Wall-E is ecofuturist, and both depicts capitalism as a social ill, and emphasizes the hard work that the humans put in to make Earth livable again post-apocalypse.
I don't have a point to make, I just like Wall-E
^ᶦⁿ^ ^ᵗʰᶦˢ^ ^ᵉˢˢᵃʸ^ ^ᶦ^ ^ʷᶦˡˡ^
Wall-E is ecofuturist, and both depicts capitalism as a social ill, and emphasizes the hard work that the humans put in to make Earth livable again post-apocalypse.
I don't have a point to make, I just like Wall-E
^ᶦⁿ^ ^ᵗʰᶦˢ^ ^ᵉˢˢᵃʸ^ ^ᶦ^ ^ʷᶦˡˡ^
I have nothing to add, but I liked Wall-E too!
It stars a little movie nerd with a decaying body
^he's^ ^just^ ^like^ ^me^ ^fr^
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.
Listen, if your hopecore fanfic art doesn’t sufficiently conform to the standards of socialist realism as to please your Soviet’s censors, it’s basically just fascist slop sorry I don’t make the rules
what percentage of solarpunk art contains the people who live in or work in or build its subjects
I looked at google images and it's not close to 0% and I have no idea what's specifically fascist about pictures of solar panels covered in tree leaves if you forget to add the person in overalls holding a hammer.
Ecomodernism is heavily associated with libertarian/fascist fringe politics through Zaha hadid and her firm. Solarpunk takes heavily from ecomodernism
That's what i got, but I'm not really an architecture or art guy
Everyone I've ever known into solarpunk has been a socialist. Collective action for housing, food, water, and energy production to all has always been their main goal, with ending exploitation by oligarchic control over those resources as their main entry point into the genre. I'm sure there's plenty of lib bullshit like literally every aethetic choice but this is just trolling tbh
Imma be real, I can't see the point in debating about the political tendencies of aesthetics. It's literally fiction. It doesn't have to adhere to reality and so can be appropriated by anyone.
Treatlerism
Treatskyites
[thing you are invested in] is actually somewhat [thing that you would hate to be associated with]
this is just a generic Twitter troll post, right down to the hedging intended to keep the argument going in the replies
Solarpunk is just "what if we did futurism with lots of trees or literally just solar panels?"
Futurism is sci-fi (sometimes a little fantasy) and can therefore mesh with any political tendency except maybe the most purist of reactionaries / primitivists.
I'm not sure how you'd even know the people in the place built it. Let's say you have a big shiny complex full of trees and people. If the people built it, do they have to wear overalls and safety helmets or can they wear casual clothes? How can you tell that a person in an image built a structure unless they're actively building it or just finished building it?
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?
Oh and btw we're doing Neo-Andean architecture for our socialist society, please make the necessary arrangements.
https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2019/03/freddy-mamanis-neo-andean-architecture/
This is fascism because it depicts evil red fash tankie utopia, I am very smart
pushing someone in and out of the frame looney tunes style and watching the fascism alarm go off once the number of mandatory hammer and sickle-wielding workers reaches the minimum threshold
the famous fascist artform of, uh... landscape painting?
"EVERY PAINTING MUST FIT A QUOTA OF PEOPLE IN-FRAME" is a take that even actual state censors in communist countries didn't have, truly we never stop innovating
more
this one's definitely focused on people, but I just found it and thought it was pretty cute - also the father's fit here is impeccable
posting the rest of these on Imgur since I'm tired of waiting on the rate-limit: https://imgur.com/a/zVOjY4E
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.
putting degrowth in the same category to be dismissed is not serious. this is not the 1980s.
whats wrong with degrowth? solely educational question if you feel like replying
Mostly because degrowth can mean everything from "maybe we don't need so many funkopops and ads" to "the peasants should learn to subsist on grass", so it is not by itself meaning anything.
Okay, to be more serious, my main vibe from looking at solarpunk art is that the artists aren't involved in production, especially industrial production. Ultimately, I wonder how production is handled in a solarpunk society. There's essentially two ends of a spectrum: industrial production and artisan production.
Industrial production means factories, and I struggle to find any meaningful difference between a solarpunk factory vs a futuristic factory vs a cyberpunk factory. All futuristic factories converge to a design of being:
And since a society is ultimately organized by how production is handled, then there's really not a whole lot of difference between a solarpunk society and a more generic futuristic society. Less chrome and more trees I guess? From a purely aesthetic perspective, you turn a futuristic factory into a solarpunk factory by photoshopping a bunch of trees right next to the factory and replacing a field of invasive grass with a field of native wildflowers. But the actual interior of the factory would be identical, and a faithful depiction of the interior of a solarpunk factory would be identical to a faithful depiction of the interior of a futuristic factory.
Artisan production is the other end, and that's where the fashy vibes come from, especially when artisan production is artistically extolled by artists living in a settler-colonial society where the ideal form of living is larping as a yeoman homesteading pioneer living on stolen Indigenous land. Even "communal living" doesn't cut it because artisan production can't keep up with industrial production, meaning the outputs of artisan production often goes to the immediate community and the immediate community only. And if you live within a community that lacks the means or ability to produce that particular commodity because your skin color is different or you live in an arid desert? Well, tough shit.
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.
somebody tell Andrewism he's fash
looks at the 180+ comments from a post about how solarpunk sucks and is reactionary
Hexbear is not ready for the post about how cyberpunk sucks and is reactionary.
Yeah but the music is good
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.
I wonder why there's nearly 200 comments in this post
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.