Eh, solarpunk itself is an aesthetic, not an ideology. As such, like cottagecore and other aesthetics without ideological backing, there does exist a subset of ecofascists and ecofascist adjacent ideologies.
disagreed! there is an aesthetic but there is also separately an ideology, and ecofascism is certainly not welcome on (e.g.) slrpnk.net. solarpunk as an ideological movement is essentially climate-focused indigenous futurism with an anarcho-socialist bend
solarpunk as an ideological movement is essentially climate-focused indigenous futurism with an anarcho-socialist bend
That’s not a coherent ideology, that’s an aesthetic pulled from a ghibli-inspired milk commercial, which again reveals how an aesthetic can get taken advantage of by right-wing interests if there is no strong ideological framework.
There’s no call to action, no theory to set to praxis. There is a goal, but no method to get there. Like all such movements, its doomed to fail the way the Owenites did.
I love environmentalism and solar energy, veganism and self-sustainability. However, solarpunk as an encompassing “movement” is not the path there, as it’s an aesthetic.
Idk why you think it has to have theory or praxis to be a movement. It does have a manifesto but I kinda doubt you care about that. There’s enough people that are interested in the topics that solarpunk encompasses to give it legitimacy.
Tbh your position is kinda disenfranchising to people that got into gardening, anti consumption, diy, gurilla grafting or any other facet of solarpunk because of it being under the umbrella.
Idk why you think it has to have theory or praxis to be a movement. It does have a manifesto but I kinda doubt you care about that. There’s enough people that are interested in the topics that solarpunk encompasses to give it legitimacy.
I was interested, actually. I read through it, a lot of things people say they stand for and against, and what types of art styles they like and envision, but no actual theory or praxis behind it.
I already stated why it needs a strong ideological backbone to avoid being taken advantage of by ecofascists, but I’ll restate it: bad actors can and will use the aesthetic to push alternative messaging, just like what already happened to cottagecore.
Tbh your position is kinda disenfranchising to people that got into gardening, anti consumption, diy, gurilla grafting or any other facet of solarpunk because of it being under the umbrella.
Those are certainly good things, I never stated that Solarpunk is only “bad,” in fact I think many good things have come from it. However, to paint it as a place of “happy communists” when there have been ecofascists using it to push their messaging, is a bit off, hence why I pointed it out and explained my issues with it overall.
I’ve not been aware of ecofascist cooping the movement. But I imagine the vegan mods would sus that out quickly 😜
I suppose my point is that a movement doesn’t have to know everything about itself to be effective and while anecdotal; I’ve learned a lot about communism/socialism and mutual aid from solarpunk spaces.
Except movements are rarely focused like that. I doubt The Black Panthers knew school lunches and child care were going to be the traction they needed when they started theirs. Just like I doubt the kid that just heard of solarpunk and wants to learn how to grow veggies because of it, understands what their effort might do to change their community.
I’ll admit solarpunk is very much in a spaghetti on the wall phase rn. But it’s also barely a decade old.
Solarpunk isn’t an ideology though, it’s an aesthetic that can be molded depending on the views of those using it. I never said good people can’t use solarpunk to push a good message, I said there’s nothing stopping people from using Solarpunk to spread a bad message.
that’s the conversation we’re having, isn’t it? i’d say solarpunk as an ideology predates solarpunk the aesthetic. che guevara shirts are sold in stores, after all.
happier communists? do you mean slrpnk.net?
Eh, solarpunk itself is an aesthetic, not an ideology. As such, like cottagecore and other aesthetics without ideological backing, there does exist a subset of ecofascists and ecofascist adjacent ideologies.
Hexbear.net fits “happy communists” better.
disagreed! there is an aesthetic but there is also separately an ideology, and ecofascism is certainly not welcome on (e.g.) slrpnk.net. solarpunk as an ideological movement is essentially climate-focused indigenous futurism with an anarcho-socialist bend
That’s not a coherent ideology, that’s an aesthetic pulled from a ghibli-inspired milk commercial, which again reveals how an aesthetic can get taken advantage of by right-wing interests if there is no strong ideological framework.
There’s no call to action, no theory to set to praxis. There is a goal, but no method to get there. Like all such movements, its doomed to fail the way the Owenites did.
I love environmentalism and solar energy, veganism and self-sustainability. However, solarpunk as an encompassing “movement” is not the path there, as it’s an aesthetic.
This is written like someone that hasn’t kept up with solarpunk since that commercial came out.
What theory and praxis has come out since then?
Idk why you think it has to have theory or praxis to be a movement. It does have a manifesto but I kinda doubt you care about that. There’s enough people that are interested in the topics that solarpunk encompasses to give it legitimacy.
Tbh your position is kinda disenfranchising to people that got into gardening, anti consumption, diy, gurilla grafting or any other facet of solarpunk because of it being under the umbrella.
I was interested, actually. I read through it, a lot of things people say they stand for and against, and what types of art styles they like and envision, but no actual theory or praxis behind it.
I already stated why it needs a strong ideological backbone to avoid being taken advantage of by ecofascists, but I’ll restate it: bad actors can and will use the aesthetic to push alternative messaging, just like what already happened to cottagecore.
Those are certainly good things, I never stated that Solarpunk is only “bad,” in fact I think many good things have come from it. However, to paint it as a place of “happy communists” when there have been ecofascists using it to push their messaging, is a bit off, hence why I pointed it out and explained my issues with it overall.
I’ve not been aware of ecofascist cooping the movement. But I imagine the vegan mods would sus that out quickly 😜
I suppose my point is that a movement doesn’t have to know everything about itself to be effective and while anecdotal; I’ve learned a lot about communism/socialism and mutual aid from solarpunk spaces.
If it doesn’t have ideas and it isn’t testing those ideas through social practice it isn’t a movement?
Except movements are rarely focused like that. I doubt The Black Panthers knew school lunches and child care were going to be the traction they needed when they started theirs. Just like I doubt the kid that just heard of solarpunk and wants to learn how to grow veggies because of it, understands what their effort might do to change their community.
I’ll admit solarpunk is very much in a spaghetti on the wall phase rn. But it’s also barely a decade old.
you’re welcome to check out solarpunk thought leaders like andrewism! though i have to admit i doubt anything anywhere will ever meet your standards
Solarpunk isn’t an ideology though, it’s an aesthetic that can be molded depending on the views of those using it. I never said good people can’t use solarpunk to push a good message, I said there’s nothing stopping people from using Solarpunk to spread a bad message.
that’s the conversation we’re having, isn’t it? i’d say solarpunk as an ideology predates solarpunk the aesthetic. che guevara shirts are sold in stores, after all.
deleted by creator