Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
Yeah, solarpunk is obviously a reactionary aesthetic. You can read the manifestos of its popularizers and very clearly see the class position of the art movement. How is lionizing the artisan and other middle classes, a reduction in productive capacity, and its desire to revive dead art styles outside of their historical context not reactionary? Stop with the solarpunk and "degrowth" and read more Soviet sci-fi and Chinese five-year plans.
fucked up part is the art isn't even good. it's barely an art movement. it's like, a subreddit at most.
whats wrong with degrowth? solely educational question if you feel like replying
It depends a lot on the context. Degrowth in the imperial core? Sure. In the periphery? Hell nah
There was a relatively recent study about the responsibility about climate change that puts the ratio between north / south countries at 9:1, see https://globalinequality.org/responsibility-for-climate-breakdown/ for further references.
This is fascism because it depicts evil red fash tankie utopia, I am very smart
Art is fascist when I assume it doesn't depict humans
Goofy because Solarpunk (while idealist as @Chapo_is_Red@hexbear.net points out) is more interested in human involvement and labor than any other "-punk" aesthetic.
Solar-punk feels like of like an inversion of socialist realism to me. Socialist realism celebrates the worker as creator with muscles straining, tools in hand, actively building the world. Labor is heroic, collective, and visibly transformative. The aesthetic screams: WE made this. On the other hand, solar-punk envisions society after the work is done with comfortable citizens enjoying green tech built by unseen hands. The aesthetic whispers: Look what grew while no one was laboring.
So all art featuring architecture that doesn't have it actively being built or features someone holding a hammer in the foreground is fascist?
Is this fascist?
This thing had 3 comments when I went to bed. Did Yogthos rile up the libs again?
EDIT: Nope, just another struggle session.
I think solarpunk while it looks nice is idealistic and does not have a much intellectual depth to it. For example its art pieces do not convey any information about the social relations which makes it very hard to imagine how we can have conditions remotely close to what is being depicted because the works feel more like science fantasy than anything. But equating it with fascist futurism is hasty. I can't explain why because I know nothing about fascist futurism tendencies. But I don't think just because solarpunk skip labour and jumps straight to its fruits makes it fascist. It just makes it a bit silly.
So idk anything about solar punk, but I did an image search for it and about half the images have people in them and none of it seems particularly fascist?
Imo, it's an aesthetic. Ideologically, the worst I can call it is idealist.
I think to that point, if we want to figure out how you get from solarpunk to fascism, you need to consider what it implies by its analysis (or lack thereof) of the actual material reality that's necessary to make the solarpunk vision come true and how that analysis/blind spots coincide with ecofascism.
What's going on that made dilapidated buildings get overrun by plantlife? Is it massive depopulation? Are we idealizing that?
What's the whole idea about self sufficient communities using technology to live in some kind of frontier? Is this class-conscious, or is it just repackaging settler mythology about frontiersmen and Lebensraum?
And maybe the problem with it "just" being an aesthetic is that it leaves the audience to fill in the blanks for those questions, and I think the default answers aren't great.
I'm in the same boat and so I find such charged characterisations pretty jarring. I at least appreciate people imagining a futurist aesthetic that isn't Silicon Valley minimalism, the "Society if" meme or grimy cyberpunk. I ignore any political programs that people tie into it.
somebody tell Andrewism he's fash
And here I thought the low population bit was supposed to be because technology and decentralization allows humanity to spread out and higher standards of living and education being the birth rate down 🤔 I guess either way we're making a lot of assumptions about a hypothetical commercial like future aesthetics....
the only thing we have now that i think would impact birth rates in a high-tech socialist future is low infant mortality.
pretty much everything else that pressures people to have kids or not have kids is rooted in patriarchal religion and the capitalist hellscape. Who knows what people would do without losing career prospects to raise children, without god telling them to be fruitful and multiply, without despairing climate change, and without the imposition of the nuclear family? hell maybe the population would even go up more.
You can't prescribe an aesthetic to a future that doesn't exist. The aesthetic of our future will be determined alongside building it, not isolated from the work.
Oh we're talking about something for video games aren't we?
I'm a fan of the YouTuber "andrewism", who regularly makes videos on an anarchist solar punk society. I don't think he supports solar punk just as an aesthetic, but believes it's legitimately part of what an ideal and egalitarian society would look like, alongside other concepts he's discussed like library economies.
I don't think solar punk is idealist either. Idealism doesn't just mean it's still just a concept, or that people want to use it as a goal. Solar punk is materialist because it describes a society that reproduces the values that sustain it, like land stewardship and collectivism. It describes a super structure with communal control of resources, which then does the whole self reinforcement with the base (which, admittedly, solarpunk also describes). It's not just the aesthetic.
solar punk is real but not how its creators envisage it
