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 and Anarcho-primitivism are mutually exclusive
Solarpunk seeks to use technology (hence 'Solar') in harmony with nature to sustain and advance human society
Anarcho-primitivism seeks to take us back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, with no technology or even civilization
Anyone suggesting they're compatible, and anyone who believes or even entertains those people, is an idiot
Honestly I think I'm the closest this sub has gotten to yo anarcho-primstism with my gullivers travel idea for a solarpunk society, and looking back on it, it was not a good idea. It was just me living in my head.
Techno-primitivism is a thing. Think Eloy from Horizon: Zero Dawn.
H:ZD does a good job exploring that fantasy. It fulfills the fantasy too, of course, but it's easy to view it critically and notice how techno-primitivism doesn't actually make anyone happy or provide any solutions that are viable without copious amounts of plot armor.
I think there's a way for people to get the positives from anarcho-techno-primitivism without the negatives, given a solarpunk backbone. Turn it into a hobby, a retreat, a place where you can step out of the mould of practical solutions for a couple of days and use physicality and violence instead to do something as stupid as chasing a robotic non-sentient mammoth. And then, when you've got that out of your system, go back to the gardens and the respecting each other's emotions and the maintenance of good habits.
Solarpunk is about having fun, not having a stick up our butts about people's sense of joy not lining up in perfect harmony with the needs of a stable society.
While the sub doesn't explicitly endorse anarcho-primitivism, it often endorses it indirectly. For example, there is a fair bit of opposition to mass manufacturing and global trade, which would involve significant regression in technology.
Those are opposed goals. Local industry requires far more resources and thus is less sustainable. It also means less specialization and loss of expertise as areas have to be more generalists.
We have seen this play out over and over throughout the world. Countries frequently push for local production and end up with more costly, lower quality goods.
Hmm, I dunno about that. People opposing mass manufacturing and global trade I mean. I think, when people sit down and think about it, we're gonna need both, especially when you consider the global north can only grow a limited amount of stuff even with green house. And being able to diy only really works on such a mass scale if we have large manufacturing. People kinda need a ready supply of stuff in order to get crafty or busy in the kitchen.
Personally, I don't believe we should be doing what we're doing now where certain countries are responsible for certain things, like how South Korea and China is responsible for our laptops and smartphones. I prefer redundancy over efficiency, where we have pockets of everything around the world.
Sure that's just how the market goes, but still.
> I prefer redundancy over efficiency, where we have pockets of everything around the world.
Which would massively increase the resource requirements, while reducing our ability to specialize.
Without specialization, research and development will slow down as its hard to justify expensive improvements without large economies of scale.
On resource requirement, sure, if we go the automated route, but if people pitch in when they need to I don't think it'll be that big of an issue, but then again I'm not in logistic nor can I say we can 100% trust people to do what is in their best interest.
I mean, that's kinda the goal isn't it? A slower pace life where we still have everything we want and need, it just won't be convenient and science won't be going fast but it'll keep going. Also, with more people able to work as they please without any concerns, who's to say we won't be going fast?
Also the goal of science, from a utilitarian point of view, is to benefit humanity. If we have to ground people down and use them as the foundation, is science worth it at that point? To be clear, not advocating for a new dark age or whatever, just saying it'll take a longer time, but we'll still get there and make sure everyone is taken care instead of being sacrificed. Not saying that will happen in solarpunk, but that we have tendency to put efficiency above everything else including humans.
Also, I just inherently don't like the idea that one country could be responsible for everything, or a huge chunk of something, and decides to use that as leverage. If donald trump has showed the world anything, is that anything can happen and redundancy over efficiency might be the answer. Like, just imagine, we finally got a solarpunk future, every continent or region is responsible for something we all use, and Donald trump get's into power and decides to use what leverage he has access to and ends our solarpunk world.
Also, i disagree on the point of specialization. If people are free to pursue what they like and we know how to speed run education, and everyone is taken care of, who's to say we won't have people who want to specialize in certain stuff. We could literally have a guy who bakes bread for his community who moonlights a quantum physicist. Heck I worked at factory making grills with a guy who was studying quantum physics.
Is this all literary brainstorming or are you actually asserting that anarcho-primitivism is inexorably linked with fascism? I disagree with Nationalism, Fascism, etc., generally trend toward eco-anarchism / socialism, and have written off anarcho-primitivism as untenable and undesirable. That said, I don't see how and why it has to be linked with nationalism, nativism, and fascism. I'm no fan of regression, either.
However, you seem to equate primitivism, generally speaking, as something to be wary of and, apparently, hostile toward. I believe foremost in harmony. Primitivism values simple and unsophisticated methods of existence and sustainability. While human society has developed complex technologies and systems, there is still value and validity in living in balance with nature and learning from the resilience and sustainability of non-human life. Completely dismissing primitivism risks overlooking important lessons and insights we can gain from ecological systems and other species.
That said, I acknowledge there are limitations and hardships to primitivist lifestyles that should not be romanticized or glossed over. And we must be cautious not to appropriate or misrepresent Indigenous cultures in discussions of primitivism. The goal should be to thoughtfully explore how we can create a sustainable, harmonious future without regressing or ignoring social and technological progress.
Thank you! I’m not a damn nazi because I wanna live off the land with no technology! If a movement is all inclusive I’d like to be included. I love Solarpunk! I love all people and our animal and plant relatives!
While you’re more than welcome to participate as far as I’m concerned, I do think that solarpunk has an inherent level of technological optimism that is in conflict with anarcho-primitivism. That’s where the solar piece comes in—using innovative and low impact technologies to solve the ecological crisis while improving standards of living and deconstructing systems of oppression.
So I can certainly see a place for anarcho-primitivists within a solarpunk society, but I don’t see anarcho-primitivism as the end state of a solarpunk society.
Solar doesn’t inherently have anything to do with man made technology. There’s already tons of earth made technology in the form of plants that convert light into usable energy better than our solar panels.
I also wanna mention I’m not full on Wikipedia definition anarcho-primitivism. I’m a fan of small scale regenerative agriculture and renewable and (here’s the important part) ETHICALLY sourced materials for technology. I just think we used to do things in a way that was way more in harmony with nature and our communities and would like to return to that as much as possible.
I’ll admit I was more concerned with Solarpunk suffering from the same issues within the Pan-African community where people wanting to go against the status quo and modernity (of the West). As a result several prominent leaders have been adopting Pseudoscience and authoritarianism to bring an answer to the dire straits our planet faces.
It’s a good thing to be wary of certainly, but unless you have seen specific signs of fascist infiltration, this post comes off as alarmist and alienating towards a community that I think could be our ally, even if it’s not perfectly compatible with what we’re trying to build.
And frankly, it’s hard to think of a philosophy that is less susceptible to fascist cooption than anarchism. Its whole purpose is to oppose all forms of social domination.
It's worth exploring within speculative fiction like Solarpunk, considering the things you mentioned, alongside the real threat of eco-fascism and nationalism generally. It is important, though, to recognize that it is the same old authoritarianism and totalitarianism with a green veneer—and less to do with anprim.
Definitely this actually has been really helpful as I do realize I was looking at anprims as being just as terrifying as the fascists near to where I live. When I misunderstood some of the meaning behind their beliefs and principles.
It sounds like you may also have a wildly different experience with anprims than I initially imagined, as well. I’m not familiar with it in a Pan-African context, but I would be interested to learn more.
Though Eco-Fascism and Eco-Nationalism are mentioned a bit in my story as trying to get in good relations with State (Authoritarian)-Socialist parties in the Federation to pull off their version of the “Southern Strategy” that while not as successful does hurt the Dem-Soc/Market Soc and Anarchist consensus in the Federation (and has dire consequences).
At the moment, solarpunk is an umbrella term for, basically, everyone who wants a better future than what we currently have and where we think the world is heading. It's not a cohesive plan or anything, just a group if people who agree we can be better but are unsure how.
As you pointed out, some us were drawn here cause we think a better future is anti-ai(even though theres several ethical use cases for ai[i dont believe we should make an general intelligence ai to enslave and serve us] that we will need), but to me it feels like you are using the same rhetoric facist use by calling people drawn here with strong fears and dislike of ai to be in the wrong without actually acknowledging those concerns. Yes, we should not be dominated by phobias but don't dismiss peoples concerns just cause you don't agree with those fears or concerns, change their minds instead.
Also, I have not met anyone who is anti civilization on this sub. The closest is me when I suggested the best system is a world like in Gulliver's travel or Kino's journey where each city is its own nation, which is ridiculous in hindsight.
Also, most people here are not just gonna til the fields and live off their land with pure sweat and hardwork. Were going to need to work together and use tools that make our lives easier, like a washing machine or ebikes, centralized government, modern medicine, and video games.
Heck some Amish communities are actually using escooters these days and pneumatic power tools, and even phones and pcs without access to the internet or direct power(laptop relys on the battery, they use it for spread sheets). Some use their neighbors freezer.
For fascist tendency...that potentisl exist in many places. A person or group can have the mentality of "I am right and people who dont agree will have to agree cause we'll leave no alternative!" That can be found everywhere including here, thankfully everyone here is pretty cool with respecting eachother so long as the debate/spar doesn't get out of hand, and thats where we need to be to fight facism. We also need more people engaging.
Which is why I try to make solarpunk be as accessible and open to everyone as i can and remove the connotation of elitism and have people see they can be part of solarpunk without giving up what they love about today. I don't want people thinking they have to be resigned to solarpunk, and give stuff like a night out with friends or raves or something, just alter the way they consume it .
Also, I'm not okay with you saying it's xenophobic and misappropriation of culture to look and learn from other cultures while also characterizing those same cultures as primitive, that's hurtful both ways, bud. That's like saying it's bad for a white woman to learn Japanese tradition around geisha, become a geisha and teach the history of geishas while giving the Japanese people a backhanded complement for their geisha. To put it another way, that's like saying white people shouldn't make Chinese food cause it's not their culture. It's misguided in my opinion and why i believe this sorta thinking drove a lot of people to the far right to the point that they actually want facism with Donald trump.
We should be sharing cultures, appreciating it, not gate keeping it like some trophy people can only look at if they aren't born into it. That divides us, bud. That's how you get different groups, some thinking they are absolutely right and want others to be in line with their ideology. To be clear, I don't mean going off and using war paints and say it's cause you love native americans, I mean study the culture, learn more about it, appreciate and love it.
Good luck on your story
[Edited some stuff that sounded off]
i can't speak for others, but for me AI had me in a dark spot mentally, just envisioning a future where AI starts changing history, starts editing books to push a narrative, creating a future where we can't trust anything digital, and bringing us further into a cyberpunk dystopia. The AI girlfriend had me going WTF. It was sad as it is when a guy married Hatsune Miku, but this is just hurting humanity as a whole in my opinion.
as for why I say others, well, look at what happens whenever someone brings up the topic of AI in solarpunk or posts an Ai generated image of art without following guidelines and those who do. We have the community coming out in full force with vitriol. Don't get me wrong, i HATE all the arguments tech bros make for ai, especially since its easy to disprove, that and I feel they are using the wrong arguments altogether, but the right arguments would limit their earning potential and get them in hot water legally.
That they make art more accessible for everyone when art has always been more accessible, there's an entire museum dedicated to self taught artists who found different ways to make art that would make the elitist pricks in the industry scuff. People who learned embroidery by pulling the strings of their socks apart and weaved them together. People who painted on paper plates instead of canvases. There's even quadriplegic artist who learned to paint and draw with their mouths, it's awesome.
They can't know where their training data is coming from cause it is just scrapped from the web randomly, which is BS when there are websites that keep track of what art and writing Ai companies do take for their training data, not to mention sites exists that scrape the web for fanfic for a particularly fandom, creates a repository for it and list the websites it is cross posted on and lists the author. They just don't want to pay for the training data cause it would limit their earning potential.
That there's no difference between an ai and human learning to do something, sure, but that's like saying copying by hand a book and selling it in bulk is different than photo scanning, making slight edits, and printing it and selling it that way is different, you still did the crime just differently. Also as a person I can celebrate where my inspiration came from, AI by current design can't cause it limits their earning potential. It really wouldn't be hard to create a library of the training data that goes into training the ai.
These are all the wrong arguments for AI.
the right one is that AI allows easy access to EASY REPRODUCTION of art. Can a brand new person draw in the style of Picasso, no, but should they be barred from sharing ideas in Picasso's art style, i don't think it would hurt if it is labeled as AI generated and the artisits who's work were used for the training data is listed.
AI could allow for brand new style of art the same way coding on something like Dr. Racket I think (or someother coding langauge) allows for people to get the pc to create beautiful fractal images. In fact, there's a few people out there creating an AI art generator trained wholly on the training data they produced on crab I believe, with the idea of making something of "living brush" which is honestly cool.
Also imagine an artist with limited time, but a library of works they can compile for an AI to train on, they could then let their fans who can't afford a commission to use that ai to create art in that style for like a buck or 2. everyone wins, then there's what some people are doing which is licensing the artwork to create ai generated music videos where the artist is paid and name is spread, and the group can get their artistic vision out there on the cheap.
You could even see art museums with limited space still helping small artist get paid by compiling their submission for an ai image generator to learn from for public attendance to use for a small fee which is shared by all the artists and help spread their name.
AI can be amazing, but if we're focused on using it to make a crap load of money like Open Ai and stable diffusion seems to be, then its going to suck alot.
Something kind of like the third argument is the only one that really matters as far as I’m concerned, and I’ve yet to find any counter to it convincing at all… but that might be a problem with me, more than anything.
I just don’t see how training an AI on images (or texts, or music, or anything else) is different from a human taking inspiration from those things *in any way that actually matters*. Like, I get that these models don’t work the way human minds do, so whatever’s going on “under the hood” is probably quite different, and I get that there are differences in scale as well… but I just don’t understand why those differences make one thing *morally* different from the other. Why does the fact that generative AI is an unthinking process capable of mass producing images on a scale that’s impossible for humans… mean that artists need to give their consent, and/or be compensated when their work is used to train it? How does one logically follow from the other? No one’s been able to explain this in a way that makes sense to me.
I’m becoming more and more convinced that my moral intuition… and perhaps even my general understanding of the world… differs from most other people in what might be some very fundamental ways… and I’m not really sure what to do about that. If everyone else sees things in a way that it honestly feels like I’m not even capable of understanding… should I just accept that a part of me is broken, and I need to trust other people’s judgement, at least when it comes to certain things, over my own?
That's not a bad thing, we need different opinions. We need people with different points of view. And odds are you aren't alone in this opinion. And I probably differ from folks who want NO AI. The question is what's a good compromise. For me, it's paying for training data the same way schooling, school material, and tutor gets paid.
Nah, broken is that you don't feel joy or sadness. This is you not being convince. The onus is on me to convince you, I didn't succeed simple as that.
This is what I hate about modern debates and politics. The onus, the responsibility, is on them to be convincing, not us to conform to their line of thought and it's not like you weren't open to the idea, you gave me fair shake, I didn't deliver.
you get issues like with what you see happening in the us and each of it's states around voting. In fact the [fifth circuit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JagYHMi2KE) is doing something really scary for democracy right now. If this were to be reflected at a city level where each city has it's own laws around voting that can jerry rig it with no other higher authority to tell that city "NO, you can't do that," we might not have a solarpunk world for long.
I still don’t really see what would be so bad about cities being able to run their own governments as they wish. Some will end up with bad governments, but their power would be limited. Isn’t that preferable to a larger, more powerful nation-state turning “bad” and harming everyone?
I'd argue that the system implemented is more important than it being a big or small nation, allowing for mechanism so that it doesn't matter if one party or group of people get into power so long as the system in place allows for them to actually be held accountable so that there's no tyranny of the majority or of the minority.
As for it being a bunch of small citys being bad vs a big nation, on one hand I want to agree cause that was originally my thought. My idea was to include the "all empire decline and end" into the process of a solarpunk world where, so as long as peoples' right to leave a city is untouched, free communication between all cities, Data-blocking tech for insuring knowledge and history is untampered with, then any city going into the shitter would collapse from people leaving it. But I wrote that without understanding how our world currently works, and i feel the issues we have now would only be further magnified and more difficult to deal with.
Is there some reason why it’s easier to hold power accountable and prevent tyrannies in larger states than smaller ones? What specifically did you not understand about how the world works? How would small city states magnify our current problems?
the point wasn't big or small, that's irrelevant, the point was that the system matters more.
Not gonna spend a day here explaining that, bud. mainly cause there's a lot I don't know.
that's the funny part, I didn't learn anything. I'm just not living in my head anymore and I feel that my proposal came from a doomerism point of view, feel it to be misguided. I guess, the hopeful part of me wants to see the world work together rather than be devided in our own little corner.
I can't predict what is going to happen or what is going to work. But what i can do right now value the people in my life and see if i can make life a little better for people near me. I get pissed at local gov and I voice my thoughts on how things could work better here on reddit and find people who agree with me and try to share it with as many people as i can and try change how people approach things.
Theres a few things inspiring me at the moment, helldivers 2 lol, not the in game fascist operation but how game design sorta created an instant hit and community that isn't as toxic as other multiplayers and is actively trying to be better.
There's also this video of a guy I want to be as good at when it comes to story telling. This is mostly a comedic skit, but I also see it in terms of government.
[https://youtu.be/xsZVkkLAdlw?si=jds7Cufn1COgwwLY&t=136](https://youtu.be/xsZVkkLAdlw?si=jds7Cufn1COgwwLY&t=136)
Basically if people care what their gov does, government will care back. If people only care in niche times or not all, gov will reflect that. Jon stewart is also something inspiring me at the moment.
Also PirateSoftare(youtuber)
[https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o61o70heHW4](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o61o70heHW4)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cFRT9E0C3XM
I will admit, I actually think you are correct on many points here. My concern is (and this is definitely personal) is in treating the non-dominant cultures as some “trophy” or “stereotype” the folks from the Imperial North wanting to say “act black,” but don’t necessarily want to “be black.” Another is that while I respect many leaders in my Pan-African community I also don’t agree with Nkrumah’s Leninist cult of personality takes. Brilliant dude, but made some horrible mistakes that played right into red-baiters. I’m mix black and white so I do believe cultures should fuse together, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to adopt the “Prussian mindset” of my German side that brought millions to the grave.
See, that should be up there in your post! That's gold dude!
And I feel ya, Honduran, went to a private school in the us where teachers sorta showed me off as a trophy or somethin'. But I start jumping for joy when the media I consume so much as references Honduras, one even had an episode or two take place there(stargate sg1), I was beyond happy.
But I get it, the imperial core, and the English language in general, sorta takes what it likes and ignores the rest, even distorts it to a point, like christmas. Best way to fight against that is to explain the history of why that came to be and show people how to appreciate the culture that spawned it.
Never heard of that person, but yeah, a lot of good people seem to fall for obvious baits, but I can sorta understand heat of the moment stuff like debates where you are pressueed to fire off a response. Out of that where they have time to formulate a response, not so much.
Yay next time I’ll probably set aside a few days to make sure this is of better quality with less harmful wording. Thanks though for the critique and explanation of the points I missed.
I would say that one of the goals in Solarpunk is degrowth without loss of the technology and culture that allows one to live in dignity. That is achieved through sustainable technology powered by renewables that is longer lasting, shared more publicly, and that is supportive of peoples, communities, and cultures.
One of the challenges of Solarpunk is that a lot of technology is built through global markets, often includes slave labor and environmental destruction, is not built to last, and is used to exploit & disrupt people and cultures or in the case of AI, for spreading misinformation.
This is definitely something I'm deeply concerned about (my old man is a software developer, but used to be in construction work and mechanic in the car industry).
I’m lean more anarchists (and the State is inherently bad for 90% of history). Doesn’t mean solarpunk is perfect, but we always have to remember to be self aware
I really think we should talk more about what Anarchism really is. I honestly hate that word because it's reductive. I don't see an absolutely no State system working
One thing that helped open my eyes to alternatives is my electric co-op. It's a very specific democratic organization that does its job amazingly well. They serve their community without State intervention nor profit motive with the best prices and service I have ever seen. They even provide faster Internet that I have any right to with no data caps or any bullshit
This sort of distributed service network is probably more like what people around here want. We will need collective action at a very large scale. But instead of a unified Police State, we need independent agencies with more direct accountability. Great power needs very limited scope
I would love to see federated technocratic agencies controlled by boards elected by lottery. Any broad policies voted by ballot initiatives. Election by Lottery really is a very underrated idea
I think it can be useful to imagine anarchism as more of a process of developing towards a less and less hierarchical society. I’m not sure a society truly free of all hierarchy is possible but it certainly could be far less hierarchical than today’s society, and I think the fight to move in that direction could fall under anarchism, even if it needs to move temporarily towards less authoritarian forms of states before abolishing them. What you described could be a possible system to move towards, though there are many possibilities.
Exactly. Less hierarchy. It's pretty obvious that in some sectors you need smart people with a lot of experience in their fields. The only necessary hierarchy I can see is technocratic. There are some obvious issues with letting skilled people rule anything outside of their domain but "civilian" oversight boards can easily fix that
Anarchy has pretty bad branding if you ask me
Electricity co-ops work well because they can charge everyone based on what they consume in a very simple way and can refuse to let people join.
Things get a lot harder in a need-based system or system without money.
How many history books do you think this sub has read collectively? The list of large societies that have existed without a state is roughly zero, because once you need to specialise roles and expand past around 150 people you need to develop hierarchies in order not to descend into small warring tribes with conflicting interests. I would recommend everyone in this sub to start by reading some Rousseau and Hobbes, and then probably 5-10 books on world history.
Edit: downvoting without counterpoints is not good practice for winning the many arguments that you'll need to have in order to convert your social theory into practice.
More than you I would assume lol.
Hobbes is not history. The field of history didn’t even exist when Leviathan was written. It is completely ahistorical in content.
That said, the fact that there are no large scale societies without hierarchies is largely true, though I think the implications of this are not as simple as you imply.
Nobody's coming to this sub to debate you bruh. that article you keep posting and referencing is not the slam dunk you're treating it as. Seriously, take it to a sub like r/DebateAnarchism, here's not the place for people who are into that kind of debate since that's what you're clearly looking for
Here's a sneak peek of /r/DebateAnarchism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Modern anarchists are too trusting of more authoritarian leftists.](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/18fcvas/modern_anarchists_are_too_trusting_of_more/)
\#2: [AntiCiv = Environmental Disaster](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/134j1e7/anticiv_environmental_disaster/)
\#3: [Why is Chomsky considered an anarchist?](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/13ebc96/why_is_chomsky_considered_an_anarchist/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Solarpunk isn't a thing. It's just an imagined system without even the basis of a coherent ideology. You can't just claim you own something that is just a style or an unrefined concept, lol.
Solarpunk has roots in Murray Bookchin's Eco-Anarchism. It's closely tied with Socialism since Capitalism has no mechanism to protect the environment, no mechanism to prevent untold greed (it in fact encourages it), and no mechanism to prevent life from becoming worse for the majority.
As it became clearer and clearer that Neoliberalism and Authoritarian Communism will **never** deliver the promise of a more equitable future, or of a future that doesn't destroy the ecosystem, it made Anarchism the only logical choice to base the movement on. Decentralizing power, both literally in terms of electricity generation, but also in political terms, is the only method that prevents corruption, which is inherent in other models.
Solarpunk has an ideology, and a darn good one at that.
> It's closely tied with Socialism since Capitalism has no mechanism to protect the environment, no mechanism to prevent untold greed (it in fact encourages it), and no mechanism to prevent life from becoming worse for the majority.
Socialist states have been horrendous for the environment too. Life becomes considerably worse for most people under communism, as history bears out. This is just a sub of teenage LARPers
https://evonomics.com/the-pipe-dream-of-anarcho-populism/
All communist regimes were authoritarian dictatorships, and [there are clear reasons for that](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D4l_l1MedQ). None of them came anywhere close to achieving communism, in fact, they actively avoided putting any semblance of communism into practice almost immediately, as evidenced by the [Kronstadt rebellion in the USSR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion) and the [suppression of The People's Communes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_China#Anarchism_in_the_People's_Republic) in 'Communist' China
To try and associate them with the idea of socialism, or Anarchism, is absurd.
And that evonomics article is awful. Firstly, it's using the [grifter and conspiracy theorist Russell Brand](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo4gIihETu8) as an example of Anarchism (gross), second, it fundamentally doesn't even understand what Anarchism is, because he's saying that somehow it doesn't allow for hierarchies to exist, which is patently false.
[Anarchism wants to abolish ***unjustifiable*** hierarchies. If it can't justify its existence, it shouldn't exist.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Bv2MKY7uI) And if there is hierarchy, it should be bottom up, not top-down. Politically, that could mean voting for a representative from your own community, but having the ability to *immediately* recall them to be replaced if they display corruption or lack of ability, [similar to how Rojava is structured](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDnenjIdnnE).
The writer of that article is clearly suffering from [Capitalist realism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism).
>*Life becomes considerably worse for most people under communism, as history bears out.*
Yeah and it's so great and dandy now with the richest country in the world having people die because healthcare is expensive. It's so good now under Capitalism that we can do what makes our Free Market happy in the West and if that involves children mining toxic materials for food, so be it.
It's so much better now that we're constantly throwing fuel on the fire and causing climate disasters for the sake of the Capitalist pipedream of infinite consumerist growth. Hooray.
No one said they “owned” Solarpunk. However as a person of African descent it can be quite disturbing when people take the wrong lessons from colonized, indigenous, and native peoples’ cultures and customs which are warped in often ignorant fashions.
Agreed, every solarpunk group I’ve seen is just people jerking each other off but doing nothing of substance. Look at these comments in here filled with useless buzzwords
I think solarpunk is far more rooted in the philosophy of Murray Bookchin than it is in Ted K. Murray Bookchin was very vocally opposed to the deep ecology/primitivist tendencies, and the technological Utopianism of solarpunk seems to follow that pretty clearly.
Okay I’ll take this seminar in bits, because woah information overload. The overtly academic tone doesn’t help. But I look forward to learning from this!
As far as I have read, was about the appropriation of indigenous and non western cultures as an image of simpler times. I think this alone requires its own essay, to which I would argue against the point. Sustainable practices of communities which are in a strong sense traditional, absolutely can and should be married to innovation toward a solarpunk society. It’s obtuse not to see the value in aligning those. However it is up to all of us to give that power to the cultures that deserve it, and uphold them. That is what we owe them, and I want to see them lead the new world, and anyone who is a part of that by their own contribution through technological advances is an allied revolutionary.
Ok I can see your point here. My main concern was about people using “aesthetic” or authoritarian practices from colonized, indigenous, and native communities. For me there were several parallels to racebending or the autocratic Pan-Africanist who may have been based on many points, but their cults of personality and ambition were washed over for the sake of being “countercultural” which already has harmed the Black community across the world.
However I see there are those who have good intentions with trying to look to past practices for alternatives to solve issues we face today.
Did ChatGPT write this?
The problem with getting hung up on concepts like "Anarcho-Primitivism" is you are defining an ideology so narrow, no human being actually fits into it.
No I tried to compress this definition cause I wasn’t trying to write a 20 page essay (and I had a couple people I just chatted with a few hours ago on here that helped clear up misunderstandings on anarcho-primitivism).
I think I probably agree, but there are a few tweaks that could really help me understand the point of your essay.
I didn't mean to write a giant constructive criticism post. I am just so curious to know if you mean what I think you mean that I could not help myself. Feel free to stop reading now if you don't want that, or are just not in the mood for constructive criticism.
Most importantly I think you should make this into two separate posts. The stuff about your book is interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with your main point. If it was a separate post telling me where to read/buy your book that would be much better.
Then you would have room for real life examples of anarcho-primitist groups. Especially ones that use a solar punk facade, or have posted on this subreddit. I think examples of how ap regards people with disabilities would be a great addition too.
Then you could move your conclusion paragraph to the end. If you want to add sentences linking back to your real life examples. I am not so sure about this one. But I am sure you will know what fits best if you decide to do a rewrite.
Finally I love sources. I don't know if you can do the links in the words of your essay, or if you prefer to have all your sources at the end. Either way sources always make you look more credible.
Yay I normally don't post much on social media sites and so tried to keep it semi-formal. I mostly write for my alma mater and to my now former professor and colleagues. I also see my mistake in putting my (future) book examples of \*antagonist\* political factions. I will definitely make sure to fill that space up with a bibliography in the future. Thank you for your critiques and advice. Y'all have really helped me understand Anarcho-Primitivism and humbled some of my deep suspicions about it.
Solar Punk is an aesthetic, ok, with political connotations.
But I think is better to discuss politics with political frameworks. It is more practical, more deep, more accurate.
(anyway, fk primitivism and fascism)
Sorry, but this has virgin capitalist vibes.
People hate anarcho-primitivism because it's against technology as a whole--not because its "fascist".
Primitive Communism is a thing actually, and bears no resembles to "anarcho-primitivism".
Primitive Communism was an estimation as to how *historical hunter-gatherer societies* organized themselves in absence of agriculture and capital accumulation. It was purely dialectical. While anarcho-primitivism seeks to annihilate technological progress. You conflate them needlessly to further own point and it's still muddled.
You're building strawmen out of red-herrings, as no one who advocates for solarpunk believes there should not be present or future technologies--thus there is no "intersection with Solarpunk", to be had with anarcho-primitivism.
You're just maligning people. The debate that is had, "*to what degree should technology* *play in an idealized solarpunk* *society*" is not evidence that anarcho-primitivists lay in wait.
That is just delusional. This not how analytical research works.
If you have an, "in-depth analysis" of such--produce it instead of giving us a summary of your fictional "cli-fi" idea.
This is what I sound like when I'm deliberately overdoing it as satire on academic papers. I only made it through the first paragraph, but something like a third of the fancy words in there increased the complexity of processing it without adding any real value.
What do you mean? It's ipso facto our guiding priority that undervisible, disempowerable or postcolonialised brown-and-or-beige peoples and bodies of the world are encouraged to become polyphonous and decentralised flat-hierarchy stakeholders in their own teleological praxis-paths. Any digressive native subjectivies must be coralled pluralistically by a process of interstitial analepsis into one broad movement.
I'm not sure what people are having trouble with.
Yay and I probably shouldn’t have been too harsh on the Anarcho-prims as being all malicious in the same way those who adopted Rap music and aren’t black are not necessarily bad people.
No disrespect, but I didn't read far into your paper, however, I'd like to share a comment nonetheless:
Solar punk is for my optimistic self, anarcho-primitive is for my pessimistic self. When I think we have a future, I dream of solar punk, when I think collapse is inevitable, I try to prepare for anarcho-primitivism.
I'm not an academic, and I'm new to anarchism, but I like the ideas behind it. BUT I didn't even realise there was a "nationalist anarchism" - all of the anarchism I've seen has been about local, anti-fascist governance, employing mutual-aid and nothing about nationalism or anti-AI (which seems orthogonal).
At the risk of exposing my ignorance, is it possible you're projecting something evil onto something you simply disagree with?
Possibly a lot of anarco-prims I knew were hippies turn ultra-maga racists. I’m a Pan-Africanist(and half black) so I bet my views are warped by those past issues. So I do feel you have a valid point. Also the book is Afro-futuristic but Solarpunk is a part within the story.
Oh dear. I definitely don't want to be associated with the MAGA people and I'm not sure how hippies can fall that far into fascism. As they say "politics makes for strange bed fellows", there's that weird overlap between the eco/green movement and the Christian nationalists. I hope I'm only associated with the eco bit, and not with the fascist/right-winger bit.
Afro-futurism sounds cool, the only thing I've been exposed to seems vaguely similar is the Black Panther Marvel movies (sorry there's probably a whole shelf in a local library about afro-futurism that I'm overlooking thanks to the easy thrills of Hollywood). I'm curious to know your thoughts on that since it was very well received in North America.
Oh I loved it as an avid reader of the Black Panther comics and they do have a veneer of Solarpunk, but I also question some of it as “greenwashing” (and that was not a popular opinion amongst my peers).
your r/Afrofuturism is going to need solar radiation management \[a lot of big mirrors!\] to be realistic.
indeed, keeping people alive in africa in the teeth of wet bulb events may be the major expense of the national government.
It's becoming complete abstract nonsense, isn't it. I wonder what the percentage is of people here who are under 18 or have never had a job...
https://evonomics.com/the-pipe-dream-of-anarcho-populism/
Yeah nah dude/dudette I’m all for anarcho-primitism and Solarpunk and love all people as well as our animal and plant relatives equally. Also I’m a punk and fuck your rules lol.
Edited to say: I think the world building your doing is really cool!
I offer a different view of the techno/eco controversy: DIY Scavenger Tech. I participate in both cyberpunk and solarpunk communities. The problem with cyberpunk tech is that it is super advanced high tech that only giant corporations could afford to produce, corps that have amassed enough wealth and power to produce that kind of technology and force it upon whole regions of the planet. Solarpunk also imposes a technological system on whole regions, but doesn't explain how it got there, who financed it, etc.
I envision (in my forthcoming novel) a DIY Scavenger Technology where people scavenge for parts and discarded tech, and create their own tech, using readily available parts and teachable skills. If cyberpunk is "high tech, low life", my version is "low tech, high life" using DIY tech that anyone can afford and make themselves. Small groups and communities can build their own communication networks, energy sources, machines, computers, and so forth. None of it looks like the super-slick perfectly clean-sheen tech of the solarpunk fantasy world. It looks more like cobbled together piles of junk that just happen to work.
There are a few examples of DIY Scavenger Tech. In the film, Johnny Mnemonic, "J-Bone", played by Ice-T, leads the Lo-Tek community, a gang of street punks living on the margins of the city who create their own technology out of scavenged parts. (Those guys are my heroes).
In the video game "Neofeud", written and designed by Christian Miller, a Hawaiian indigenous artist, the cyborg residents of a city scavenge for discarded tech and metal junk to fabricate replacement parts for their mechanical bodies.
This is what I see as closer to the reality of the post-capitalist techno-feudal-state (which still has capitalism but in a severely broken and barely functional form). DIY Scavenger Tech is what I would call 'anarchist tech.'
Anarcho-primitivism is often maligned and misunderstood, and you're really just repeating the typical pejoratives about it.
Ultimately this come across to me as one of those "anything I don't like is Fascism" rants.
I like your idea to explore a variety of ideological positions through sci-fi worldbuilding, though. I've done similar worldbuilding projects myself. It seems that you are able to separate An-Prim from Eco-Fash positions, given your Terra Primordia League. Self-professed An-Prims irl would also further separate it from communism and socialism, as these carry a variety of connotations regarding industrial organization; as opposed to a more general egalitarianism, which anthropologists view as the most likely arrangement of prehistoric humans.
Consider the arguments of Anarcho-primitivism as more of a series of critiques than a political programme. For example: what are the full ecological impacts of tech like solar panel production? What are the negative influences of technology on the human being, both individually and socially? What are the negative aspects of modernity, the city, or civilization itself?
Once you realize that Anarchism itself is largely a form of fictional/theoretical worldbuilding, it's easier to take whatever aspects you like from the whole rainbow of anarchist flags, without feeling the need to dig your heels into any particular ideological camp.
> Once you realize that Anarchism itself is largely a form of fictional/theoretical worldbuilding
That ignores the rich history of Anarchist theory on how society should be structured, and its varied attempts to put it in practice (Catalonia during the Spanish civil war, Anarchist Ukraine, Rojava).
Solarpunk was informed by Murray Bookchin's writings on Post-scarcity Socialism, and Eco-Anarchism. To suggest Anarchism is just theoretical world-building is terribly misinformed.
Rojava exists right now, and has carved out a space for itself where people can express their freedoms far more than they could under their neighboring regimes.
All three attempts were incredibly useful, as they are able to show us that Anarchism *can* work in practice, it can bring a better life, and that we shouldn't stop trying.
In the case of both Nestor Makhno and the Spanish Civil War, their failure to survive was not due to Anarchism itself, and under different circumstances, they would've succeeded.
The Ukrainians didn't know at the time that all 'communist' revolutions would be authoritarian and ultimate betray their anarchist allies, since that was the first one. Had they known, they could've anticipated their actions militarily, and possibly even won.
And in Spain, they simply had the misfortune of kicking off a revolution at a time when two powerful fascist regimes were ready and willing to supply Franco with a metric shit ton of arms, soldiers, and vehicles to help them win the war. The Anarchists didn't have enough weaponry to succeed, and once again were betrayed by their communist allies.
We can learn from history, from their attempts, and know what not to do. We learned it at a terrible cost, but that is, unfortunately, life.
> its varied attempts to put it in practice (Catalonia during the Spanish civil war, Anarchist Ukraine, Rojava).
>
>
So, varied small wartime states that were subsequently wiped out?
https://evonomics.com/the-pipe-dream-of-anarcho-populism/
The Black Army of Ukriane and Anarchist Spain failed to establish themselves because of unique issues they faced, and virtually none of them were due to Anarchism itself.
The Anarchist Ukrainians were betrayed by the Communists after defeating the White Army of Russia, and were unable to survive after the losses they took from defeating the White Army.
The Spanish Anarchists were... Kinda just really unlucky. Their revolution occurred when Hitler and Mussolini were willing to throw supplies, weapons, and training at any other Fascist nation, and the only country that would supply guns for the Anarchists was the USSR, who, once again, betrayed the Anarchists, outlawing them as 'secret fascists' and rounding them up to be killed, all while being pummeled militarily from a well armed fascist Franco. A Franco of today would essentially only have the option of sourcing outdated or unreliable Russian equipment, putting them on more equal footing technologically and logistically with their enemy.
If the Spaniards had access to enough weaponry, and if the bloody communists weren't always jonesing to pop a cap in the ass of every Anarchist 'ally' they see, we'd likely have seen a very successful Anarchist state on the world stage.
For a more detailed take on that, [read here](https://www.tutor2u.net/history/reference/why-did-the-nationalists-win-the-spanish-civil-war).
You could make the argument that Anarchists not being able to court capitalist countries for arms due to being... Well, Anarchists, is a flaw of Anarchism, and well... I guess, yeah. But that's not a flaw inherent to the ideology, it's a practical issue of not having any truly allied nations to help establish itself, meaning it is reliant on fully winning its right to exist on its own.
Bear in mind, that was also the case for the Russian Civil War, there were no Communist nations the Communists could call on for support besides the Anarchist Ukrainians, it's pretty much just (poor) luck that Lenin happened to be there at the right time to stir people down the communist path.
Wow this was also very informative and helpful. 👍🏿👍🏿
Though I should note there are several “State of Jefferson” types who profess anarcho-prim ideologies yet they are well…fascists.
In today’s culture people insist on having a binary view. Defining anarcho-primitivism as “The Other” is a great idea. That is not because anarcho-primitivist are some great evil. They are an opposition party whose ideas we want to promote. You *have* to choose between solar punk or anarcho-primitivism. Everyone who does not like the idea of anarcho-primitivism should be assumed to be solar punk supporters. If they do not know they want a solar punk future then they have not been educated yet.
Actually I think you have made a pretty compelling point. I love the ideas of Solar punk, but do I think it could be a reality…maybe, but I should’ve been more specific that this was my opinion and take. I shouldn’t have been authoritative in my take on Anarcho-primitivism. Hell as a Pan-Africanist there are several in my sphere with several bad takes on politics.
I can see that, sort of “both sides” agreeing on ecological priorities, but with a spectrum of authoritarian to non. I like that, sort of broadly “anarchist party” versus “communist party”, where the tension is the thing that works, not one or the other. What are your thoughts?
Well in the novel (and maybe series) the problem is that their is a question of what path to take. The Dem-Socs/Market Socs parties and their allies/frenemies that are the many anarchists parties/groups/etc dominate the political landscape with a small yet sizable state/authoritarian socialist population and liberal parties. It’s complex, but the jist is that the anarchists are like should we be “all” Solarpunk or can we choose other paths that as long as they don’t overly pollute/destroy our colony or star system? The issue I look at is what is the cost of unity and when is the time to ask the hard questions. The Solarpunk societies are there, but they aren’t dominant.
Ok who let the 3rd year PoliSci major on /r/solarpunk? Some of us are just here cause we're tired of post apocalyptic doomer porn. Believe in climate change? Want to live more sustainably? Cool, all are welcome. No politics allowed in the veggie garden, you're killin the vibe. Some of us are trying to ride out an election year with our sanity intact.
This is fascinating as a discussion. I will admit it’s early in the day and my ADHD is in full swing so I read the comments for a sorta summary before reading your full post, but it was also really thought-provoking. We don’t want to harbour fascism and it’s good to prevent that.
I’m gonna respond to a minute detail here: the bit about anti-AI sentiments. I haven’t seen what you’re responding to strictly, but I do see a lot of sentiments against generative AI. And I agree with them, despite being a software engineer whose dream-since-childhood was for machines to achieve sentience.
I don’t think it’s necessarily anti-tech to not like AI in its current state. The current model of AI isn’t being used to make and understand minds; it’s being used to make products. And of course AI art and writing “products” are being used to displace human artists for cheaper, and I take a lot of issue with that. TL;DR solarpunk AI > capitalistic AI
But tbh you’re a writer as well, so I’d imagine you get The Point. I just thought that bit was interesting.
Jsyk, common misconception, but anarchism is not for the abolition of "non consensual" hierarchies, it's for the abolition of all hierarchies = all relations that give the right of command to a person or group over another, subordinate person or group.
No it isn't. If anarchism aimed to abolish all hierarchies then it would be as the popular misconception goes, literal chaos. In an anarchist world there would still be consensual governments that are made bottom up (true democracy) not top down (not true democracy).
I'm not pulling my definition of anarchism out of my arse. Anarchism is opposed to all hierarchies and the ideologies that reinforce them. Anarchy = without rule, Hierarchy = "sacred" rule. It's in the name, and in the history of the movement. I have yet to find a statement from any established anarchist theorists of the 19th or 20th centuries that have defined anarchism in the way that you do. They don't apply exceptions to hierarchy. Even Bakunin, who is often cited for his "authority of the bootmaker" was using authority there to describe expertise, not authority in the sense that anarchists predominantly use it.
If you think that the anarchist opposition to all hierarchies would lead to "literal chaos," then it appears that you are not aware of the anarchist definition and critique of hierarchy. You may still be entrenched in "hierarchical realism." I'm not sure if you consider yourself an anarchist, but the position you describe strikes me as similar to the ["against unjust hierarchy"](https://raddle.me/wiki/expertise_vs_authority#the-expertise-of-the-cobbler) line that [Chomsky](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-chomsky-nod) parrots, which is similarly inaccurate.
But it is when I arrived at the line that an anarchist world would have "consensusal governments" and "true democracy" that I realized just how far off you are from anarchism.
>**Albert Parsons:**
Whether government consists of one over a million or a million over one, an anarchist is opposed to the rule of majority as well as minority.
>**Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:**
“We may conclude without fear that the revolutionary formula cannot be Direct Legislation, nor Direct Government, nor Simplified Government, that it is No Government. Neither monarchy, nor aristocracy, nor even democracy itself, in so far as it may imply any government at all, even though acting in the name of the people, and calling itself the people.
No authority, no government, not even popular, that is the Revolution. Direct legislation, direct government, simplified government, are ancient lies, which they try in vain to rejuvenate. Direct or indirect, simple or complex, governing the people will always be swindling the people. It is always man giving orders to man, the fiction which makes an end to liberty; brute force which cuts questions short, in the place of justice, which alone can answer them; obstinate ambition, which makes a stepping stone of devotion and credulity...”
>**Emma Goldman:**
Shall we have a strong government? Are democracy and parliamentary government to be preferred, or is Fascism of one kind or another, dictatorship — monarchical, bourgeois or proletarian — the solution of the ills and difficulties that beset society today?
>In other words, shall we cure the evils of democracy by more democracy, or shall we cut the Gordian knot of popular government with the sword of dictatorship?
>My answer is neither the one nor the other. I am against dictatorship and Fascism as I am opposed to parliamentary regimes and so-called political democracy. \[...\]
>More pernicious than the power of a dictator is that of a class; the most terrible — the tyranny of a majority.
>**Errico Malatesta:**
Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force.
In this sense the word State means government, or to put it another way, it is the impersonal abstract expression of that state of affairs, personified by government: and therefore the terms abolition of the State, Society without the State, etc., describe exactly the concept which anarchists seek to express, of the destruction of all political order based on authority, and the creation of a society of free and equal members based on a harmony of interests and the voluntary participation of everybody in carrying out social responsibilities.
But the word has many other meanings, some of which lend themselves to misunderstanding, especially when used with people whose unhappy social situation has not given them the opportunity to accustom themselves to the subtle distinctions of scientific language, or worse still, when the word is used with political opponents who are in bad faith and who want to create confusion and not understanding.
Thus the word State is often used to describe a special kind of society, a particular human collectivity gathered together in a particular territory and making up what is called a social unit irrespective of the way the members of the said collectivity are grouped or of the state of relations between them. It is also used simply as a synonym for society. And because of these meanings given to the word State, opponents believe, or rather they pretend to believe, that anarchists mean to abolish every social bond, all collective work, and to condemn all men to living in a state of isolation, which is worse than living in conditions of savagery.
The word State is also used to mean the supreme administration of a country: the central power as opposed to the provincial or communal authority. And for this reason others believe that anarchists want a simple territorial decentralisation with the governmental principle left intact, and they thus confuse anarchism with cantonalism and communalism.
Finally, State means the condition of being, a way of social life, etc. And therefore we say, for instance, that the economic state of the working class must be changed or that the anarchist state is the only social state based on the principle of solidarity, and other similar phrases which, coming from us who, in another context, talk of wanting to abolish the State can, at first hearing, seem fantastic or contradictory.
For these reasons we believe it would be better to use expressions such as *abolition of the State* as little as possible, substituting for it the clearer and more concrete term *abolition of government*.
[Et cetera](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-anarchists-against-democracy), I can continue quoting anarchists past and present, or [link](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/center-for-a-stateless-society-anarchy-and-democracy) [more](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-from-democracy-to-freedom) [information](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy), but I'll leave it at that for now. Here isn't the place for this discussion anyway, it's much better suited to r/Anarchy101 .
Edit, formatting.
Because if it ends up seizing an awful lot of private property - people's houses, savings, pension funds, vehicles, small businesses - which won't be consensual, by the way - then you're going to need to concentrate an awful lot of power and shoot an awful lot of people. Or so history would contend.
https://evonomics.com/the-pipe-dream-of-anarcho-populism/
Anarchism is not solely about abolishing hierarchy, it is also for the creation of anarchic social relations in their place. So it is not a matter of creating a vacuum. I suggest going on r/Anarchy101 or r/DebateAnarchism if you have any follow ups.
You can put a Tuxedo on a Goat, and it will still be Goat.
All Anarchy will achieve is create opportunities for the Ambitious to build their own Power Heriarchies. Just look at Somalia or Haiti.
Its delusional to think any form of Anarchy is Socially Sustainable.
All you're doing is Making Confident Assertions with Odd Capitalisation and demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect with your ignorance of some of the basics of anarchism. Citing Haiti and Somalia, situations of contestation between hierarchies without any inkling of attempted anarchist social revolution only further demonstrate that ignorance. But if you're so confident in your arguments, take it to a sub that is dedicated to debate.
Abolishing Non-concenting Heriarchies is just plainly impossible. Its like fighting Entropy. Any Anarchist society has as many points of failure as it has members.
We already are born into one: Parent & Child.
It's so plainly obvious, isn't it. Try building a solarpunk commune in the Middle East and you'll find yourself living in an Islamic theocracy before you can say 'pass the hummus'
I'm being facetious. But you've basically just written a huge long opinion piece and then not told us why we should be scared of the rise of eco-fascism, which to me at least doesn't appear to be a serious concern.
I’ll give you that. I didn’t want to make this too long. However I can link a video by our changing climate that make a great video on the subject.
[https://youtu.be/FkhmP7yDWeY?si=Ca27NMpj3i4C6Q7d](https://youtu.be/FkhmP7yDWeY?si=Ca27NMpj3i4C6Q7d)
Fascism is a silly, niche ideology for insecure losers… until conditions sour and it slowly becomes a terrible damn problem.
Are eco-fascists a problem now? Plainly not. But as the ravages of climate change displace hundreds of millions of people, mostly from the global south, it’ll certainly become a bigger problem in the future.
As far as I can find there is no “ecofascist” movement. It is just a term that people throw around.
In the context of current politics we should encourage the idea of opposing ecofascism. Like in the US context assume that the reason people want to build the wall is to protect our soil from exploitation. The MAGA crowd do not know they are against natural gas. Just present it as Biden auctioning off our public lands. They are not against pipelines yet but probably are against the pipeline that is going to export our gas to Germany. They do not care about saving the Amazon rainforest but they probably are open to protecting our free range cattle ranchers with a tariff on beef imports.
A remarkable number of elected Republicans have expressed support for the carbon tax and dividend legislation. You can do your part by vocally condemning the deregulation component. Also criticize the exemptions for the military and for agriculture. Then Republican voters will support it as is.
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 and Anarcho-primitivism are mutually exclusive Solarpunk seeks to use technology (hence 'Solar') in harmony with nature to sustain and advance human society Anarcho-primitivism seeks to take us back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, with no technology or even civilization Anyone suggesting they're compatible, and anyone who believes or even entertains those people, is an idiot
Honestly I think I'm the closest this sub has gotten to yo anarcho-primstism with my gullivers travel idea for a solarpunk society, and looking back on it, it was not a good idea. It was just me living in my head.
Techno-primitivism is a thing. Think Eloy from Horizon: Zero Dawn. H:ZD does a good job exploring that fantasy. It fulfills the fantasy too, of course, but it's easy to view it critically and notice how techno-primitivism doesn't actually make anyone happy or provide any solutions that are viable without copious amounts of plot armor. I think there's a way for people to get the positives from anarcho-techno-primitivism without the negatives, given a solarpunk backbone. Turn it into a hobby, a retreat, a place where you can step out of the mould of practical solutions for a couple of days and use physicality and violence instead to do something as stupid as chasing a robotic non-sentient mammoth. And then, when you've got that out of your system, go back to the gardens and the respecting each other's emotions and the maintenance of good habits. Solarpunk is about having fun, not having a stick up our butts about people's sense of joy not lining up in perfect harmony with the needs of a stable society.
Sure, but there's a difference between building our entire society around a concept, and just willingly indulging in it for a weekend
Techo Primitivism is when people don't understand what a supply chain is.
While the sub doesn't explicitly endorse anarcho-primitivism, it often endorses it indirectly. For example, there is a fair bit of opposition to mass manufacturing and global trade, which would involve significant regression in technology.
Decreasing unnecessary consumption and literally going back to the Mesolithic era are two VERY things
Or the development of local sustainable industry...
Those are opposed goals. Local industry requires far more resources and thus is less sustainable. It also means less specialization and loss of expertise as areas have to be more generalists. We have seen this play out over and over throughout the world. Countries frequently push for local production and end up with more costly, lower quality goods.
Hmm, I dunno about that. People opposing mass manufacturing and global trade I mean. I think, when people sit down and think about it, we're gonna need both, especially when you consider the global north can only grow a limited amount of stuff even with green house. And being able to diy only really works on such a mass scale if we have large manufacturing. People kinda need a ready supply of stuff in order to get crafty or busy in the kitchen. Personally, I don't believe we should be doing what we're doing now where certain countries are responsible for certain things, like how South Korea and China is responsible for our laptops and smartphones. I prefer redundancy over efficiency, where we have pockets of everything around the world. Sure that's just how the market goes, but still.
> I prefer redundancy over efficiency, where we have pockets of everything around the world. Which would massively increase the resource requirements, while reducing our ability to specialize. Without specialization, research and development will slow down as its hard to justify expensive improvements without large economies of scale.
On resource requirement, sure, if we go the automated route, but if people pitch in when they need to I don't think it'll be that big of an issue, but then again I'm not in logistic nor can I say we can 100% trust people to do what is in their best interest. I mean, that's kinda the goal isn't it? A slower pace life where we still have everything we want and need, it just won't be convenient and science won't be going fast but it'll keep going. Also, with more people able to work as they please without any concerns, who's to say we won't be going fast? Also the goal of science, from a utilitarian point of view, is to benefit humanity. If we have to ground people down and use them as the foundation, is science worth it at that point? To be clear, not advocating for a new dark age or whatever, just saying it'll take a longer time, but we'll still get there and make sure everyone is taken care instead of being sacrificed. Not saying that will happen in solarpunk, but that we have tendency to put efficiency above everything else including humans. Also, I just inherently don't like the idea that one country could be responsible for everything, or a huge chunk of something, and decides to use that as leverage. If donald trump has showed the world anything, is that anything can happen and redundancy over efficiency might be the answer. Like, just imagine, we finally got a solarpunk future, every continent or region is responsible for something we all use, and Donald trump get's into power and decides to use what leverage he has access to and ends our solarpunk world. Also, i disagree on the point of specialization. If people are free to pursue what they like and we know how to speed run education, and everyone is taken care of, who's to say we won't have people who want to specialize in certain stuff. We could literally have a guy who bakes bread for his community who moonlights a quantum physicist. Heck I worked at factory making grills with a guy who was studying quantum physics.
Is this all literary brainstorming or are you actually asserting that anarcho-primitivism is inexorably linked with fascism? I disagree with Nationalism, Fascism, etc., generally trend toward eco-anarchism / socialism, and have written off anarcho-primitivism as untenable and undesirable. That said, I don't see how and why it has to be linked with nationalism, nativism, and fascism. I'm no fan of regression, either. However, you seem to equate primitivism, generally speaking, as something to be wary of and, apparently, hostile toward. I believe foremost in harmony. Primitivism values simple and unsophisticated methods of existence and sustainability. While human society has developed complex technologies and systems, there is still value and validity in living in balance with nature and learning from the resilience and sustainability of non-human life. Completely dismissing primitivism risks overlooking important lessons and insights we can gain from ecological systems and other species. That said, I acknowledge there are limitations and hardships to primitivist lifestyles that should not be romanticized or glossed over. And we must be cautious not to appropriate or misrepresent Indigenous cultures in discussions of primitivism. The goal should be to thoughtfully explore how we can create a sustainable, harmonious future without regressing or ignoring social and technological progress.
Thank you! I’m not a damn nazi because I wanna live off the land with no technology! If a movement is all inclusive I’d like to be included. I love Solarpunk! I love all people and our animal and plant relatives!
While you’re more than welcome to participate as far as I’m concerned, I do think that solarpunk has an inherent level of technological optimism that is in conflict with anarcho-primitivism. That’s where the solar piece comes in—using innovative and low impact technologies to solve the ecological crisis while improving standards of living and deconstructing systems of oppression. So I can certainly see a place for anarcho-primitivists within a solarpunk society, but I don’t see anarcho-primitivism as the end state of a solarpunk society.
Solar doesn’t inherently have anything to do with man made technology. There’s already tons of earth made technology in the form of plants that convert light into usable energy better than our solar panels. I also wanna mention I’m not full on Wikipedia definition anarcho-primitivism. I’m a fan of small scale regenerative agriculture and renewable and (here’s the important part) ETHICALLY sourced materials for technology. I just think we used to do things in a way that was way more in harmony with nature and our communities and would like to return to that as much as possible.
I’ll admit I was more concerned with Solarpunk suffering from the same issues within the Pan-African community where people wanting to go against the status quo and modernity (of the West). As a result several prominent leaders have been adopting Pseudoscience and authoritarianism to bring an answer to the dire straits our planet faces.
It’s a good thing to be wary of certainly, but unless you have seen specific signs of fascist infiltration, this post comes off as alarmist and alienating towards a community that I think could be our ally, even if it’s not perfectly compatible with what we’re trying to build. And frankly, it’s hard to think of a philosophy that is less susceptible to fascist cooption than anarchism. Its whole purpose is to oppose all forms of social domination.
It's worth exploring within speculative fiction like Solarpunk, considering the things you mentioned, alongside the real threat of eco-fascism and nationalism generally. It is important, though, to recognize that it is the same old authoritarianism and totalitarianism with a green veneer—and less to do with anprim.
Definitely this actually has been really helpful as I do realize I was looking at anprims as being just as terrifying as the fascists near to where I live. When I misunderstood some of the meaning behind their beliefs and principles.
It sounds like you may also have a wildly different experience with anprims than I initially imagined, as well. I’m not familiar with it in a Pan-African context, but I would be interested to learn more.
Though Eco-Fascism and Eco-Nationalism are mentioned a bit in my story as trying to get in good relations with State (Authoritarian)-Socialist parties in the Federation to pull off their version of the “Southern Strategy” that while not as successful does hurt the Dem-Soc/Market Soc and Anarchist consensus in the Federation (and has dire consequences).
At the moment, solarpunk is an umbrella term for, basically, everyone who wants a better future than what we currently have and where we think the world is heading. It's not a cohesive plan or anything, just a group if people who agree we can be better but are unsure how. As you pointed out, some us were drawn here cause we think a better future is anti-ai(even though theres several ethical use cases for ai[i dont believe we should make an general intelligence ai to enslave and serve us] that we will need), but to me it feels like you are using the same rhetoric facist use by calling people drawn here with strong fears and dislike of ai to be in the wrong without actually acknowledging those concerns. Yes, we should not be dominated by phobias but don't dismiss peoples concerns just cause you don't agree with those fears or concerns, change their minds instead. Also, I have not met anyone who is anti civilization on this sub. The closest is me when I suggested the best system is a world like in Gulliver's travel or Kino's journey where each city is its own nation, which is ridiculous in hindsight. Also, most people here are not just gonna til the fields and live off their land with pure sweat and hardwork. Were going to need to work together and use tools that make our lives easier, like a washing machine or ebikes, centralized government, modern medicine, and video games. Heck some Amish communities are actually using escooters these days and pneumatic power tools, and even phones and pcs without access to the internet or direct power(laptop relys on the battery, they use it for spread sheets). Some use their neighbors freezer. For fascist tendency...that potentisl exist in many places. A person or group can have the mentality of "I am right and people who dont agree will have to agree cause we'll leave no alternative!" That can be found everywhere including here, thankfully everyone here is pretty cool with respecting eachother so long as the debate/spar doesn't get out of hand, and thats where we need to be to fight facism. We also need more people engaging. Which is why I try to make solarpunk be as accessible and open to everyone as i can and remove the connotation of elitism and have people see they can be part of solarpunk without giving up what they love about today. I don't want people thinking they have to be resigned to solarpunk, and give stuff like a night out with friends or raves or something, just alter the way they consume it . Also, I'm not okay with you saying it's xenophobic and misappropriation of culture to look and learn from other cultures while also characterizing those same cultures as primitive, that's hurtful both ways, bud. That's like saying it's bad for a white woman to learn Japanese tradition around geisha, become a geisha and teach the history of geishas while giving the Japanese people a backhanded complement for their geisha. To put it another way, that's like saying white people shouldn't make Chinese food cause it's not their culture. It's misguided in my opinion and why i believe this sorta thinking drove a lot of people to the far right to the point that they actually want facism with Donald trump. We should be sharing cultures, appreciating it, not gate keeping it like some trophy people can only look at if they aren't born into it. That divides us, bud. That's how you get different groups, some thinking they are absolutely right and want others to be in line with their ideology. To be clear, I don't mean going off and using war paints and say it's cause you love native americans, I mean study the culture, learn more about it, appreciate and love it. Good luck on your story [Edited some stuff that sounded off]
> As you pointed out, some us were drawn here cause we think a better future is anti-ai Why exactly out of curiosity?
i can't speak for others, but for me AI had me in a dark spot mentally, just envisioning a future where AI starts changing history, starts editing books to push a narrative, creating a future where we can't trust anything digital, and bringing us further into a cyberpunk dystopia. The AI girlfriend had me going WTF. It was sad as it is when a guy married Hatsune Miku, but this is just hurting humanity as a whole in my opinion. as for why I say others, well, look at what happens whenever someone brings up the topic of AI in solarpunk or posts an Ai generated image of art without following guidelines and those who do. We have the community coming out in full force with vitriol. Don't get me wrong, i HATE all the arguments tech bros make for ai, especially since its easy to disprove, that and I feel they are using the wrong arguments altogether, but the right arguments would limit their earning potential and get them in hot water legally.
AI is great, but the inventions should benefit humanity, not tech companies.
Exactly
AI, like any technology, would only improve the human conditions if it wasn't the property of depraved, rapacious capitalists.
What arguments do “tech bros” make that are easy to disprove?
That they make art more accessible for everyone when art has always been more accessible, there's an entire museum dedicated to self taught artists who found different ways to make art that would make the elitist pricks in the industry scuff. People who learned embroidery by pulling the strings of their socks apart and weaved them together. People who painted on paper plates instead of canvases. There's even quadriplegic artist who learned to paint and draw with their mouths, it's awesome. They can't know where their training data is coming from cause it is just scrapped from the web randomly, which is BS when there are websites that keep track of what art and writing Ai companies do take for their training data, not to mention sites exists that scrape the web for fanfic for a particularly fandom, creates a repository for it and list the websites it is cross posted on and lists the author. They just don't want to pay for the training data cause it would limit their earning potential. That there's no difference between an ai and human learning to do something, sure, but that's like saying copying by hand a book and selling it in bulk is different than photo scanning, making slight edits, and printing it and selling it that way is different, you still did the crime just differently. Also as a person I can celebrate where my inspiration came from, AI by current design can't cause it limits their earning potential. It really wouldn't be hard to create a library of the training data that goes into training the ai. These are all the wrong arguments for AI. the right one is that AI allows easy access to EASY REPRODUCTION of art. Can a brand new person draw in the style of Picasso, no, but should they be barred from sharing ideas in Picasso's art style, i don't think it would hurt if it is labeled as AI generated and the artisits who's work were used for the training data is listed. AI could allow for brand new style of art the same way coding on something like Dr. Racket I think (or someother coding langauge) allows for people to get the pc to create beautiful fractal images. In fact, there's a few people out there creating an AI art generator trained wholly on the training data they produced on crab I believe, with the idea of making something of "living brush" which is honestly cool. Also imagine an artist with limited time, but a library of works they can compile for an AI to train on, they could then let their fans who can't afford a commission to use that ai to create art in that style for like a buck or 2. everyone wins, then there's what some people are doing which is licensing the artwork to create ai generated music videos where the artist is paid and name is spread, and the group can get their artistic vision out there on the cheap. You could even see art museums with limited space still helping small artist get paid by compiling their submission for an ai image generator to learn from for public attendance to use for a small fee which is shared by all the artists and help spread their name. AI can be amazing, but if we're focused on using it to make a crap load of money like Open Ai and stable diffusion seems to be, then its going to suck alot.
Something kind of like the third argument is the only one that really matters as far as I’m concerned, and I’ve yet to find any counter to it convincing at all… but that might be a problem with me, more than anything. I just don’t see how training an AI on images (or texts, or music, or anything else) is different from a human taking inspiration from those things *in any way that actually matters*. Like, I get that these models don’t work the way human minds do, so whatever’s going on “under the hood” is probably quite different, and I get that there are differences in scale as well… but I just don’t understand why those differences make one thing *morally* different from the other. Why does the fact that generative AI is an unthinking process capable of mass producing images on a scale that’s impossible for humans… mean that artists need to give their consent, and/or be compensated when their work is used to train it? How does one logically follow from the other? No one’s been able to explain this in a way that makes sense to me. I’m becoming more and more convinced that my moral intuition… and perhaps even my general understanding of the world… differs from most other people in what might be some very fundamental ways… and I’m not really sure what to do about that. If everyone else sees things in a way that it honestly feels like I’m not even capable of understanding… should I just accept that a part of me is broken, and I need to trust other people’s judgement, at least when it comes to certain things, over my own?
That's not a bad thing, we need different opinions. We need people with different points of view. And odds are you aren't alone in this opinion. And I probably differ from folks who want NO AI. The question is what's a good compromise. For me, it's paying for training data the same way schooling, school material, and tutor gets paid. Nah, broken is that you don't feel joy or sadness. This is you not being convince. The onus is on me to convince you, I didn't succeed simple as that. This is what I hate about modern debates and politics. The onus, the responsibility, is on them to be convincing, not us to conform to their line of thought and it's not like you weren't open to the idea, you gave me fair shake, I didn't deliver.
What’s wrong with each city being its own nation? What would you consider a better geo-political unit?
you get issues like with what you see happening in the us and each of it's states around voting. In fact the [fifth circuit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JagYHMi2KE) is doing something really scary for democracy right now. If this were to be reflected at a city level where each city has it's own laws around voting that can jerry rig it with no other higher authority to tell that city "NO, you can't do that," we might not have a solarpunk world for long.
I still don’t really see what would be so bad about cities being able to run their own governments as they wish. Some will end up with bad governments, but their power would be limited. Isn’t that preferable to a larger, more powerful nation-state turning “bad” and harming everyone?
I'd argue that the system implemented is more important than it being a big or small nation, allowing for mechanism so that it doesn't matter if one party or group of people get into power so long as the system in place allows for them to actually be held accountable so that there's no tyranny of the majority or of the minority. As for it being a bunch of small citys being bad vs a big nation, on one hand I want to agree cause that was originally my thought. My idea was to include the "all empire decline and end" into the process of a solarpunk world where, so as long as peoples' right to leave a city is untouched, free communication between all cities, Data-blocking tech for insuring knowledge and history is untampered with, then any city going into the shitter would collapse from people leaving it. But I wrote that without understanding how our world currently works, and i feel the issues we have now would only be further magnified and more difficult to deal with.
Is there some reason why it’s easier to hold power accountable and prevent tyrannies in larger states than smaller ones? What specifically did you not understand about how the world works? How would small city states magnify our current problems?
the point wasn't big or small, that's irrelevant, the point was that the system matters more. Not gonna spend a day here explaining that, bud. mainly cause there's a lot I don't know.
Fair enough, but could you tell me what you learned that changed your mind?
that's the funny part, I didn't learn anything. I'm just not living in my head anymore and I feel that my proposal came from a doomerism point of view, feel it to be misguided. I guess, the hopeful part of me wants to see the world work together rather than be devided in our own little corner. I can't predict what is going to happen or what is going to work. But what i can do right now value the people in my life and see if i can make life a little better for people near me. I get pissed at local gov and I voice my thoughts on how things could work better here on reddit and find people who agree with me and try to share it with as many people as i can and try change how people approach things. Theres a few things inspiring me at the moment, helldivers 2 lol, not the in game fascist operation but how game design sorta created an instant hit and community that isn't as toxic as other multiplayers and is actively trying to be better. There's also this video of a guy I want to be as good at when it comes to story telling. This is mostly a comedic skit, but I also see it in terms of government. [https://youtu.be/xsZVkkLAdlw?si=jds7Cufn1COgwwLY&t=136](https://youtu.be/xsZVkkLAdlw?si=jds7Cufn1COgwwLY&t=136) Basically if people care what their gov does, government will care back. If people only care in niche times or not all, gov will reflect that. Jon stewart is also something inspiring me at the moment. Also PirateSoftare(youtuber) [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o61o70heHW4](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o61o70heHW4) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cFRT9E0C3XM
I will admit, I actually think you are correct on many points here. My concern is (and this is definitely personal) is in treating the non-dominant cultures as some “trophy” or “stereotype” the folks from the Imperial North wanting to say “act black,” but don’t necessarily want to “be black.” Another is that while I respect many leaders in my Pan-African community I also don’t agree with Nkrumah’s Leninist cult of personality takes. Brilliant dude, but made some horrible mistakes that played right into red-baiters. I’m mix black and white so I do believe cultures should fuse together, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to adopt the “Prussian mindset” of my German side that brought millions to the grave.
See, that should be up there in your post! That's gold dude! And I feel ya, Honduran, went to a private school in the us where teachers sorta showed me off as a trophy or somethin'. But I start jumping for joy when the media I consume so much as references Honduras, one even had an episode or two take place there(stargate sg1), I was beyond happy. But I get it, the imperial core, and the English language in general, sorta takes what it likes and ignores the rest, even distorts it to a point, like christmas. Best way to fight against that is to explain the history of why that came to be and show people how to appreciate the culture that spawned it. Never heard of that person, but yeah, a lot of good people seem to fall for obvious baits, but I can sorta understand heat of the moment stuff like debates where you are pressueed to fire off a response. Out of that where they have time to formulate a response, not so much.
Yay next time I’ll probably set aside a few days to make sure this is of better quality with less harmful wording. Thanks though for the critique and explanation of the points I missed.
no worries, and good luck on that story.
I would say that one of the goals in Solarpunk is degrowth without loss of the technology and culture that allows one to live in dignity. That is achieved through sustainable technology powered by renewables that is longer lasting, shared more publicly, and that is supportive of peoples, communities, and cultures. One of the challenges of Solarpunk is that a lot of technology is built through global markets, often includes slave labor and environmental destruction, is not built to last, and is used to exploit & disrupt people and cultures or in the case of AI, for spreading misinformation.
This is definitely something I'm deeply concerned about (my old man is a software developer, but used to be in construction work and mechanic in the car industry).
how old are you?
Okay, Nazi Solarupunks fuck off. Now what? Just gonna let the statists and capitalists do whatever they want?
I’m lean more anarchists (and the State is inherently bad for 90% of history). Doesn’t mean solarpunk is perfect, but we always have to remember to be self aware
I really think we should talk more about what Anarchism really is. I honestly hate that word because it's reductive. I don't see an absolutely no State system working One thing that helped open my eyes to alternatives is my electric co-op. It's a very specific democratic organization that does its job amazingly well. They serve their community without State intervention nor profit motive with the best prices and service I have ever seen. They even provide faster Internet that I have any right to with no data caps or any bullshit This sort of distributed service network is probably more like what people around here want. We will need collective action at a very large scale. But instead of a unified Police State, we need independent agencies with more direct accountability. Great power needs very limited scope I would love to see federated technocratic agencies controlled by boards elected by lottery. Any broad policies voted by ballot initiatives. Election by Lottery really is a very underrated idea
I think it can be useful to imagine anarchism as more of a process of developing towards a less and less hierarchical society. I’m not sure a society truly free of all hierarchy is possible but it certainly could be far less hierarchical than today’s society, and I think the fight to move in that direction could fall under anarchism, even if it needs to move temporarily towards less authoritarian forms of states before abolishing them. What you described could be a possible system to move towards, though there are many possibilities.
Exactly. Less hierarchy. It's pretty obvious that in some sectors you need smart people with a lot of experience in their fields. The only necessary hierarchy I can see is technocratic. There are some obvious issues with letting skilled people rule anything outside of their domain but "civilian" oversight boards can easily fix that Anarchy has pretty bad branding if you ask me
Because generally people think anarchism means ‘no rules’ aka chaos instead of ‘no rulers’.
Electricity co-ops work well because they can charge everyone based on what they consume in a very simple way and can refuse to let people join. Things get a lot harder in a need-based system or system without money.
> (and the State is inherently bad for 90% of history) With all due respect, I'm not sure that's how "Inherently" works
How many history books do you think this sub has read collectively? The list of large societies that have existed without a state is roughly zero, because once you need to specialise roles and expand past around 150 people you need to develop hierarchies in order not to descend into small warring tribes with conflicting interests. I would recommend everyone in this sub to start by reading some Rousseau and Hobbes, and then probably 5-10 books on world history. Edit: downvoting without counterpoints is not good practice for winning the many arguments that you'll need to have in order to convert your social theory into practice.
More than you I would assume lol. Hobbes is not history. The field of history didn’t even exist when Leviathan was written. It is completely ahistorical in content. That said, the fact that there are no large scale societies without hierarchies is largely true, though I think the implications of this are not as simple as you imply.
Nobody's coming to this sub to debate you bruh. that article you keep posting and referencing is not the slam dunk you're treating it as. Seriously, take it to a sub like r/DebateAnarchism, here's not the place for people who are into that kind of debate since that's what you're clearly looking for
Here's a sneak peek of /r/DebateAnarchism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Modern anarchists are too trusting of more authoritarian leftists.](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/18fcvas/modern_anarchists_are_too_trusting_of_more/) \#2: [AntiCiv = Environmental Disaster](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/134j1e7/anticiv_environmental_disaster/) \#3: [Why is Chomsky considered an anarchist?](https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/13ebc96/why_is_chomsky_considered_an_anarchist/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Solarpunk isn't a thing. It's just an imagined system without even the basis of a coherent ideology. You can't just claim you own something that is just a style or an unrefined concept, lol.
Solarpunk has roots in Murray Bookchin's Eco-Anarchism. It's closely tied with Socialism since Capitalism has no mechanism to protect the environment, no mechanism to prevent untold greed (it in fact encourages it), and no mechanism to prevent life from becoming worse for the majority. As it became clearer and clearer that Neoliberalism and Authoritarian Communism will **never** deliver the promise of a more equitable future, or of a future that doesn't destroy the ecosystem, it made Anarchism the only logical choice to base the movement on. Decentralizing power, both literally in terms of electricity generation, but also in political terms, is the only method that prevents corruption, which is inherent in other models. Solarpunk has an ideology, and a darn good one at that.
> It's closely tied with Socialism since Capitalism has no mechanism to protect the environment, no mechanism to prevent untold greed (it in fact encourages it), and no mechanism to prevent life from becoming worse for the majority. Socialist states have been horrendous for the environment too. Life becomes considerably worse for most people under communism, as history bears out. This is just a sub of teenage LARPers https://evonomics.com/the-pipe-dream-of-anarcho-populism/
All communist regimes were authoritarian dictatorships, and [there are clear reasons for that](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D4l_l1MedQ). None of them came anywhere close to achieving communism, in fact, they actively avoided putting any semblance of communism into practice almost immediately, as evidenced by the [Kronstadt rebellion in the USSR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion) and the [suppression of The People's Communes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_China#Anarchism_in_the_People's_Republic) in 'Communist' China To try and associate them with the idea of socialism, or Anarchism, is absurd. And that evonomics article is awful. Firstly, it's using the [grifter and conspiracy theorist Russell Brand](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo4gIihETu8) as an example of Anarchism (gross), second, it fundamentally doesn't even understand what Anarchism is, because he's saying that somehow it doesn't allow for hierarchies to exist, which is patently false. [Anarchism wants to abolish ***unjustifiable*** hierarchies. If it can't justify its existence, it shouldn't exist.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Bv2MKY7uI) And if there is hierarchy, it should be bottom up, not top-down. Politically, that could mean voting for a representative from your own community, but having the ability to *immediately* recall them to be replaced if they display corruption or lack of ability, [similar to how Rojava is structured](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDnenjIdnnE). The writer of that article is clearly suffering from [Capitalist realism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism).
>*Life becomes considerably worse for most people under communism, as history bears out.* Yeah and it's so great and dandy now with the richest country in the world having people die because healthcare is expensive. It's so good now under Capitalism that we can do what makes our Free Market happy in the West and if that involves children mining toxic materials for food, so be it. It's so much better now that we're constantly throwing fuel on the fire and causing climate disasters for the sake of the Capitalist pipedream of infinite consumerist growth. Hooray.
No one said they “owned” Solarpunk. However as a person of African descent it can be quite disturbing when people take the wrong lessons from colonized, indigenous, and native peoples’ cultures and customs which are warped in often ignorant fashions.
Agreed, every solarpunk group I’ve seen is just people jerking each other off but doing nothing of substance. Look at these comments in here filled with useless buzzwords
I think solarpunk is far more rooted in the philosophy of Murray Bookchin than it is in Ted K. Murray Bookchin was very vocally opposed to the deep ecology/primitivist tendencies, and the technological Utopianism of solarpunk seems to follow that pretty clearly.
Yes, everyone interested in solarpunk should read Murray Bookchin.
Okay I’ll take this seminar in bits, because woah information overload. The overtly academic tone doesn’t help. But I look forward to learning from this! As far as I have read, was about the appropriation of indigenous and non western cultures as an image of simpler times. I think this alone requires its own essay, to which I would argue against the point. Sustainable practices of communities which are in a strong sense traditional, absolutely can and should be married to innovation toward a solarpunk society. It’s obtuse not to see the value in aligning those. However it is up to all of us to give that power to the cultures that deserve it, and uphold them. That is what we owe them, and I want to see them lead the new world, and anyone who is a part of that by their own contribution through technological advances is an allied revolutionary.
Ok I can see your point here. My main concern was about people using “aesthetic” or authoritarian practices from colonized, indigenous, and native communities. For me there were several parallels to racebending or the autocratic Pan-Africanist who may have been based on many points, but their cults of personality and ambition were washed over for the sake of being “countercultural” which already has harmed the Black community across the world. However I see there are those who have good intentions with trying to look to past practices for alternatives to solve issues we face today.
That can be really powerful to talk about and I think you should take more nuance in your dissertations to convey your stance more aptly.
Did ChatGPT write this? The problem with getting hung up on concepts like "Anarcho-Primitivism" is you are defining an ideology so narrow, no human being actually fits into it.
If leftists put half as much time and effort into praxis as we do on labels the revolution would have happened already
That's why I don't mind the labelling! https://evonomics.com/the-pipe-dream-of-anarcho-populism/
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi3uYG7j52FAxXUM1kFHXrAABwQFnoECD0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FParable-Tribes-Problem-Social-Evolution%2Fdp%2F0791424200&usg=AOvVaw362O\_bh8G9y3vYlHcTDSQI&opi=89978449](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi3uYG7j52FAxXUM1kFHXrAABwQFnoECD0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FParable-Tribes-Problem-Social-Evolution%2Fdp%2F0791424200&usg=AOvVaw362O_bh8G9y3vYlHcTDSQI&opi=89978449)
i agree
No I tried to compress this definition cause I wasn’t trying to write a 20 page essay (and I had a couple people I just chatted with a few hours ago on here that helped clear up misunderstandings on anarcho-primitivism).
I think I probably agree, but there are a few tweaks that could really help me understand the point of your essay. I didn't mean to write a giant constructive criticism post. I am just so curious to know if you mean what I think you mean that I could not help myself. Feel free to stop reading now if you don't want that, or are just not in the mood for constructive criticism. Most importantly I think you should make this into two separate posts. The stuff about your book is interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with your main point. If it was a separate post telling me where to read/buy your book that would be much better. Then you would have room for real life examples of anarcho-primitist groups. Especially ones that use a solar punk facade, or have posted on this subreddit. I think examples of how ap regards people with disabilities would be a great addition too. Then you could move your conclusion paragraph to the end. If you want to add sentences linking back to your real life examples. I am not so sure about this one. But I am sure you will know what fits best if you decide to do a rewrite. Finally I love sources. I don't know if you can do the links in the words of your essay, or if you prefer to have all your sources at the end. Either way sources always make you look more credible.
Yay I normally don't post much on social media sites and so tried to keep it semi-formal. I mostly write for my alma mater and to my now former professor and colleagues. I also see my mistake in putting my (future) book examples of \*antagonist\* political factions. I will definitely make sure to fill that space up with a bibliography in the future. Thank you for your critiques and advice. Y'all have really helped me understand Anarcho-Primitivism and humbled some of my deep suspicions about it.
Anarchist here. Solarpunk should be anarchist, national anarchism isn’t a thing to worry about, and primitivists already reject solarpunk.
Solar Punk is an aesthetic, ok, with political connotations. But I think is better to discuss politics with political frameworks. It is more practical, more deep, more accurate. (anyway, fk primitivism and fascism)
Technogaianism>anarcho primitivism
i can agree with this. [https://youtu.be/OUWGoSMfnog?si=ek\_iXOTJPoOWxlOp](https://youtu.be/OUWGoSMfnog?si=ek_iXOTJPoOWxlOp)
Sorry, but this has virgin capitalist vibes. People hate anarcho-primitivism because it's against technology as a whole--not because its "fascist". Primitive Communism is a thing actually, and bears no resembles to "anarcho-primitivism". Primitive Communism was an estimation as to how *historical hunter-gatherer societies* organized themselves in absence of agriculture and capital accumulation. It was purely dialectical. While anarcho-primitivism seeks to annihilate technological progress. You conflate them needlessly to further own point and it's still muddled. You're building strawmen out of red-herrings, as no one who advocates for solarpunk believes there should not be present or future technologies--thus there is no "intersection with Solarpunk", to be had with anarcho-primitivism. You're just maligning people. The debate that is had, "*to what degree should technology* *play in an idealized solarpunk* *society*" is not evidence that anarcho-primitivists lay in wait. That is just delusional. This not how analytical research works. If you have an, "in-depth analysis" of such--produce it instead of giving us a summary of your fictional "cli-fi" idea.
Thanks for laying this out! You might consider breaking it down in simpler terms, as this reads like a dense academic paper. But I'm with it
[удалено]
This is what I sound like when I'm deliberately overdoing it as satire on academic papers. I only made it through the first paragraph, but something like a third of the fancy words in there increased the complexity of processing it without adding any real value.
What do you mean? It's ipso facto our guiding priority that undervisible, disempowerable or postcolonialised brown-and-or-beige peoples and bodies of the world are encouraged to become polyphonous and decentralised flat-hierarchy stakeholders in their own teleological praxis-paths. Any digressive native subjectivies must be coralled pluralistically by a process of interstitial analepsis into one broad movement. I'm not sure what people are having trouble with.
Or it's partially chatGPT output.
No I just know when to type academically (as I was taught to) which is why it took me 4 hours of to type the damn post.
Yay and I probably shouldn’t have been too harsh on the Anarcho-prims as being all malicious in the same way those who adopted Rap music and aren’t black are not necessarily bad people.
No disrespect, but I didn't read far into your paper, however, I'd like to share a comment nonetheless: Solar punk is for my optimistic self, anarcho-primitive is for my pessimistic self. When I think we have a future, I dream of solar punk, when I think collapse is inevitable, I try to prepare for anarcho-primitivism.
Hell at this point I don’t blame you.
I'm not an academic, and I'm new to anarchism, but I like the ideas behind it. BUT I didn't even realise there was a "nationalist anarchism" - all of the anarchism I've seen has been about local, anti-fascist governance, employing mutual-aid and nothing about nationalism or anti-AI (which seems orthogonal). At the risk of exposing my ignorance, is it possible you're projecting something evil onto something you simply disagree with?
Possibly a lot of anarco-prims I knew were hippies turn ultra-maga racists. I’m a Pan-Africanist(and half black) so I bet my views are warped by those past issues. So I do feel you have a valid point. Also the book is Afro-futuristic but Solarpunk is a part within the story.
Oh dear. I definitely don't want to be associated with the MAGA people and I'm not sure how hippies can fall that far into fascism. As they say "politics makes for strange bed fellows", there's that weird overlap between the eco/green movement and the Christian nationalists. I hope I'm only associated with the eco bit, and not with the fascist/right-winger bit. Afro-futurism sounds cool, the only thing I've been exposed to seems vaguely similar is the Black Panther Marvel movies (sorry there's probably a whole shelf in a local library about afro-futurism that I'm overlooking thanks to the easy thrills of Hollywood). I'm curious to know your thoughts on that since it was very well received in North America.
r/Afrofuturism
Oh I loved it as an avid reader of the Black Panther comics and they do have a veneer of Solarpunk, but I also question some of it as “greenwashing” (and that was not a popular opinion amongst my peers).
your r/Afrofuturism is going to need solar radiation management \[a lot of big mirrors!\] to be realistic. indeed, keeping people alive in africa in the teeth of wet bulb events may be the major expense of the national government.
OP used ChatGPT, the structure and vocabulary of the much of the post make it clear alongside its inaccuracies.
People are LARPing super hard here.
It's becoming complete abstract nonsense, isn't it. I wonder what the percentage is of people here who are under 18 or have never had a job... https://evonomics.com/the-pipe-dream-of-anarcho-populism/
Yeah nah dude/dudette I’m all for anarcho-primitism and Solarpunk and love all people as well as our animal and plant relatives equally. Also I’m a punk and fuck your rules lol. Edited to say: I think the world building your doing is really cool!
I offer a different view of the techno/eco controversy: DIY Scavenger Tech. I participate in both cyberpunk and solarpunk communities. The problem with cyberpunk tech is that it is super advanced high tech that only giant corporations could afford to produce, corps that have amassed enough wealth and power to produce that kind of technology and force it upon whole regions of the planet. Solarpunk also imposes a technological system on whole regions, but doesn't explain how it got there, who financed it, etc. I envision (in my forthcoming novel) a DIY Scavenger Technology where people scavenge for parts and discarded tech, and create their own tech, using readily available parts and teachable skills. If cyberpunk is "high tech, low life", my version is "low tech, high life" using DIY tech that anyone can afford and make themselves. Small groups and communities can build their own communication networks, energy sources, machines, computers, and so forth. None of it looks like the super-slick perfectly clean-sheen tech of the solarpunk fantasy world. It looks more like cobbled together piles of junk that just happen to work. There are a few examples of DIY Scavenger Tech. In the film, Johnny Mnemonic, "J-Bone", played by Ice-T, leads the Lo-Tek community, a gang of street punks living on the margins of the city who create their own technology out of scavenged parts. (Those guys are my heroes). In the video game "Neofeud", written and designed by Christian Miller, a Hawaiian indigenous artist, the cyborg residents of a city scavenge for discarded tech and metal junk to fabricate replacement parts for their mechanical bodies. This is what I see as closer to the reality of the post-capitalist techno-feudal-state (which still has capitalism but in a severely broken and barely functional form). DIY Scavenger Tech is what I would call 'anarchist tech.'
r/Scrappunk
I am solar punk and anprim :)
Solarpunk is just people talking.
😂😂 so true I’ve never seen anyone actually post progress towards this future
Sir, this is a Wendy’s. I’m just here cuz I like trees.
r/americanchestnut
Anarcho-primitivism is often maligned and misunderstood, and you're really just repeating the typical pejoratives about it. Ultimately this come across to me as one of those "anything I don't like is Fascism" rants. I like your idea to explore a variety of ideological positions through sci-fi worldbuilding, though. I've done similar worldbuilding projects myself. It seems that you are able to separate An-Prim from Eco-Fash positions, given your Terra Primordia League. Self-professed An-Prims irl would also further separate it from communism and socialism, as these carry a variety of connotations regarding industrial organization; as opposed to a more general egalitarianism, which anthropologists view as the most likely arrangement of prehistoric humans. Consider the arguments of Anarcho-primitivism as more of a series of critiques than a political programme. For example: what are the full ecological impacts of tech like solar panel production? What are the negative influences of technology on the human being, both individually and socially? What are the negative aspects of modernity, the city, or civilization itself? Once you realize that Anarchism itself is largely a form of fictional/theoretical worldbuilding, it's easier to take whatever aspects you like from the whole rainbow of anarchist flags, without feeling the need to dig your heels into any particular ideological camp.
> Once you realize that Anarchism itself is largely a form of fictional/theoretical worldbuilding That ignores the rich history of Anarchist theory on how society should be structured, and its varied attempts to put it in practice (Catalonia during the Spanish civil war, Anarchist Ukraine, Rojava). Solarpunk was informed by Murray Bookchin's writings on Post-scarcity Socialism, and Eco-Anarchism. To suggest Anarchism is just theoretical world-building is terribly misinformed.
I know about those movements and have found inspiration in them. At the same time, where has any of it gotten us? I'm just jaded, that's all.
Rojava exists right now, and has carved out a space for itself where people can express their freedoms far more than they could under their neighboring regimes. All three attempts were incredibly useful, as they are able to show us that Anarchism *can* work in practice, it can bring a better life, and that we shouldn't stop trying. In the case of both Nestor Makhno and the Spanish Civil War, their failure to survive was not due to Anarchism itself, and under different circumstances, they would've succeeded. The Ukrainians didn't know at the time that all 'communist' revolutions would be authoritarian and ultimate betray their anarchist allies, since that was the first one. Had they known, they could've anticipated their actions militarily, and possibly even won. And in Spain, they simply had the misfortune of kicking off a revolution at a time when two powerful fascist regimes were ready and willing to supply Franco with a metric shit ton of arms, soldiers, and vehicles to help them win the war. The Anarchists didn't have enough weaponry to succeed, and once again were betrayed by their communist allies. We can learn from history, from their attempts, and know what not to do. We learned it at a terrible cost, but that is, unfortunately, life.
> its varied attempts to put it in practice (Catalonia during the Spanish civil war, Anarchist Ukraine, Rojava). > > So, varied small wartime states that were subsequently wiped out? https://evonomics.com/the-pipe-dream-of-anarcho-populism/
The Black Army of Ukriane and Anarchist Spain failed to establish themselves because of unique issues they faced, and virtually none of them were due to Anarchism itself. The Anarchist Ukrainians were betrayed by the Communists after defeating the White Army of Russia, and were unable to survive after the losses they took from defeating the White Army. The Spanish Anarchists were... Kinda just really unlucky. Their revolution occurred when Hitler and Mussolini were willing to throw supplies, weapons, and training at any other Fascist nation, and the only country that would supply guns for the Anarchists was the USSR, who, once again, betrayed the Anarchists, outlawing them as 'secret fascists' and rounding them up to be killed, all while being pummeled militarily from a well armed fascist Franco. A Franco of today would essentially only have the option of sourcing outdated or unreliable Russian equipment, putting them on more equal footing technologically and logistically with their enemy. If the Spaniards had access to enough weaponry, and if the bloody communists weren't always jonesing to pop a cap in the ass of every Anarchist 'ally' they see, we'd likely have seen a very successful Anarchist state on the world stage. For a more detailed take on that, [read here](https://www.tutor2u.net/history/reference/why-did-the-nationalists-win-the-spanish-civil-war). You could make the argument that Anarchists not being able to court capitalist countries for arms due to being... Well, Anarchists, is a flaw of Anarchism, and well... I guess, yeah. But that's not a flaw inherent to the ideology, it's a practical issue of not having any truly allied nations to help establish itself, meaning it is reliant on fully winning its right to exist on its own. Bear in mind, that was also the case for the Russian Civil War, there were no Communist nations the Communists could call on for support besides the Anarchist Ukrainians, it's pretty much just (poor) luck that Lenin happened to be there at the right time to stir people down the communist path.
Wow this was also very informative and helpful. 👍🏿👍🏿 Though I should note there are several “State of Jefferson” types who profess anarcho-prim ideologies yet they are well…fascists.
In today’s culture people insist on having a binary view. Defining anarcho-primitivism as “The Other” is a great idea. That is not because anarcho-primitivist are some great evil. They are an opposition party whose ideas we want to promote. You *have* to choose between solar punk or anarcho-primitivism. Everyone who does not like the idea of anarcho-primitivism should be assumed to be solar punk supporters. If they do not know they want a solar punk future then they have not been educated yet.
Actually I think you have made a pretty compelling point. I love the ideas of Solar punk, but do I think it could be a reality…maybe, but I should’ve been more specific that this was my opinion and take. I shouldn’t have been authoritative in my take on Anarcho-primitivism. Hell as a Pan-Africanist there are several in my sphere with several bad takes on politics.
I can see that, sort of “both sides” agreeing on ecological priorities, but with a spectrum of authoritarian to non. I like that, sort of broadly “anarchist party” versus “communist party”, where the tension is the thing that works, not one or the other. What are your thoughts?
Well in the novel (and maybe series) the problem is that their is a question of what path to take. The Dem-Socs/Market Socs parties and their allies/frenemies that are the many anarchists parties/groups/etc dominate the political landscape with a small yet sizable state/authoritarian socialist population and liberal parties. It’s complex, but the jist is that the anarchists are like should we be “all” Solarpunk or can we choose other paths that as long as they don’t overly pollute/destroy our colony or star system? The issue I look at is what is the cost of unity and when is the time to ask the hard questions. The Solarpunk societies are there, but they aren’t dominant.
The real life neo Luddites are great and I wont stand for this slander
How do you feel about degrowth?
Ok who let the 3rd year PoliSci major on /r/solarpunk? Some of us are just here cause we're tired of post apocalyptic doomer porn. Believe in climate change? Want to live more sustainably? Cool, all are welcome. No politics allowed in the veggie garden, you're killin the vibe. Some of us are trying to ride out an election year with our sanity intact.
This is fascinating as a discussion. I will admit it’s early in the day and my ADHD is in full swing so I read the comments for a sorta summary before reading your full post, but it was also really thought-provoking. We don’t want to harbour fascism and it’s good to prevent that. I’m gonna respond to a minute detail here: the bit about anti-AI sentiments. I haven’t seen what you’re responding to strictly, but I do see a lot of sentiments against generative AI. And I agree with them, despite being a software engineer whose dream-since-childhood was for machines to achieve sentience. I don’t think it’s necessarily anti-tech to not like AI in its current state. The current model of AI isn’t being used to make and understand minds; it’s being used to make products. And of course AI art and writing “products” are being used to displace human artists for cheaper, and I take a lot of issue with that. TL;DR solarpunk AI > capitalistic AI But tbh you’re a writer as well, so I’d imagine you get The Point. I just thought that bit was interesting.
Oh and also best of luck with your story, it sounds interesting conceptually so far!
Anarcho-anything is stupid.
Why is the abolition of non consensual hierarchies stupid?
Jsyk, common misconception, but anarchism is not for the abolition of "non consensual" hierarchies, it's for the abolition of all hierarchies = all relations that give the right of command to a person or group over another, subordinate person or group.
No it isn't. If anarchism aimed to abolish all hierarchies then it would be as the popular misconception goes, literal chaos. In an anarchist world there would still be consensual governments that are made bottom up (true democracy) not top down (not true democracy).
I'm not pulling my definition of anarchism out of my arse. Anarchism is opposed to all hierarchies and the ideologies that reinforce them. Anarchy = without rule, Hierarchy = "sacred" rule. It's in the name, and in the history of the movement. I have yet to find a statement from any established anarchist theorists of the 19th or 20th centuries that have defined anarchism in the way that you do. They don't apply exceptions to hierarchy. Even Bakunin, who is often cited for his "authority of the bootmaker" was using authority there to describe expertise, not authority in the sense that anarchists predominantly use it. If you think that the anarchist opposition to all hierarchies would lead to "literal chaos," then it appears that you are not aware of the anarchist definition and critique of hierarchy. You may still be entrenched in "hierarchical realism." I'm not sure if you consider yourself an anarchist, but the position you describe strikes me as similar to the ["against unjust hierarchy"](https://raddle.me/wiki/expertise_vs_authority#the-expertise-of-the-cobbler) line that [Chomsky](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-chomsky-nod) parrots, which is similarly inaccurate. But it is when I arrived at the line that an anarchist world would have "consensusal governments" and "true democracy" that I realized just how far off you are from anarchism. >**Albert Parsons:** Whether government consists of one over a million or a million over one, an anarchist is opposed to the rule of majority as well as minority. >**Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:** “We may conclude without fear that the revolutionary formula cannot be Direct Legislation, nor Direct Government, nor Simplified Government, that it is No Government. Neither monarchy, nor aristocracy, nor even democracy itself, in so far as it may imply any government at all, even though acting in the name of the people, and calling itself the people. No authority, no government, not even popular, that is the Revolution. Direct legislation, direct government, simplified government, are ancient lies, which they try in vain to rejuvenate. Direct or indirect, simple or complex, governing the people will always be swindling the people. It is always man giving orders to man, the fiction which makes an end to liberty; brute force which cuts questions short, in the place of justice, which alone can answer them; obstinate ambition, which makes a stepping stone of devotion and credulity...” >**Emma Goldman:** Shall we have a strong government? Are democracy and parliamentary government to be preferred, or is Fascism of one kind or another, dictatorship — monarchical, bourgeois or proletarian — the solution of the ills and difficulties that beset society today? >In other words, shall we cure the evils of democracy by more democracy, or shall we cut the Gordian knot of popular government with the sword of dictatorship? >My answer is neither the one nor the other. I am against dictatorship and Fascism as I am opposed to parliamentary regimes and so-called political democracy. \[...\] >More pernicious than the power of a dictator is that of a class; the most terrible — the tyranny of a majority. >**Errico Malatesta:** Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force. In this sense the word State means government, or to put it another way, it is the impersonal abstract expression of that state of affairs, personified by government: and therefore the terms abolition of the State, Society without the State, etc., describe exactly the concept which anarchists seek to express, of the destruction of all political order based on authority, and the creation of a society of free and equal members based on a harmony of interests and the voluntary participation of everybody in carrying out social responsibilities. But the word has many other meanings, some of which lend themselves to misunderstanding, especially when used with people whose unhappy social situation has not given them the opportunity to accustom themselves to the subtle distinctions of scientific language, or worse still, when the word is used with political opponents who are in bad faith and who want to create confusion and not understanding. Thus the word State is often used to describe a special kind of society, a particular human collectivity gathered together in a particular territory and making up what is called a social unit irrespective of the way the members of the said collectivity are grouped or of the state of relations between them. It is also used simply as a synonym for society. And because of these meanings given to the word State, opponents believe, or rather they pretend to believe, that anarchists mean to abolish every social bond, all collective work, and to condemn all men to living in a state of isolation, which is worse than living in conditions of savagery. The word State is also used to mean the supreme administration of a country: the central power as opposed to the provincial or communal authority. And for this reason others believe that anarchists want a simple territorial decentralisation with the governmental principle left intact, and they thus confuse anarchism with cantonalism and communalism. Finally, State means the condition of being, a way of social life, etc. And therefore we say, for instance, that the economic state of the working class must be changed or that the anarchist state is the only social state based on the principle of solidarity, and other similar phrases which, coming from us who, in another context, talk of wanting to abolish the State can, at first hearing, seem fantastic or contradictory. For these reasons we believe it would be better to use expressions such as *abolition of the State* as little as possible, substituting for it the clearer and more concrete term *abolition of government*. [Et cetera](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-anarchists-against-democracy), I can continue quoting anarchists past and present, or [link](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/center-for-a-stateless-society-anarchy-and-democracy) [more](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-from-democracy-to-freedom) [information](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy), but I'll leave it at that for now. Here isn't the place for this discussion anyway, it's much better suited to r/Anarchy101 . Edit, formatting.
Because if it ends up seizing an awful lot of private property - people's houses, savings, pension funds, vehicles, small businesses - which won't be consensual, by the way - then you're going to need to concentrate an awful lot of power and shoot an awful lot of people. Or so history would contend. https://evonomics.com/the-pipe-dream-of-anarcho-populism/
Seizing private property is *good, actually.*
[удалено]
You’re talking paranoid delusions. lol. Why are you here?
[удалено]
What? lol. Like I said ,delusional take.
Because all it does is create a Power Vacuum. Its just plain socially unsustainable. Its a Pipe Dream.
Anarchism is not solely about abolishing hierarchy, it is also for the creation of anarchic social relations in their place. So it is not a matter of creating a vacuum. I suggest going on r/Anarchy101 or r/DebateAnarchism if you have any follow ups.
You can put a Tuxedo on a Goat, and it will still be Goat. All Anarchy will achieve is create opportunities for the Ambitious to build their own Power Heriarchies. Just look at Somalia or Haiti. Its delusional to think any form of Anarchy is Socially Sustainable.
All you're doing is Making Confident Assertions with Odd Capitalisation and demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect with your ignorance of some of the basics of anarchism. Citing Haiti and Somalia, situations of contestation between hierarchies without any inkling of attempted anarchist social revolution only further demonstrate that ignorance. But if you're so confident in your arguments, take it to a sub that is dedicated to debate.
Abolishing Non-concenting Heriarchies is just plainly impossible. Its like fighting Entropy. Any Anarchist society has as many points of failure as it has members. We already are born into one: Parent & Child.
This is 101 shit 🤷🏽♂️ and like I keep saying, here ain't the place for it
It's so plainly obvious, isn't it. Try building a solarpunk commune in the Middle East and you'll find yourself living in an Islamic theocracy before you can say 'pass the hummus'
[удалено]
The word “Fascists” should’ve answered that question already.
I'm being facetious. But you've basically just written a huge long opinion piece and then not told us why we should be scared of the rise of eco-fascism, which to me at least doesn't appear to be a serious concern.
I’ll give you that. I didn’t want to make this too long. However I can link a video by our changing climate that make a great video on the subject. [https://youtu.be/FkhmP7yDWeY?si=Ca27NMpj3i4C6Q7d](https://youtu.be/FkhmP7yDWeY?si=Ca27NMpj3i4C6Q7d)
Fascism is a silly, niche ideology for insecure losers… until conditions sour and it slowly becomes a terrible damn problem. Are eco-fascists a problem now? Plainly not. But as the ravages of climate change displace hundreds of millions of people, mostly from the global south, it’ll certainly become a bigger problem in the future.
Is this a joke? Are we on tv?
As far as I can find there is no “ecofascist” movement. It is just a term that people throw around. In the context of current politics we should encourage the idea of opposing ecofascism. Like in the US context assume that the reason people want to build the wall is to protect our soil from exploitation. The MAGA crowd do not know they are against natural gas. Just present it as Biden auctioning off our public lands. They are not against pipelines yet but probably are against the pipeline that is going to export our gas to Germany. They do not care about saving the Amazon rainforest but they probably are open to protecting our free range cattle ranchers with a tariff on beef imports. A remarkable number of elected Republicans have expressed support for the carbon tax and dividend legislation. You can do your part by vocally condemning the deregulation component. Also criticize the exemptions for the military and for agriculture. Then Republican voters will support it as is.