One of the core issues in Marxist ecology is the separation of town and country, how we unevenly develop urban/rural systems and the increased toll that takes on natural ones as a result. We need degrowth, decommodification, and a biocentric reintegration of those three systems. Solar punk is just an aesthetic but alongside art nouveau it's the kind of aesthetic you need to communicate a better way of life. If people just see their treats being taken away they turn reactionary. If they just see the climate crisis as an inevitable apocalypse, they turn reactionary. Solar punk is a non-reactionary example of the neo-luddite garden cities we should be moving toward. It's much more holistically anticapitalist than other punk or traditionalist movements, and it's pleasant when we need radical optimism and significant lifestyle changes that otherwise seem difficult.

The task of a Marxist with a movement like that is to identify the things people like about it and situate it in theory. There's a solid 100+ years of theory on those themes which tie them into larger and more practical things to organise around. Solar punk is a vehicle to get people interested in socialist urbanism and critical ecology, not some utopian goal in itself.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Personally think we should all live in massive arcologies built for a billion people and the whole world other than these massive arcologies should be returned to the wild.

[–] happybadger@hexbear.net 24 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Separation from nature is the root of us not understanding our interdependence with it. When it's something we interact with daily and rely on, stewardship becomes an ethical cornerstone that people intuitively understand. Engels said the solution was an even population distribution, and while I think that's another form of over-development I think it hints at the best solution. High density, pedestrian-focused garden cities surrounded by common land. Heavy funding for rural communities and collectivised, nationalised resource extraction to decouple it from profit. Production for need between co-ops, home economy with the commons, state-sponsored public artisans, and nationalised industry. Healing the division of labour by blurring the lines between the office worker, farmer, scientist, and activist through how people engage with their landscape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqJJktxCY9U This video really captures the good part of solar punk for me. They're mastering nature but not dominating it. They need a tremendous number of diverse skills to maintain that homestead lifestyle, but that's a liberating education rather than one that forces them into some professional niche. The technology and surplus exist for need and community enrichment. That massive urban arcology is there in the background of the equally desirable rural life, but it's an urban forest with parks between dispersed skyscrapers. It doesn't do a great job of highlighting what a biocentric landscape would look like, but it at least shows biodiversity as beauty and agrovoltaics as eco-utilitarian production.

That and the 400~ page books by David Harvey or John Bellamy Foster reach the same conclusion for what 21st century socialism will have to resemble. If I made the anime version of the most radical environmentalist critique I can make it'd just be a prettier version of that.

[–] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 1 points 3 days ago

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago

nicholson-yes

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 days ago

Arcologies would be amazing.