This prompted me to look up some retrospectives for Veridian design, which seems quite similar to your description of solarpunk, except without the connection to radical politics: https://medium.com/5-viridian-years/aade6358664b
First off Solar Punk is a day to day environmental movement. You are right about it being about community first and foremost and how that relates to community gardens and mutual aid, but that's not leftest. That's just common sense. History is full of examples where undeserved communities have banned together to meet a need.
I spend my days as a professional financial consultant. I move my clients into Green hedge funds and help them invest in Green Power. Because it's a good investment in the future. It is a "growth" industry. At the same time I have a garden, plant trees and use cloth shopping bags. I'm a vegetarian by choice to save the planet where I can.
Some of the anti-capitialist rhetoric in the Solar Punk movement is justified. Capitalism, at least the way it's practiced in America, has failed large sections of the public. Most economists see the need to move to a social democratic economy where things like universal health care are the norm, because it stabilizes the economy as a whole.
Do I think a utopia is possible? No, but only because every society will have to face their own challenges. Do I think such a world is possible? Yes, because the alternatives will simply lead to our demise as a species.
Solar punk isn't a leftist or communist ideology. There are many examples in our society where a market economy can be working while respecting the environment, I am thinking at the community level.
Labeling solar punk as leftist will just destroy the movement before it had an opportunity to start.
First, who are you to say what Solarpunk is or isn't? Everyone can interpret it their way (like I did); there are many different streams of thought. I merely defined it in the only way that makes sense from my viewpoint. There are several reasons for that. Here are some of them:
- Market economies (i.e. capitalism) is founded on philosophies of individual greed, profit, expansion, appropriation, growth and the subjugation of natural 'resources.' This seems to me incompatible with Solarpunk's vision of solidarity and harmony.
- Solarpunk implies a high level of technological sophistication, often resulting in high degrees of automation. How would this be compatible with a market economy? When there are no jobs, how are people supposed to survive capitalism? Solarpunk, in my opinion, goes more in the direction of FALC (Fully Automated Luxury Communism). I wrote about that in another essay.
- Capitalism means inequality and the enrichment of a few while most others must labor to survive. This does not seem very Solarpunk to me.
- Neoliberal visions of a bright technological future ('techno-hopium') are mostly utilized to strengthen and solidify the status quo and the current order of inequality. There is not much else behind them, but the belief that somehow we can continue to extract resources at a growing pace without ever suffering the consequences.
Those were just some immediate thoughts that came to mind, there are many more I might go deeper on. Maybe in some upcoming essays.
Finally, your statement that 'leftists will destroy the movement' seems to me very... weird? Why do you believe that? For me, the biggest danger for Solarpunk seems to come from its co-option by neoliberal ultra-capitalists.
Let's hope.
This prompted me to look up some retrospectives for Veridian design, which seems quite similar to your description of solarpunk, except without the connection to radical politics: https://medium.com/5-viridian-years/aade6358664b
Does that seem like a fair comparison to you?
First off Solar Punk is a day to day environmental movement. You are right about it being about community first and foremost and how that relates to community gardens and mutual aid, but that's not leftest. That's just common sense. History is full of examples where undeserved communities have banned together to meet a need.
I spend my days as a professional financial consultant. I move my clients into Green hedge funds and help them invest in Green Power. Because it's a good investment in the future. It is a "growth" industry. At the same time I have a garden, plant trees and use cloth shopping bags. I'm a vegetarian by choice to save the planet where I can.
Some of the anti-capitialist rhetoric in the Solar Punk movement is justified. Capitalism, at least the way it's practiced in America, has failed large sections of the public. Most economists see the need to move to a social democratic economy where things like universal health care are the norm, because it stabilizes the economy as a whole.
Do I think a utopia is possible? No, but only because every society will have to face their own challenges. Do I think such a world is possible? Yes, because the alternatives will simply lead to our demise as a species.
Solar punk isn't a leftist or communist ideology. There are many examples in our society where a market economy can be working while respecting the environment, I am thinking at the community level.
Labeling solar punk as leftist will just destroy the movement before it had an opportunity to start.
I strongly disagree.
First, who are you to say what Solarpunk is or isn't? Everyone can interpret it their way (like I did); there are many different streams of thought. I merely defined it in the only way that makes sense from my viewpoint. There are several reasons for that. Here are some of them:
- Market economies (i.e. capitalism) is founded on philosophies of individual greed, profit, expansion, appropriation, growth and the subjugation of natural 'resources.' This seems to me incompatible with Solarpunk's vision of solidarity and harmony.
- Solarpunk implies a high level of technological sophistication, often resulting in high degrees of automation. How would this be compatible with a market economy? When there are no jobs, how are people supposed to survive capitalism? Solarpunk, in my opinion, goes more in the direction of FALC (Fully Automated Luxury Communism). I wrote about that in another essay.
- Capitalism means inequality and the enrichment of a few while most others must labor to survive. This does not seem very Solarpunk to me.
- Neoliberal visions of a bright technological future ('techno-hopium') are mostly utilized to strengthen and solidify the status quo and the current order of inequality. There is not much else behind them, but the belief that somehow we can continue to extract resources at a growing pace without ever suffering the consequences.
Those were just some immediate thoughts that came to mind, there are many more I might go deeper on. Maybe in some upcoming essays.
Finally, your statement that 'leftists will destroy the movement' seems to me very... weird? Why do you believe that? For me, the biggest danger for Solarpunk seems to come from its co-option by neoliberal ultra-capitalists.
Cheers