I don’t mean better for you or me but better in general. Do you believe our species will ever reach some form of enlightenment or will we destroy ourselves?

  • Cowbee [he/they]
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Eventually, the contradictions necessarily created by Capitalism, ie decentralized markets leading to centralized monopolist syndicates, will result in said syndicates being pulled from under the feet of the Bourgeoisie. Marx has remained correct in his predictions thus far. I don’t think it will take half the world dying either for the US Empire to fall. This better future will be Socialist in nature, Solarpunk is more of an aesthetic than an ideology but this Socialist future will most likely heavily rely on solar power among other renewables.

    I made a Read Theory, Darn it! introduction to Marxism reading list if you want to check it out.

    • Nexy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think solarpunk is more than a ahestetic, its a way to live without wasting more than you produce. Living in a more slow way and conscious.

      I go to read your article, thogh!

      • Cowbee [he/they]
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Thanks for checking it out!

        As for Solarpunk, I think it’s certainly useful, but like any aesthetic-based movement it can be easily co-opted without a strong emphasis on theory. Namely:

        1. Why do we need Solarpunk?
        2. Who can push for Solarpunk?
        3. What is Solarpunk?
        4. How can we transition from our present conditions to Solarpunk?
        5. When can we transition to Solarpunk?

        Those are a few questions (among others) that need to be consistent across the board for any real change to occur, simply having an image of a “good society” is Utopianism, and thus prone to failure like all previous Utopian movements.

          • Cowbee [he/they]
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I skimmed the article, but I find it unsatisfactory. It focuses very much on imagining a better future, and that by doing so, we can accept and work towards it. This is fundamentally Utopian and Idealist, it doesn’t emphasize a materialist foundation for how to get there beyond hoping and trying to modify the Superstructure deliberately so that the Base forms based on it. The problem with that mode of thinking is that the Base is constantly reinforcing the Superstructure projected from it, and thus the changes to the Superstructure you propose are going to be modified and even coopted by the Class in power, ie the Bourgeoisie, with little effort.

            • Nexy@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              I like all the data and info you are telling here! Now I can think in a more structured way and logic about society structure. But you don’t think that being able to imagine a better and sustainable future is not superstructure and all the solar-energy base, and solarpunk prompts of the literature, imagining other ways of production more anarchic and horizontal interactions between people and slow only with the necessary is not a base? It talks about means of production and relationship of production. It’s already proven that better and more technology don’t make us life better, but more fast and contaminated.

              I know, I’m probably too idealistic, and I have to think in a more pragmatic way, but really learn about solarpunk what the first thing that let me hope in a better future in this word that is easier to think about the end of the word than the end of capitalism and I think that’s important.

              • Cowbee [he/they]
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                An imagined, hypothetical base is not a real, existing base, and thus it can’t project the superstructure but be a part of an existing superstructure. That’s why the existing base helps distort it and even coopt it.