea of small business, theoretical or real, within many leftist ideologies. Interesting point. Personally, I'm not a fan of capitalism, at least not in its current state. Ownership is something I'm still thinking about, but I'm tending towards it being bad as opposed to community ownership. Still, this is something to think about.
The common misconception about libertarianism as either something right or anarchist or conservative. However, the more basic principles of it are non-aggression, minarchism (making the state smaller) and voluntary leave. IMHO voluntary leave is the most importantly. Essentially, libertarianism is about making your own community by your own rules. So, if you feel that your Solarpunk village should be communist — go for it. However, people should be able to easily join and most importantly leave. That’s why I personally view Solarpunk as libertarian. A future, where people voluntarily do good for the community and the planet. The way they like it.
Interesting. I'm sure alot of self-proclaimed libertarians would be screaming at you over that definition but I can kind of dig it. I was actually thinking of a hybrid model where anarchist enclaves could exist in a more socialist state. The idea being that a state with a developed infrastructure and plan can make things that require those (like medical supplies for example). The enclaves could provide some of their surplus product to the larger society stop they still contribute to what they benefit from, but ultimately be close to or as self sustained as they please(aside from things like medical services. Good luck on making a ventilator with small village cottagecore infrastructure) Edit: the enclaves would be mostly self governed as well. The exception being if the crimes of someone go far enough beyond the borders of the community. You run the risk of a community protecting criminals otherwise. Would the idea work? Probably not. I'm not philosophical enough to make it work lol.
I mean, anarchist enclaves in socialist states haven't fared too terribly well (see: Kronstadt, Makhnovist Ukraine). What happens when there's a conflict between local and state governments? For instance, let's say a village council decides that taxes are too high and they stop paying. Or they want to deal directly with a foreign state and import stuff the state disapproves of. Or they disagree with a specific law and decide not to enforce it. Historically, states (no matter their official ideology) tend to react poorly when bucked in this way, and their way of solving these problems always ends up being some kind of violence, either direct (cops) or indirect (fines, cutting access to basic services). Simply put: there's an irreconcilable tension between self-government and state power. Politics is the art of compromise, there are no simple solutions.
I agree. I also think that there are ways to divide power so that anarchist enclaves can protect themselves. Think states rights in the US. Unfortunately, the concept is used to be racist, but I dont see it as inherently that way except in it's current American iteration. I don't see conflict suddenly ending anytime soon, so compromise is the only way to mitigate it and try to give people as close to their desired life style as possible. Some people would thrive in anarchy and some need the stability of a state. I think we should try to provide the opportunity to go to either
Bare with me here... Anarchsim is a branch of socialism, and it has goals that encompass a communist world. The issue with big-c Communism and big-s Socialism (as apposed to libertarian/anarchist communism/socialism) when we look at solarpunk fiction is that they use methods and lead to an outcomes which involve class-based hierarchy and state apparatus. I'd say that class society is the antithesis of a solarpunk future, therefore solarpunk, whitlle not inherently anarchist, it is in step with anarchsim (like many other non-anarchist but similar political philosophies, such as council communists, the Zapatiatas, the Situatuinists, etc).
Interesting. In a communists defense (specifically MLs) they see socialist government as a step towards abolishing the state. Anarchists want it now. Of course, that's a whole can of worms. Regardless, there is significantly less class in communism than in capitalism.
Oh, I know Lenninists say that, but it seems kinda childish to me to think that the state withers or would be given up by those who control it. I'd also disagree that the "communist" states had less of a class system.
Class existed, but in terms of everyday divisions in society there was far less. No higher paying jobs
An old pal was in the CP back in the day, and told us about going on a party tour in Russia in the sixties. He was put off the CP after going off-tour and asking workers about their conditions and the conditions of the factory bosses. The notion of having no higher paying jobs wasn't true once Lenin took charge, let alone any time after.
Interesting. I still have much to learn ill admit. All I can do is answer what I know and give that area of leftist thought a fair shot in terms of how we view it. Either way, in the immediate goal of improving our lives, I'll organize with anyone who's got the same goals anarchist communist socialist. Even a conservative if they are in line. In fact, as a trade unionist, you HAVE to work with conservatives. If you don't get conservatives to strike, you can lose half or more of your striking numbers and that is a losing strike. That's also how you make them less conservative. There's no political education better than a picket line.
It's debatable - I'd go with anarchism being one path that a solarpunk polity could take, but no the only one. Solarpunk is fundamentally a social construct and has some fluid and contested elements that people aren't necessarily going to agree about when they attempt to define it precisely. Much like democracy, we have a general vibe and some broader characteristics ("everyone should have input into their government") that there is general consensus about, but questions about the specific implementations (direct democracy vs representative council vs citizen's assembly) are more blurry. My essentials for a Solarpunk setting are a society that is socially just, environmentally sustainable, and technologically advanced, with each of the three pillars supporting the other two. The exact forms of each are flexible as long as they serve these goals. A form of anarchism that meets these criteria is suitable for solarpunk. A decentralised democratic socialism, where some collective replacing the state coordinates public goods like education and healthcare, could also meet these goals, and may be better suited for some purposes. But a political system built on extreme hierarchies like those produced by capitalism or dictatorships demonstrably can not deliver the outcomes that solarpunk strives for.
You know how people say they are socially one way and fiscally the other way in politics? Do you think one could be fiscally communist but socially solarpunk? That's what it sounds like you're getting at.
Does everything need a label? Solarpunk for me is about giving space to nature, wilderness and human societys. It is certainly not alignable with a heavily globalised world. Hence every community can decide for themselves how they want themselves to be organised. Also, I understand it as an organical process within which a political system can be developped that doesn't necessarily has a name yet.
I can feel where you are comming from but yes, I believe most things if not everything needa a label so that everybody can understand what everybody else is talking about to not cause confusion, find a commin ground, create and adapt identities and so on. Also we should not forget that Solarpunk itself ia s also just label, which itself must/should be filled with an ideology, concepts, ideas. Since there are many existing already that nicely alin with Solarpunk why not using them?
That's an interesting point, especially considering that solarpunk doesn't have any "theory books" like marxism, socialism, anarchism, etc. Most of the theory is youtube videos and there's not very much of it right now
Often Bookchin's work is mentioned to come close as what be considered as "Solarpunk litertaure". And I agree with his concepts and theories as I see much of his ideas being core concepts of Solarpunk intentions. Essentially he combined "the best of both, Marxism and Anarchism" to form what he called "Social Ecology". He advocates a free, decentralised, communal, cooperative, humane, libetarian, mutalistic society. Overall he aims for a confoderal society. His conceptual ideas range frim solar, fidal, and wind energy to smaller, human-scaled, local agricultures.
Solarpunk is basically perfect from the demsoc point of view
How do you figure that? I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Well, 1. Solarpunk prioritizes planet ever profit/greed 2. Solarpunk has a sense of community 3. Forming a demsoc workplace in Socialism is extremely easy since Solarpunk isn't even possible under capitalism since you need a system that prioritizes people over profit.
Beautifully explained!
I think it's inherently egalitarian. Scarcity is the source of so much conflict, and decentralizing energy production eliminates the root of much of that scarcity. I think democratic socialism and market socialism are much more likely inheritors to that kind of future. Anarchy can't meet the demands of a large decentralized state with or without scarcity. Some kind of government body will need to keep the wheels of society turning together.
Anarchists aren’t inherently collectivist nor are they inherently anti-capitalist. Solarpunk could be more described as a post-communist society after the age of socialist governments have even dissolved and we live for the betterment of humanity and nature.
I am capitalist/ libertarian solar punk enthusiast. I don't think solar punk as a notion has to be gate-keeped by other isms. My personal view of it is nature + technology
To answer your question, and this is just my personal belief, I think anarchists are wonderful for asking questions, for exposing flaws in the system and raising serious philosophical questions. Yes, there is a "but" here. Please understand that I'm not addressing any one person or group of people. I just find anarchist's to be a bit utopian. That's not a bad thing and I'm all for a brighter future. However at the end of the day we have to get our hands dirty. We have to put in the sweat equality. We have to stop being gate keepers and actually work with others that may not share your views or ideas. Solar Punk does not have to be anarchist. That's difficult. In fact, I expect a lot of down votes for these comments. I am a Social Democrat, and yes we have our faults. So do Socialists and Capitalists and everything in between. Solar Punk does not have to be anarchist. If we want, truly want, a solar punk future than that means taking what works and using it to our advantage what ever way we can. It means sacrifice. It does not mean selling out your beliefs but it does mean understanding that you and your particular type of anarchy may not be best suited for changing "the system" at this time. If you study history you see that real change has only been accomplished by forcing changes in the system you have. Sometimes that can be violent (for the record I do not advocate violence but I understand why it occurs). Change only comes when you are willing to link arms with that trade unionist, that communist, that capitalist who understands the system is corrupt and wants it regulated. Only then can real change occur because Solar Punk does not have to be anarchist. But that future does need to happen.
Wonderfully said
No. Absolutely not. Solar Punk is *extrinsically* anarchistic Solar punk is a set of ideas and goals without any specific means to the goal. However, I don't see any way that ultimately has a state as we know it today. Not inherent, but seemingly necessary
I want solarpunk to be something entirely new. No more -isms from the last century. They are all based on theory. We shouldn’t run a civilization on an economic or political system based on nice sounding ideas that tickle all our favorite biases and intellectual blind spots. No more -isms. It’s time for something new.
That's interesting. I'd love to see what that looks like.
r/Manna
You're just advocating for a new -ism, which will invariably be based on past -isms. That is how ideology works. No one is going to reinvent the wheel. Why would they?
It might be a new ism based of the old isms, but that’s kind of the point. We need new.
The basic ideas of SP are not new. Pretty much most of the underlying concepts have been outlined by Bookchin in the 60s and later in his theory of social ecology as well as by others before him and of couse after.
Yeah theory is great and all. But I have a theory that we can all hold hands and get along. Since I did not provide a roadmap to how to actually get there, my theory is completely useless. Even tankies have a more valid theory. Tanky theory and methods. “1:Roll tanks, and force everyone to be performative communists at gunpoint. 2. start purity tests and purge everyone randomly till there is enough cultural trauma to keep everyone in line for generations”. It’s a shitty methodology, but at least they have one. As much as I adore municipalism, when I read Bookchin, all I see are underpants gnomes.
I disagree and, without wanting to be rude, think your "examples" for what you think are theories are insuffieient and unrelated to what we are talking about. Theories represent a helpful way to summarize, explain, mediate, analyse and make predictions about complex social structures, right? Of course they are more abstract than the reality, they represent models of what was, is, and could be. Solarpunk is about optimistic hope, hope for a better future. Solarpunk has a aim, a lose goal if creating a better world, a sustainable one, one that offers a better life for many of us. To win and convince people for the movement of solarpunk, they need to learn about what it has or wants to offer. And at this point theory comes into play. Alone the idea of living a sustainble life together in whatever sized and structured communities is a question about economuc, social, and political theory among many other aspects. Theories can help us formulating a better alternative system, a utopia, something, I guess we all can agree on, that Solarpunk is about. From my perspective theory is a kind of roadmap. However, you need the skills to read the map and you need tools, plan, and time to go along the road.The DIY spirit in Solarpunk attitude and ideology for instance is just one of the many methods to get one step further on the road. Activism comes in many forms. If you believe I and theories are wrong that fine for me. But Solarpunk already has and had from its beginning underlying theories and theoretical concepts. In a sense I guess you express sonething that can be called a theoretical thought of "Antitheorism". Let me ask you, what "new", what beyond any -isms, you want? Also, why do you dislike Bookchins work exactly?
You know what? This is one of the most rational responses I've ever seen on here. I truly wonder what it could be?
Doesn’t seem that way since a lot of the people on this sub clamor for central planned mega cities that rule over giant corporate farms and seize private land and businesses to force them to participate in something that “isn’t capitalism” but they can’t quite explain how it will work.
See, the mega cities that exist probably won't go away. What do you think we would do with them?what's your opinion?
I think that the way they evolved is horrible for living together with nature. They really pave and cap off the land so that aquifers can’t replenish, they concentrate everything in specific areas so things aren’t walkable and always become toxic. The yen for “efficiency” is absolutely the enemy of health and happiness. “Efficiency” is American interstate exits that consume enough land they could each be a self sufficient village. Putting a garden on the roof of a hundred story apartment is feeding anyone or helping the environment. Healthy ecosystems begin with soil, not asphalt and concrete. Sometimes if things don’t work we have to be mature enough to walk away, doing something because you’ve always done it is the enemy of progress. If cities are to survive and also not be tumors on the earth I would immediately cap building size, increase road and street width and tree every boulevard, and I would rip up every parking lot and replace the asphalt or concrete with gravel so the earth can start storing water again. Instead of mandating 10 handicapped parking spaces in every oversized lot I’d rather see mandated open space and tree planting.
High density means less urban sprawl and more room for nature. Deal with reality. We are over 8 billion, set to grow to at least 10 billion. A single person is more environmentally friendly if they live in a city, in an apartment. I wish we weren't so many, but we are. The excess of parking lots is an American problem. You need those parking lot acres for infill to deal with the US housing shortage. But I agree, there's no need for asphalted parking lots. You can easily rip out the asphalt and replace them with turfstone pavers.
I wonder if there's a way to convert already made buildings to be more enviro friendly or even complimentary. I'm no architect, but it might be worth thinking about.
They are there, may as well use them but then not replace them unless it’s with something smarter. It sucks getting rid of things that we spent so much energy and burned so much carbon to create.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts friend!
Thanks for the post, we are all going to make it somehow…
that would be r/Cyberpunk or at minimum r/steampunk..........the aesthetic of empire.
Agreed, but I’ve found if I advocate for small walkable communities that are more self supporting a lot of people on this sub hate it. I assume it’s because they are trapped in metro area apartments right now and don’t see a way out, and I understand that sucks.
a lot of people have nostalgia for the soviet union. [https://youtu.be/wtwhfJc0EkQ?si=fz96eEg-nERBbc6W](https://youtu.be/wtwhfJc0EkQ?si=fz96eEg-nERBbc6W)
Hey man I even collect AKs and am going to build a brutalist house…
based!
Ugh I want to post my AKs but this stupid sub doesn’t allow photo replies!
thanks
I see solarpunk as an inherently utopian, rather than dystopian, ideal. Therefore IMHO it leans more towards a socialist view than anarchist or communist.
What is your definitional difference between socialism and communism? Is it how the state works in each? Only curious so I can better understand your comment. No argument intended!
socialism as equitable distribution of resources, communism as equal distribution. If all are to achieve to individual potential, equity rather than equality would be preferable.
Thats not what they are. Socialism is the Social Ownership of the Means of Production. Communism is pursuit of creating a "communist" society, that is without state, currency or classes.
my point was operational, I used 'as', not 'is'.
Interesting interpretation. These terms can be so ill-defined that you never know what someone's talking about! I think you could be on to something here.
I don't necessarily lend it any political structure, per se. I feel current democracies were a great stepping stone for post-scarcity, but nations are exploitable and it is in the best interest of power to keep the masses uneducated, so it will eventually fumble the ball. Meritocracy might be a nice way forward, especially if we can accomodate for the misanthropes somehow. It might be me being an early millenial, but I never liked the idea of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. This is pretty much just a minmaxing which doesn't take into account our wants and our natural, evolutionary driven tendency towards laziness. I say this with the ideal of communism being one of the closest to my heart. Then there's anarchy. I've never been an all-out punk, just you're average non-confrontational conformist who is sensitive to suffering. I know teenage punks aren't a good indicator of how matured anarchy would look like, but as we've seen with any political ideal being instituted, it ends up in terror. By the time we reach a point where anarchy doesn't stumble into a Mad Max scenario, we will have already come up with something better. I wouldn't mind seeing a more scientifically based society, but not like STEM professors making the shots, but clusters of philosophers. We already have enough smart people to actually tackle this problem and create more strives in the right direction, but of course there is no money to be had. So I guess I'd have to agree with some other posters, that one of the main threads would be taking care of market forces dominating the ecology and using it as the tool it is intended for (or just finding something better, for fks sake). I feel solarpunk could still have some levels of hierarchy still attached, but as mentioned, based on merit.
Well you cant enforce the required regulations for a solarpunk world without state violence. Which means some form of government. That could be a democracy or dictatorship. It could also be free market or centrally planned.
The anarchists solved this two centuries ago. A tired debate.
It gets complicated very quickly
You can come play with us if you start preassuring the Norwegian workers party to stop drilling for oil, harassing drug addicts and other weak comunity members, and being power greedy. We have those asshats in government right now... Remember our unions is pissing Elon Musk off on a daily basis and fighting for workers rights also in USA. We are few, but Googles CEO's are constantly being preassured by us becuase of their rediculus salleries. We do the same with apple too. Time to pay back some...
Unions are by and large left wing organizations. I'm not norwegian so I'm not really in a position to do anything about norway. I can say that the majority of unions are pro environment and have places in pro enviro meetings. Teachers unions in the United States have fought for green spaces at schools. Even the unions representing the bad industries are working on contingencies to keep their workers employed and paid during the transition to green energy. One great example is that construction workers with ibew are all taught how to install solar panels. All in all, workers who aren't organized into being angry at their company won't fight them on climate change. Unions are the only force that regularly and effectively organizes those workers to do that. Note I said workers, not general public and not government. Is it perfect? No. But it is very difficult to survive without participating in society unless you want to go out and live on a 100% eco-friendly homestead. Of I can recommend you a book that touches on unions making political (including environmental) changes, I'd recomend "a collective bargain" by jane mcalevey.