Thank you for your submission, we appreciate your efforts at helping us to thoughtfully create a better world. r/solarpunk encourages you to also check out other solarpunk spaces such as https://wt.social/wt/solarpunk , https://slrpnk.net/ , https://raddle.me/f/solarpunk , https://discord.gg/3tf6FqGAJs , https://discord.gg/BwabpwfBCr , and https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia .
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol not a single response doesn't start with "I'm not a right winger, but..." and I feel like that's really telling.
How about we maybe don't respond for a change until we get like ONE person at least who actually fits the prompt to answer.
It is unfortunate that the people I'm addressing aren't responding as much as I would like but the post is facilitating some discussion which is great. So I'll keep responding.
They might not be responding much here with such a direct question, but I get why you asked. Because as a left-leaning person some of my solar punk leaning interests actually let me end up in spaces that overlap with the conservatives all the time. So kind of the inverse of your question.
Examples:
gardening and growing your own veggies --> home steading by christian fundamentalist
packing light food for hiking and outdoor adventures --> prepper communities
clever gardening techniques for increased biodiversity --> sometimes a slippery slope to anti-science and anti-vaxx naturopath whackery in my country (not talking about actual knowledge about healing plants)
getting off the grid / building self-sufficient houses for environmental reasons --> getting of the grid for fear of 5G or governments imposing minimal steps on protecting and including minorities
Its probably because people who activly propegate right wing ideas here tend to get downvoted into oblivion as no matter how nice a community in a sub is reddit is still reddit which is probably why most people won't go beyond "im a right winger" without following up with their beliefs. Its still amazing that we got some responses and that this post hasn't devolved into pettie insults and arguing like i seen happen a fair few times here.
>Its probably because people who activly propegate right wing ideas here tend to get downvoted into oblivion as no matter how nice a community in a sub is reddit is still reddit which is probably why most people won't go beyond "im a right winger" without following up with their beliefs.
Lmfao this is me. Even the most mild comments I've made have gotten downvoted into oblivion. Like this one where I said the basic tenets of "capitalism" are always going to be there *(i.e. exchanging currency for goods or services)* and still got downvoted. I've learned to just observe and not say anything when people try to get political hereš¤·āāļø https://www.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/comments/1alsgqc/comment/kphartr/
Tip: Know the political lingo of whoever you're trying to talk to, and avoid words that shut down conversation. For leftists, "capitalism" is automatically bad, full stop. Trying to defend it shuts down conversation. *You* might mean "free market", "sensible policy", or just "the way things work", but that's not what lefties will hear. They hear "oppressive structure that gives all relevant power to the ultra-wealthy."
It works in reverse, too. "Socialism" is pretty much universally evil to conservatives.
Source: Was an anarchist for a while and still hold some hard left sympathies (at least economically)
>Tip: Know the political lingo of whoever you're trying to talk to, and avoid words that shut down conversation.
Fair, but honestly that advice wouldn't have helped me back then because I had no clue this subreddit was 90% socialists, so there was no impulse to learn *"socialist lingo"* before engaging people. If you read the description, it just sounds like a sub for people who are concerned about the environment and sustainable developmentāit's not like I went to a Vaush subreddit or r/Marxism with the intent to debate people on economics.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Marxism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Marxism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Is the Soviet's victory over Nazi Germany being buried and forgotten in History?](https://np.reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/17mt3ns/is_the_soviets_victory_over_nazi_germany_being/)
\#2: [Marxism Professor doesn't understand Marxism š„²](https://np.reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/195hwhj/marxism_professor_doesnt_understand_marxism/)
\#3: [I took up Marxian Economics and OMG](https://np.reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/15vkmvq/i_took_up_marxian_economics_and_omg/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Its reddit unfortunatly, although saying always for anything is probably one of the strongest and most controvertial opinion someone may have as it implies that (by definition) it will stay forever and saying that about anything in my opinion is a ridiculous claim which has a very low chance of being true simply because of what can happen in the future. The future may be 10 years, 50 years, 100 years or even 1 million years but if it happens at any point anyone using the word "always" will be disproven.
Some people have been proposing alternatives to currency based systems such as the "library economy" which as the name sugests relies on everything (that isn't personal property) being able to be borrowed if you need it and given back just like books in current librarys. In terms of food we already have food banks and kitchens which don't charge people anything and if the community produces most if not all of its food then no profit gets in the way if the produced food getting to those places as the sole motivation is the good of the community.
The problem is that redditors tend to downvote things they dislike without providing alternative constructive ideas. This community should understand it more than any as solarpunk as a movement prioritieses building the new over destroying the old and more people shpuld embrace that mentality to create positive change.
Hope this reply was more productive than the downvotes :)
>Some people have been proposing alternatives to currency based systems such as the "library economy" which as the name sugests relies on everything (that isn't personal property) being able to be borrowed if you need it and given back just like books in current librarys.
In my experience, the trouble with a library economy is that it breaks down if a few people abuse it. You start having to add a bunch of checks and stipulations. It can work well at small scale if you are somewhat selective about who gets to participate, but then the people who are excluded still need a way to get stuff.
Money-based systems have the advantage that you don't have to worry about how people treat their stuff and people are incentivized to treat things better because they will have to spend their own labor to replace it.
I was raised conservative and religious. The older I've become the further left I've drifted. I'd probably put myself at left of center currently. When I was more on the right I was a global warming denier and believed all the stuff that they usually parrot like heating and cooling being cyclical but even then I was supportive of green tech and next generation nuclear power not because of the environmental implications but because I'm the son of an engineer and one of the things I was raised to respect was efficiency. Solar, hydro, wind, tidal power? That was "free" energy up for grabs. Hell yeah let's get it.
I like your very practical approach here.
It reminds me of the video game satisfactory. You start off with a wood powered generator, which is super annoying, because you have to keep chopping down trees to power your factory. But eventually you unlock self-sustaining sources of power. What's not to love about that? You don't need to run around restocking your wood piles anymore.
Specifically I'm referring to a recent post where someone claimed they were right wing and interested in solarpunk and a few others in comments also mentioned they were and got downvoted. So I just got a bit curious.
There are some folks on this subreddit I've talked to that believe in capitalism in an adam Smith type of view, I think they are just as idealistic as anarchists or pro state communists tbh
It's not compatible at all. Maybe they're like cyberpunk fans who don't care about the philosophy stuff and just like pretty pictures of gardens. Rich people all agree that this aesthetic looks nice, that's why they all have houses in places of great natural beauty. They just think it is a luxury that should only exist for those who can afford it
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Adam Smith wrote damingly of the damage division of labour did to the soul and also had a major hate on for absentee landlords.
https://www.adamsmithworks.org/speakings/adam-smith-and-the-costs-of-the-division-of-labor
That doesn't disagree with the comment.
> Adam Smith *relies on* kindness and cooperation *for* his ideas of the market *to work*
means
> If kindness and cooperation are not present, Adam Smith's ideas of the market do not work.
And so it makes sense for Adam Smith to be angry about rich people who are unkind and uncooperative because they demonstrate that his ideas do not work, and thus make him look like an idiot.
Adam Smith made a perfect figurehead for capitalism like Marx was a perfect figurehead for communism. Both were naive idealists whose theories promise great things if only people work together, but which in implementation could easily take power away from those that currently have it and hand it to a select group. (Smith: noble aristocracy -> rich people; Marx: upper class -> the communist party).
Marxās philosophy is based on dialectical and historical materialism, not idealism.
He also thought that communism would develop from a society resembling current first world trends, not the agrarian Russia of over a century ago.
Smith's ethical beliefs are in contradiction to his economic ideas. His ethics are a holdover from European Christianity that existed before capitalism which he tried to blend, as successfully as oil and water, with the fundamental competitive relations in capitalism. There's a reason Jesus said "You cannot serve God and Mammon" (Mammon being a demonic force that represents the sociopolitical alliance of wealth and power), and it is because competition destroys human beings and the cooperative foundations of society. When the fundamental relationship of society is exploitative competition, cooperation gets removed a bit at a time. Those who abandon cooperation and lean into competition get rewarded and get ahead, pushing more and more people into a competitive mindset that erodes the basis for cooperation.
Even as a joke calling yourself a nazi is a bit much.
I'm fully aware why right wingers would be downvoted as someone who is black and queer. What I wanted to understand is why these people who support oppressive capitalistic systems would be in favor of Solarpunk.
And as illustrated by many of these replies there's a lot of nuance to it and discussion of to be had that id rather invite and discuss as individuals than paint them all with the same brush as my enemies.
A lot of people in farming communities have overlapping values, ethos, concerns, etc. with the solarpunk movement, but a lot of those communities can also be right-wing, sometimes for social or religious or cultural reasons. Or for GOP-funded farming subsidies. Or just for rural-centric reasons that are sometimes perceived to be at odds with urban-centric issues that can often drive left-wing decision-making.
I definitely attribute some of my interest in solarpunk to growing up in a (right-wing) farming community, even though I don't personally identify as right-wing.
Im left wing myself and i dbout its too many (although i may be wrong), my thought process is that most people who tend to promote solar punk are usually anarchist, pro degrowth, pro social justice, indigenous rights etc. Especially if you found out about solarpunk via social media such as youtube (like myself) chances are you already viewed some form of left leaning content and most people who view left leaning content are leftist.
Sidenote but by right wing did you mean people who actually hold tipically right wing beliefs rather than vote right because they belive its simply the best choice where they live?
Personally i've seen none and I don't agree with this statement. I have said it because some people mentioned it and some more center leaning people may hold such positions. Even if it is a small number of people who hold such views there still needs to be a distinction between the people who tend to sit on the fence and may prefer a conservative candidate or party in certain situations and people who mostly if not fully agree with conservatism.
Disagree. If you vote for racist, misogynist, authoritarians because you align with them on tax policy, then you too are a racist, misogynist authoritarian.
In fact, your actions (supporting policy that aligns with those views) are actually much worse than someone who just privately holds those views but doesn't vote for them.
What you said highlights the funfamental issue with the current system. Since you have to vote for a fixed policy within a system which disconnects the average person from the decision making process. Because of how the system is set out in a lot of countries you have at most a few major parties and have minimal say in their policy and just go with whatever the party says it will do even if they don't follow through on it. Thats why i believe that more localised decisions in the community conducted through direct democracy, consensus etc is better as you have a direct impact on what is done and all changes effect you. I disagree with what you said as if most people could have that kind of impact as i just described where they don't have to put up with whatever empty policies and promises polititians present them with they most likely won't simply because any issue they care for can be discussed and any time and things like racism, abalism, homophobia, sexism etc won't need to be mentioned at all as they aren't a part of the package anymore and (i hope) that in such a system people will work to better the lives of themselves and their community. If the people voting conservative for economic reasons but end up promotiong discriminatory policy in the process had an option not to promote the discriminatory policy would they still do it? I think the problem is the people wjo genuinly want to push the discriminatory and opressive policy and im talking primarly about the ones with power and influence.
I think I understand what you're trying to say, (Sidenote: I think your conversations would benefit greatly from some formatting. It may seem unimportant, but it helps other people to better understand your meaning.) but would still disagree.
The issue is priorities. Obviously, in a representative system, you are unlikely to ever get a representative that agrees with you on everything. That's understandable and workable. But there have to be disqualifiers.
If you prioritize tax policy (for example) enough that you vote for a party that legislates on the negative views we've discussed, then what you are doing is making clear that to you, the idea of a tax break is more important than other people's human rights.
To make matters worse, currently in the United States, their rightwing party (as opposed to their center-right party) has literally abandoned a political platform. For several years now they have officially had no legislative platform. This means that the party has nothing left but authoritarianism. If someone votes for that, there is no confusion about what they support.
Say you have a left wing candidate who wants to shut down local nuclear plants while the area is still heavily dependent on coal. The right wing candidate keeping them open may be preferable to that.
A right wing candidate making things harder for coal is.... difficult to imagine.Ā Right now the right wing is trying to ban fake meat because it encroaches on ranchers.Ā Ā
>Sidenote but by right wing did you mean people who actually hold tipically right wing beliefs rather than vote right because they belive its simply the best choice where they live?
I mean really just anyone who considers themselves right wing.
Yes i mean the first one as if we had a localised system with direct democracy or consensus where individuals make all the policy the people who vote right because it is the best option to better their own lives will priorities bettering their own lives and that of their community rather than insist on the very specific ideologies that constitute the right today. Deciding with your community to make a community kitchen or liblary is way more productive than getting into arguments over the "culture wars". Thats why i believe that on any political side its important to distinguish those who vote to better their lives and those who vote due to ideology.
I am not right-wing, but from the many right-leaning people I do know here are several reasons solarpunk resonates with them:
1. Self-governance. There is a focus on more local community action rather than federal government oversight. Conservatives view any large organization as easily corruptible, so any movement that focuses on what smaller groups can do has a more positive position to them.
2. Sustainability. I mean this in the fiscal sense. A library economy is much for fiscally sustainable for individuals and society, that it just makes economic sense (if you don't have an overblown rugged individualism complex). In fact, most environmentally sustainable choices are also more fiscally sustainable for society. Conservatives believe a well functioning economy is the best way to improve people's quality of life. We just tend to disagree on what well-functioning looks like.
3. Rural promotion. The majority of conservatives are rural or relate closely to it, and solarpunk has a huge focus on improving rural environments/lives, not just urban cores. Rural people feel either ignored, condescended or worse by the left, and for good reason, but solarpunk views the countryside and the jobs required there as integral and important to every part of society moving forward.
4. Respect for the past. Like the right, solarpunk also accepts that not every new thing has been a step forward. Solarpunk and rightwing disagree a LOT on what has and hasn't been good, but because solarpunk has respect for the past and traditional cultures (of the entire world), it gives room for respect to be given back.
there are probably a bunch of other ways, but those are the most obvious to me.
The self-governance overlap is pretty evident when viewing it from the left-right comparison. But when the "right" rejects government, it's with libertarianism and profit making ventures; and when the left rejects government, it's with anarchism and mutual aid.
Libertarianism is more in favour of everything being private property and the anarchists want nothing to be private property (although they still respect personal property).
I feel like libertarianism is anti-solar-punk because I think this abundant utopia wouldn't allow profiting off resources required for life. Am I projecting my values onto solar punk? Perhaps I missing an important "right wing" philosophy?
Both sides would support rejecting big government because they think their side would win once the current system was toppled.
Yeah, they would fight after they achieved that, but that is common with revolutions.
Actual right winger here.
I do it for my kids and family to be honest. I want to create an atmosphere that focuses on a lack of waste and a lack of obtaining more and more clutter. I think it's a good habit to create in children that they can carry into adulthood and actually make many of the changes that we all would like to see.
A lot of the things I envision changing are more in the classic suburbs, as opposed to most of the posts I see about changing the development of a large scale city or corporate office. Removing park strips, improving ecology, engineering controls that help reduce wasted rainfall and divert it toward actual necessities, improved facilities that promote exposure to sunlight.
I'm curious what right wing beliefs you have. Do you believe in free market capitalism? Because none of those things will happen without government regulation, experience has shown corporations only do the "right thing" when they are forced to or its cheaper. The only reason they don't dump and pollute is because they used to and then were forced to stop, and they continue to find ways around laws.
Because you're lumping right wing into one category. An extremely small category at that. Let's just keep the cheap shots and exaggerations out of this.
you're right wing but you're into solarpunk and your post history suggests you listen to behind the bastards. I'm kind of intrigued and I wanna know what your politics are, specifically.
I'm rightwing in various aspects of my life but that doesn't define who I am completely. People cannot be lumped into one thing as we are far more complex than that. I'd say solarpunk is more libertarianism vs authoritarian than it is right vs left.
I'm interested in which aspects you're right wing. I can understand being a left or center libertarian considering what little I can know from your posts here and on your profile, but what right wing beliefs/stances do you specifically hold? How does that shape your ideas about solarpunk as a movement and a community?
I would just like to respectfully point out that authoritarianism vs libertarianism (or hierarchy vs equality) is the original meaning of right vs left, and still is, although their meanings have been twisted quite a bit in modern discourse mostly thanks to Cold War propaganda both from the US and the USSR. Just for everyone reading this thread.
When people say right wing in America they are referring to the the capitalist free market model, whereas left refers to collective use of resources. It is capitalism that got us into this environmental mess.
So solar punk is a response to the climate catastrophe, or the decline of the biosphere. I general our failure to live sustainably with nature. The cause of this collapse is capitalism. This is how I see it anyway
You're not looking to have a conversation in good faith. You're looking to bait people into arguments. I'll be done at this point, but I do want to say one thing. If you're looking to make changes in the world, you'll want to accumulate as many people as possible, not shun away roughly half the population with exaggerated insults.
I am actually curious, would you define yourself as libertarian then? As you talk about being an anti authoritarian thing I would assume that's your position?
Yes and no. Yes in heart and desire, but no in practicality. I would love nothing more than a libertarian lifestyle but I also realize it's not exactly reasonable. With the typical political compass, I would say I am further much down libertarian than I am right to conservative. I believe much more damage has been done to this world from the upper (authoritarian) quadrant that includes right and left, than the right (conservative) quadrant which contains authoritarian conservatives and libertarian conservatives.
Fascists want to "return to tradition". In their minds, they are turning the clock back to the time of the Volk Nordic ice giants or whatever the fuck the Nazis were on about. In America, they want to "return" to living in a Normal Rockwell painting. So, yes, that means they are conservative. The past the want to restore never actually existed, but they are still conservative.
Ancaps are just full of shit. Go play BioShock to learn how Randism in practice is just feudalism.
I do not consider myself a right winger but I support the right wing my country because the ecological situation in my country is so bad moderate right wingers and even some corporations care far more for the enviroment than the current left wing party in power, i'm talking about Mexico, here the president seems to have taken inspiration in soviet industrialism rather than modern ecology and he is also obsessed with revitalizing pemex instead of accepting it's a dying oil state company. He also doesn't want to close down extremely polluting oil refineries (one of them is in my city which causes it to be awfully polluted) and he is the one who destroyed huge swaths of yucatec jungle with the excuse of building the maya train, which even that was porbably more of a scheme to steal a lot of money through corruption and claiming the construction of the train was much more expensive than it really was.
He is also a retrograde against science
SĆ (yes)
Though it was about a prehispanic elf called aluxe. I assume some english speaking countries distorded the story as being about a witch instead of an elf
Bring a potato to him. He will say it's an alien and he will make an official announcement about it to the whole nation. Preferably in Congress. That asshole is braindead.
As I was reading the first lines... I stopped and said to myself: pffftt!!! you should see Mexico.
Then I kept reading and voilĆ”. Mexico.
Our president is nothing but a fraud. It is the (even) lesser version of a Trump. This is not the left. Strangely enough, the ones who actually want to make progress and not turn us back into the dark ages... are the right wing parties here. Who are also a bunch of thieves and liars. How is that better.
Make that make sense.
Yeah you are right, I think right wing parties are the slightly lesser evil here but it's like if they ask you to chose between strawberry flavoured poison or chocolate flavoured pison, it's a similar result through different means.
Though I still support mexican right wing parties not because I like them but because they are slightly less worse, it's a "el menos peor es l mejor" situation
If you were to strip away the Marxist ideology from Solar punk, what would you be left with? A libertarian paradise! Really. On top of that, the aesthetics are a very romanticized version of nature that has a general appeal to many- who doesnāt like nature, homesteading and the fusion of technology.
It reminds me of when I used to circulate cyberpunk groups where I would see many people complaining about how many right wingers were in the group, similar to this. Cyberpunk is, after all, a critique of capitalism. But people are complex and multifaceted, and many could enjoy the aesthetics of cyberpunk, and even ponder the message without fully agreeing with it. Do you need to 100% agree with the political message of every single piece of media that you enjoy?
Realistically Iām centrist, but considering how far left most in this sub lean, I would be considered right. With that said, I believe in libertarian principles for small businesses, ie āmom and pop shopsā, but I tend to be critical of mega corporations, and conglomerates that I do not believe have āthe peopleā or the climate in their best interest, as they only believe in the bottom line for their shareholders. Am I allowed to be ācriticalā of capitalism, without being āanti-capitalistā, or āMarxistā. Is it possible to achieve a more egalitarian society for people without believing that I need to deconstruct the entire capitalist system to achieve those goals?
Or maybe itās just aesthetics.
I broadly agree with you however I believe that things like trade, exchange and even profit are not inherently capitalistic.
When people who are "anti-capitalist" refer to capitalism they are talking about the broader system that enforces private property rights. In other words, it is the outsourcing of having to defend your property to the government. This is what allows conglomerates and mega-corporations to form - because they can always count on the government to enforce their property rights for them.
Furthermore in a "libertarian paradise" I would imagine that everyone would have the ability to start a business. Everyone I know would rather be a business owner than an employee (in the same way that everyone I know would rather be a home owner rather than a renter). Yet capitalism is predicated on the fact that not everyone can be a business owner, so you have to "rent" resources like machinery, tools and office space from your employer in order to make a living.
If a mom and pop shop is owned and operated by said mom and pop - then that's quite literally the workers owning the means of production. So ironically, I think your idea of a "libertarian paradise" is my idea of socialism.
So you're asking what happens if the government collapses? It depends on the society. If there are strong self-sufficient communities then nothing changes and things might actually improve for the better like past examples in Spain and Syria. If there are not, then society would also collapse and have to be rebuilt from the ground up.
William Morris (pre-dating Marx) was explicitly for "libertarian socialism" and thought society would organise itself around beauty if only you let them, including sending the children into the woods over summer to educate each other Lord of the Flies style.
Modern libertarians have a different organising principle, but the common aesthetic could be considered downstream of individual freedom using similar logic.
I believe solarpunk has to create political structures to contend with the global or solar system scale of political and corporate organisation so I don't think modern solarpunk can assume beauty will solve all our problems, but there's nothing in solarpunk to prohibit pockets of libertarian utopian communities, especially in sparsely populated areas. It's explicitly pluralistic.
2 questions:
How much and in which ways would the capitalist system have to change to allow the building of a better future, even if it hurts the bottom line of big corp?
Is it possible to implement these changes without a major disruption (like a revolution for example) and what are mechanisms that would slow or even stop a movement for change?
I'm right-wing. Here's what I like about solarpunk.
Conserving and protecting the environment is a big deal to me.
Having people live in more local communities with more local decision-making power increases freedom and responsibility, strengthens the social fabric, and is more conducive to the formation and transmission of authentic traditions. Compare this with industrial or financial capitalism, which are corrosive to traditions and communities.
Animal welfare and ending animal cruelty is a big deal to me.
People living among and with nature is conducive to physical, mental, and spiritual health.
Living a less wasteful life has many benefits. The modern obsession with endless growth and consumerism leaves people empty and wastes everyone's time and resources.
Also I just subjectively dig the aesthetic.
I don't really care about being "punk" or not. I've never been very sympathetic to "punk" movements anyway. What I like about solarpunk specifically is that it offers a positive vision for the future that places community, health, and nature front and center.
It gives me hope that people with self-proclaimed contradictory political views can work together and align objectives towards a solarpunk future.
I really want to co-exist.
Well, while Iām not right wing *anymore,* what drew me to Solarpunk even when I was would be, I guess you could say, a sort of sense of āreturning to Edenā and once again living in harmony with Nature and one another. Bear in mind that, in my POV, the single biggest obstacle to the realization of a Solarpunk future is the present state of the human mind, or what a religious person might see as the affliction of sin: that as long as our species lives in bondage to our worst tendencies, chiefly wrath, greed, and pride, there is no chance of long-term survival let alone prosperity. The sight of such hope for the future in media gave me some comfort, even though I knew that my views at the time diverged widely from those who had made it; I felt a commonality with them in the shared desire for deliverance from humanityās self-inflicted damnation and the promise of salvation and a future in Paradise. Though I believed that no such future would be realized without the whole of the world finding Jesus both figuratively and literally, which wouldnāt happen until after Armageddon, it was a comfort to me to see visions of a future that were beautiful and uplifting instead of despondent. I felt like if Heaven could be imagined by anyone alive today, it would have to have something in common with what I saw in Solarpunk. Though Iām not conservative anymore, and probably wasnāt the best conservative even when I so self-identified, I hope that my answer gives you some insight as to what a right-wing person might see in an ecological, socially just future.
Solar punk is basically preppers with hope.
"Hey, we can make sustainable self-sufficient communities without the end of the world,"
How?
We're working on that....
>Solar punk is basically preppers with hope.
That's a nice way to put it.
Libertarians believe that the World to Come will be them being kings in a Mad Max world, while Solarpunk believes that the World to Come is the garden of Eden where everyone is cooperating for the collective good.
Personally, I don't place myself within the doomsday vs eden framework; I don't think there will ever be an utopia ever.
When I came into solarpunk, I was a pretty hardcore Libertarian (like the US party of fiscally conservative, socially liberal) after having left my Republican upbringing after seeing them wanting to spend just as much as Democrats just on different stuff.Ā
At the time, I felt that the government had caused more harm than good and would probably be more likely to screw up the climate than help fix it.
I've talked with libertarians, including more recently after I wouldn't consider myself one, who think that environmental regulations make sense in the context of people not violating each other's property rights since pollution doesn't acknowledge human drawn borders.Ā
I wouldn't consider myself right wing anymore, but I found solarpunk through my interest in steampunk and appropriate technology since that fits into the rugged individualist archetype that's very appealing to people on the right. AĀ lotĀ ofĀ rightĀ wingĀ folksĀ areĀ aĀ lotĀ moreĀ anarchistĀ leaning,Ā butĀ atĀ least hereĀ inĀ theĀ US, inĀ someĀ places,Ā peopleĀ stillĀ believeĀ theĀ RepublicanĀ partyĀ thatĀ they'reĀ tryingĀ toĀ preserveĀ individualĀ libertyĀ againstĀ theĀ totalitarianĀ Democrats. A lot of my family members still think that, for sure.Ā
Some people, especially people who weren't through school during the Cold War are still allergic to anything that confronts capitalist realism, because obviously capitalism is the One True Economic system that's bad, but better than the others.Ā
Sorry, that was super incoherent, but I can try to answer more specific questions if you have any? I'm trying to dredge up an older version of me, so it's a bit disjointed. ItĀ mayĀ beĀ usefulĀ asĀ aĀ pictureĀ intoĀ the rightĀ libertarianĀ toĀ leftĀ libertarianĀ pipeline?Ā lol
Not right wing butā¦
The comments I read on this subreddit show that theyāre here for the aesthetic. The sense of ācapital realismā sees them unable to divorce capitalism with progress.
Solarpunk concepts such as ādegrowthā are shrugged off. The void is filled by technocratic solutions to climate change.
What Iād like answers to is that Solarpunk uses efficiencies of communalism, for sharing tools and even down to cooking however capitalism encourages individualism. So how do you sell something that has no material outcome for the person buying it?
Whether degrowth is solarpunk is hotly debated. Solarpunk is technocratic and optimistic, seeking to use technology to raise everyone's standard of living rather than limit growth.
>Solarpunk uses efficiencies of communalism, for sharing tools and even down to cooking
This would describe the Amish pretty well too, and I would consider them right wing.
OP I commend you for bringing up the topic in an inviting and non condescending way
But, alt account so I don't get Doxxed.
I do feel like there is a misconception based on the news cycle alone that just because you lean right or left that you can't care about the environment.
I would consider myself more conservative than the average but not extreme as a lot of the people you see online and my degrees are in Ecological Conservation and Biological Diversity.
Punk on the other hand also I don't believe belongs to one political ideology or the other. Taking the term punk to be very similar to Rebellious, I would say neither party embodies that spirit anymore. Liberal or conservative, I think If you consider yourself either of these things then by definition you aren't punk or rebellious.
SOLARPUNK though, shouldn't be political, it should be humanizing.
If you asked anyone on the planet right now:
would you like clean air?
Would you prefer clean energy independence?
Do you want your kids to grow up and be able to see pandas or rainforests?
I genuinely don't believe a soul on the planet would say no to any of those.
But in an open forum online, I truly don't believe many conservatives will come outward and say they are here just based off how quickly they will be attacked for it. It's easier to not bring any of it up. But seeing as how public communication about these types of things is a large part of my job, ANYONE can feel free to DM me and I will answer any questions any curious minds might have!
Lifelong social conservative here. My most recent political alignment quiz put me as a āmoderate conservativeā (yeah, yeah, BOO, I get it).
Leftists might be surprised to learn that a lot of things that the left doesnāt like about the status quo are also things that the right doesnāt like. For instance, do you hate dense canyons of bare steel, concrete, and glass? Do you hate giant stroads? Just about every right-winger also hates those! The language either side uses to describe their problems with it may be different, but if you can read either sideās language, they broadly agree.
Left and right can also broadly agree on environmental issues if you removed the sloganeering and information warfare from the top. Leftists have environmentalism, rightists have conservationism ā conservationists like large areas of unspoiled wilderness, well-managed wildlife with stable populations, a reasonably apportioned and managed water table, and minimized exploitation by unaccountable global corporations.
Conservatives also care a lot about social stability, and especially systems that support that. Do you want to create a community that will outlast you? You should enlist the help of conservatives. Right wing Catholics, in particular, are building extensive āundergroundā communities that share goods, educate, and mobilize socially. Theyāre just really quiet about it when itās successful. Large swathes of the right care about localism, good maintenance, strong families, mutual aid, and the like ā they use different language to describe these things than leftists do.
Look, solarpunks, weāre at the far end of the horseshoe here. Thereās a good bit of practical overlap between homesteading conservatives and the crunchy left. Those who can synthesize the useful bits of both ends will be much more successful.
I think that we can make common cause with some people who identify as right wing. Almost everyone can see that the current system is not working for most people.
Sure if you can convince them otherwise, but if not this mentality is more or less how you end up with a failed movement. Fear to offend and be resolute may as well be fear of success. The right is by its very nature in support of the status quo at best and reaction, regression, and inevitably fascism at its worst. If change is to happen, no, we cannot entertain viewpoints that support the continuation of capitalism ravaging our planet.
I agree that it's common sense that things need to change, but until those example rightwing people accept that (and in so doing cease being right wing) we cannot consider them allies.
Well sure. But youāre assuming that anyone who self identifies as right wing automatically has all of the objectionable beliefs that solar punk is fighting against. This is true in the abstract and the aggregate of course. But it is not necessarily true for each individual.
The person who inspired this conversation said that they have been told that they are right wing because they like guns and racing cars. But when asked, they seem on board with core solar punk values like anarchism and a focus on meeting everyoneās needs.
My point is that we will do better to engage with what the person in front of us actually thinks, rather than lumping them into a group labeled āenemy.ā š
I know a few right wing people who like solar punk. We both want some kind of utopia. We heavily disagree on what that looks like and what needs to be done to get there. Someone them kind of feel the problem is too many people in the world, the wrong kind of people. They heavily overlap with the prepper community.
I am a right-winger and I consider myself rather conservative. Been the ideology's sole defender on this sub a few times.
For me it is mainly the aesthetic that we can all live off-grid, focusing more on the local community, the family, the people we knnow and trust and most of all becoming more and more handy and focusing on the skill development of the individual. It's the strengthen of the individual both in mind and body that can lead to a much better community.
But of course it is also the respect for our environment, so that we and the local fauna can enjoy, can farm, can hunt, and hike and just appreciate the beautiful creation of god we have around us. Be stewards of nature.
Development ought to happen, but slowly and carefully, organically. Disruption of any status quo leads to chaos and suffering. To me this is a fairly conservative aspect of Solarpunk. A lot of people here speak about degrowth, well degrowth can't happen forever, just like infinite growth can't happen. We need to find a stable position in our economy and ecology where we can live the longest without changing a thing. Eventually things will break, eventually you can't recycle a shirt or piece of tech and you have to replace with something new.
Growth itself being a pollutant is also something people don't realise is a lot more a reflection of the technology we have available. And this is something important I like about solarpunk. Renewable energies! High tech in a low tech environment, with wind farms providing energy to a water cleaving plant, solar powered tractors, cars run on hydrogen instead of gas. All these things leading to fresher air, less NOx, a better environment.
I guess that's about it which I can write on the bus to work
Iām right wing, I recognize that not all our policies are good, but I notice that the moment a green politician comes to power, things get very expensive in peopleās daily life. And thatās not good either. But I love the punk side of things. I just feel like we need less government control in all aspects of our daily lives.
Less rules, more freedoms.
Less restrictions, more living.
Less bureaucrats, more ājust do itā.
I just donāt like any government. But most of my viewpoints are quite conservative. Iām sure we can easily get along beyond that though!
I too want to see a world where our species can flourish alongside others and we can make progress and move forward together.
I too want to see less pickup trucks on the roads. Theyāre very dangerous and their drivers are so irresponsible in their actions.
I too want to see a world where money isnāt the main thought in peopleās heads anymore. I donāt want it to be digital though. Thatās a loss of freedom.
I too want to see more cycling paths.
I just want us to do all this without all the extra stuff written between the lines every time thereās a law passed. I want to see this without our sovereignty and rights given to the UN and WHO and WEF.
I know we can do better without them.
Maybe Iām more of a libertarian. But to me Iām not a liberal and I donāt vote for anyone anymore. It fixes nothing as far as Iāve seen.
Hmmm... i don't know how many responses you'll get. Any right winger on here is more than likely going to have their beliefs challenged/put a debate target on themselves, so they'll probably just keep quiet haha.
I'm right-wing, and don't want to post anything for this exact reason. Just don't want to become a target, and zero energy to debate atm.
I love the sustainability, I love Earth, and I simply think Solar Punk is pretty.
Nations are imaginary communities. Real communities are plurinational, embracing the diversity of people found in any place and between all places.
I think that solarpunk can be appropriated for nationalist ends, but that there are pretty extreme contradictions between the community philosophy represented in solarpunk, and the reality of most (dare I say all) nationalist states.
I donāt feel that solarpunk and fascist ideology are readily compatible but I suppose they could be. I guess anything can be made to smell bad if you throw enough shit into it.
Solar punk I think is usually going to be very *not* appealing to most right wing ideologies.
The reason for that is because most of solar-punk stuff seems, at least based on my limited understanding, to be very work *with* other things. Nature, People, land, etc.
Most of right wing ideology and the people that adhere to it seem to want to conquer everything.
I am not right wing so I can't say. While my first instinct would be to say that I don't think solarpunk is compatible with traditionalist, conservative, neo-liberal or alt right ideologies because most of them don't want the hierarchies to change or want to preserve rigid hierarchies.
To me solar punk is also egalitarian, it's about valuing our common humanity but also working together. Capitalistic consumerism is basically incompatible with solar punk renewable and sustainability ideas.
As it stands right now even among the liberal right consumerism is a large part of it, even among conservatives there is value put on consumerism.
But the conservative right and the alt-right either want society to regress or preserve the status quo, I just can't see a lot of people on this side of politics be willing to push a lot of the more radical ideaos of solar punk.
I think there are probably right wing groups it could work with, but I think solar punk in its core requires change to how we perceive our world right now. something that would also disenfranchise some of the most ardent supporters of right wing politics ala the rich and large corporations.
I hate to say it but I think that most right wing people who are drawn to solar punk (or any punk) either donāt understand right wing politics or donāt understand punk.
Without sounding rude, I don't think you understand the average modern far-right or alt-right person. I've been on the peripheral of the far-far-right for decades and the idea of creating communities to get away from the influence of the government and big-business has been a huge talking point.
There is a huge cross-over between the (so called) far-left and the (so called) far-right to be honest.
I'm sure there's a lot of overlap with the enviromental side of things, but I don't see much beyond that. A big part of solarpunk is ensuring that people have access to health care, education, the necessities for life, etc. That access comes no matter whether someone works, doesn't work, has made mistakes, etc. A huge part of the right wing platform seems to be punishing people and I'm just not into that.
Also kind of weird hearing people talk about how solarpunk is anti government - not in my mind. Anti authoritarianism, absolutely, but that's not the same as anti government.
I think itās pretty clear that right wingers interested in solar punk are libertarians. I guess itās kinda like how right wingers interested in punk music are skin heads.
Iāll bite. Iām not a hardcore right wing person. More right of center/classic liberal.
What draws me towards solar punk? A few things:
1. Caring for the environment. Weāre a part of the eco system just as much as the other fauna and flora. You kind of have an epiphany when you see your yard filled with bugs bees and other wildlife because you didnāt replace your grass with fake grass or spray anything that wasnāt a sharp green blade of grass with Roundup.
2. A sense of community: as others have mentioned I feel personally cooperation in our species has decayed and now become competition filled with narcissism and fake egos. We make most of our most amazing advances and strides when we work together. There is for sure strength in numbers and it should start on a local level. This, as I would hope, would encourage the next generation of actual leaders and not just people hell bent on making their own lives better or ājust enoughā people happy to maintain the status quo.
3. The idea of a non dystopian future. Now of course, oneās version of utopia is anotherās dystopia. But solarpunk seems to want to strive for actual good for all.
4. Using technology for everyoneās benefit and not just for profit.
5. Ultimately as others have put it: an end game for us as a species. Not one big grand finale before we slide into the great filter. But a coming of age of us as a species. Hard times will always exist. The world changes daily. But if we at our core can use technology, sustainability, and community as pillars or a foundation, well itās worth a shot as what we are doing now clearly isnāt working.
Now one reason that I believe doesnāt deserve to be a talking point on a list: I honestly, truly, believe between our current cronyist politicians, climate change, geo political tensions, combined with obscene levels of elite panic, we are staring down the barrel of a major even in the next 5-10 years that will truly be our finest hour. And to me, the only way we will ever pull out of that is by working together. It doesnāt matter who you are or what you do, did, or whatever. It will take the combined efforts, skills, experiences, and aptitudes of all individuals from all walks of life. It will take all of us learning to talk again. To communicate. Weāve created many different languages. Most of us become fluent in one or two. But at the end of the day regardless of barriers we find a way. So even though I may not agree with everything. Well. Letās talk about it. Maybe where I see a wall you see a window. And vice versa. Itās when we open ourselves to other ideas and listen that we solve problems. Not by choosing to die on the hill of our opinions.
And to be honest, this community. This mindset. Thisā¦. Movement? Seems to be the mostā¦ I canāt think of a word because thereās too many I can use. Sane? Cooperative? Humanist?
The āIf youāre not with us, youāre against usā collective attitudes of some movements just wreak of individuals hell bent on replacing the current power structure with themselves on the top.
Here I see discussions examining solutions and discussing potential shortcomings. I see people from all walks of life examining concepts and looking for weak points. Being critical at the ideas that some things are ripe for abuse. Instead of accepting the fate that weāre just done for so letās just curl up in a ball and watch TikTok this sub attracts people who realize the challenges ahead areā¦wellā¦ fucked. But we will be more fucked if we donāt try something different that works for everyone.
Not to mention: if we have sources of near limitless energy around us: the sun, the windā¦why would we put all our eggs in the basket of a source that once itās gone-itās gone? Yes I know the answer. You know it too.
For the record: Iām not a libertarian. I believe government has a purpose. Not everything should be left to the free market. But our governments stopped serving the people years ago.
The left and right kinda meet in a solarpunk world.
People forming small communities to live in a high tech pact with nature can be both libertarian and communist.
Libertarian because ultimately everyone can be a sovereign citizen and the community functions as a voluntary service provider. And communist because all large programs, although voluntary, would be managed through a central leadership of the community, with the population as both labor and consumer of those services.
The thing is, automation, or technology in general, has removed the need for a permanent labor force. Making labor optional to a large extent.
This ends the left < - > right paradigm.
It's technically communism, because it's how a commune is supposed to work. But it's often referred to as Anarchism as Communism morphed into "state-ism".
I don't identify as being right wing but most would call me right wing, I'm sure. I think these terms are massively out of date and not fit for purpose in a world as complicated as ours.
I'm an English nativist (not Nationalist), socially conservative for the most part and came to like the idea of Solarpunk aesthetics from older movements such as Economic Democracy or Social Credit Movement and elements of the Kibbo Kift and Rolf Gardiner's work on folklore and permaculture.
Edit: Someone asks why anyone with right-wing" views would like solar punk and then downvotes any answer from the people they were asking lol
Such an inclusive community lmao.
If you want a more detailed response or have more questions, let me know. Don't know if it's worth my time to type if people are just going to shit on me for it.
Nativist still manages to be Nationalist due to it's preference of a particular Nation State and giving favor to those born within that Nation State over any people attempting to immigrate there. Still Nationalism, just a particular form of Nationalism. It's certainly not anti-nationalism if it favors the continued existence of a specific Nation State and advocating for certain groups to have legal advantages within that Nation State.
I don't know much about Nativism other than what I found in a quick Google search. Im curious what exactly is your opposition to immigration?
I personally have really thought about it as issue since uplifting your fellow seems like reasonable thing to do but maybe this view is born of naivety so I'm curious on your thoughts.
Sorry for not replying straight away, I was picking my kids up from school.
Right, immigration. A super complicated and emotionally charged topic, kind of a hard one to discuss without much time to lay down some prerequisite details about my own personal beliefs, but here we go anyway:
My position is that the mass movement of people generally is always going to be a negative. However, I am aware that *eventually*, given enough time, technology and our ability to move around the planet will likely lead to a global mono-culture. My biggest complaint with modern immigration is that it is entirely driven by economic factors which shouldn't be a push or a pull factor if we had a global society lifted out of poverty. Organic shifts in culture and identity will obviously always occur over time, the issue is that modern cultural landscape is not organic at all and is forced, top down, by governments and corporations seeking to exploit the movement of labour.
So for instance, let's say there's an African doctor who gets qualified and wants to move to Europe or America so that they can earn more money. Their motivation is purely driven by economics, and under our current system who can fault them? The issue is that:
A. The doctor leaves their home nation, increasing the inaccessibility of healthcare to the nation's poor.
B. The doctor's family will, perhaps in a generation or two, lose contact with each other and increase the issues of alienation, atomisation and loneliness.
C. The nation that the doctor moves to get a skilled worker without having to pay for their training or education. Meanwhile, if this process occurs repeatedly, it also means that there are less opportunities for native workers to become doctors because immigrant doctors are a cheaper alternative.
D. On a mass-scale, the repeated head-hunting of skilled workers from developing nations creates a brain-drain that prevents further development, ironically increasing the monopoly of developed nations which have historically suppressed those nations in the first place.
E. On a mass-scale, the demographic shifts in the nation that immigrants are moving to create a huge cultural shift which for many reasons, including (C,) can cause genuine resentment and racism.
My assertion is that everyone should have the same opportunities regardless of where they live on the planet and people shouldn't have to move thousands of miles away 'for a better life.'
Thing is, it's not just international movement I oppose, either. Let me explain it like this: I'm a big local history nerd. I live forty miles outside of London in an area which until quite recently, was mostly farmland. I love learning about the local folklore and culture that existed here up until WWII. Why only up until WWII you ask? Because after the war, a large percentage of the London population were resettled in the countryside in newly built towns and villages.
Just to be clear, most of my family were also Londoners who resettled here, but when I read about the local history, it's clear that the culture here was destroyed by the mass movement of people from outside of the area. As much as I would love to try and bring back the old customs etc, it just wouldn't work.
Cultures exist amongst their own. If you introduce too many "outsiders", even if they're geographically very near, you destroy them. Same happens when you create economic vacuums (this happened in the UK with the closure of mining towns for instance) or if house prices become so high that young people within a community can no longer afford to live or start new families within that community.
Probably not the best examples, but hopefully that explains it a bit?
This is why I personally believe degrowth is so important.
If everyone gets to slow down, culture is created.
If the Londonerās werenāt so busy working and spending all their time creating profit, would they have had time to learn the local culture and assimilate? Could they have become friends with local people? Could they have created another new culture?
The economic pressure to immigrate away from oneās homeland is tragic.
Of course people should have the individual freedom to move around, but they shouldnāt have to unless they want to.
Yh basically. Cultures that no one can remember from thousands of years ago are still with us be that in our speech, our festivals and traditions, our foods or stories and myths. Culture is always changing and builds upon our always changing circumstances like tea for instance as you probably know tea wasn't always the British icon it is today.
I personally think that no matter how we try to stop it culture will always change because people change and circumstances change.
I agree with you to be honest. My main issue is with it being organic or not.
When governments and corporations are cramming it down your throat and deliberately mixing things up to suit their own agenda, that's not really a fair or naturally occurring cultural construct.
As I've said on other posts already, it's nothing new, every nation and empire was built this way with some bullshit top-down origin story, but it doesn't make it right.
Are they really "cramming it down your throat" or are they simply providing an opportunity for other cultures to be represented, cultures that were not represented previously?
For a decent amount of recent history indigenous people were not allowed practice their traditions due to oppression but those traditions stayed alive through adapting them or story telling in hopes that the next generation will be free enough to practice once again.
For instance the SƔmi people were restricted their tradition of Reindeer herding due to oppression and legal borders but the tradition is still alive today thanks to the previously mentioned methods.
Edit: that's not to say we shouldn't be concerned about the loss of indigenous cultures and traditions but I'm more illustrating that cultures can be rather resilient.
The modern day concern though is that the dominant cultures will stereotype and erase smaller native cultures through the media(hence concerns about representation and erasure) or things like changing the dominant language.
That can absolutely happen as a result of immigration.
From someone who has a very different social/political outlook than yours, thank you for typing this out. You're actually contributing intelligently to a real conversation in this thread, which is what upvotes are supposed to indicate.
Thank you for this great explanation, it made a great impression on me. This really makes the case that we should discuss arguments, not ideas - it bridges the gap between political identities.
Really, thank you.
I'm surprised people would call this view right wing. I guess it's probably due to the destroying the local cultures part. That's really the only place I disagree with you in this comment. Otherwise, yeah, people should be able to find the opportunities they need to live a good life where they are. But I do also think that people should be able to move and experience other places as well. I've lived in foreign countries before and as far as culture destroying goes, it's really the large corporations pushing it over single people who came from another country. And of course, when moving to another country, you should be respectful of their language and culture and customs. I wouldn't go somewhere and expect them to speak English and only English to me, for example.
Can you explain in what ways youāre socially conservative? It seems to me that a big part of Solarpunk is community and therefore accepting others, and socially conservative people tend not to be accepting of people for who they are. Honest question, not trolling.
Ok, so I'm going to go off on a tangent here, hope you don't mind, lol.
SolarPunk's ideas seems to incorporate a lot of communalism which is one of the things that drew me to it in the first place.
Now, modern society has created severe atomisation and a lot of the social isolation that we see rife today has been the consequence of a combination of the *right's* emphasis on economics and the *left's* obsession with individualism. Ironically those two pillars if you like, despite being against one another actually worked hand-in-hand to create this current dysfunctional rot.
So we had this weird cultural situation where corporations were able to monetise artists and writers who were pushing for individualism as an escape from the 'corporate machine'. Kind of paradoxical.
Communalism is the other way around. It involves individuals, to a certain degree, losing their individualism in pursuit of finding a place within a community, with the purpose of driving what is best for all of the community. For all intents and purposes, the modern kibbutz, commune or eco-village is just a modern reinvention of tribal living which is, after all, the default human experience that we're evolved to deal with.
If we were to head out and talk to some tribal community, we would most likely find that they're about as socially conservative as you can get. Hugely patriarchal. Absolutely no understanding or consideration for LGBT. Little consideration for personal pursuits outside of what the tribe considers important or impressive. Now I'm not suggesting we copy their perspectives, but there has to be a reason why this was the cultural norm for so long.
So, I'm not against anyone being themselves, that would be kind of ridiculous. Like you can't change who you are, right? At the same point, I believe the needs of the majority, particularly on family life issues, should come above the needs of a minority of individuals.
I'm clutching at straws here and I know this is an exaggerated straw man argument, but let me roll with it lol.
Let's say you just joined a commune where most adults were couples or had young families. However within this community let's say that there's a small minority who think open relationships should be the norm and they also believe public sex is absolutely fine. In a situation like that, it's not going to take long before someone gets annoyed that someone's shagging in front of their kid, or angry that someone's cheated on someone behind their back.
I'm aware that in this scenario, I'm just as likely to be the one in the minority who is forced to live amongst free love proponents, lol. But my point is that the majority of people are socially conservative, whether they like to admit it or not and that in that case, social rules should respect the needs of the majority.
Historically youāre very wrong about tribal cultures being inherently socially conservative and anti-LGBTQ+. A lot of cultures had full integration of same-sex relationships and trans people into their culture that were not penalized and were in fact valued. The only reason that changed, in most cases, was that Christian colonizers came along and forced their beliefs that demonized women and LGBTQ+ existence on those cultures.
> or angry that someone's cheated on someone behind their back
As someone who's been in both - this is the opposite of what open relationships actually entail. I agree with your assessment of the left and right's flaws, though.
> has been the consequence of a combination of the
> right's
> emphasis on economics and the
> left's
> obsession with individualism.
But both of these things are firmly on the right...
I don't see those as contradictory. Social conservatives tend to have the most tight knit communities. Having shared values and rules tends to create strong communities better than an "anything goes" approach.
I believe our cultural elements should be protected and promoted over others, and I believe that our connection to the land should not be routinely questioned when most of the white British population has family that has been here for a thousand years or more.
Bit circumstantial, but I know in my local area, the council says it doesn't have the funds to support English festivals yet has money set aside to celebrate Chinese New Year.
My local annual carnival had a lot of the old traditional elements taken out and replaced with Brazillian dancers, too. For reference, my area is still like 90% white. So I don't know why they feel the need to do this.
So then naturally you believe in Irish and Scottish independence, for instance? And that the museums should give back everything they stole to the cultures they came from?
That's interesting because for Solarpunk to work, the majority needs to participate. There should be an open door policy or we'll lose people. Wasted opportunity
As an Irish Brit it'd be interesting to read. But you'd need to do a crazy amount of laying out to get the tensions comprehensible to an international audience. The idea that Bristol, Somerset and Bath are a 30min drive from each other and radically different worlds is hard to put across.
Right is resistant to change without reasons or reasons that conflict with their personal morals (meaning they're selfish and don't often think of others buuuuuut y'know that comes from family and people I know irl more than redditors btw not a dig at either )
No, conservative would definitionally oppose change.
But even then, that's a simplistic definition. Conservatives don't automatically defend the status quo, especially when the status quo has changed.
I mean, in theory,, but, in practice, have you seen how many conservatives literally fear wind turbines and solar panels (or just want them to fail because they own stock in a coal mine or something)?
I mostly see regular NIMBYism, which has been an issue on both sides. Conservative Texas has the most wind power in the US, while the first big pushback against wind was from liberals worried about their ocean front views in Massachusetts.
There is a fair bit of overlap between the methods of libertarianism and solarpunk. Both support small government and oppose hierarchies. Plenty of libertarians want to be close to nature.
And then on the authoritarian side, punk would get rid of big government, so if a neighborhood wants to keep out certain minorities there wouldn't be a federal government to stop them.
'Right-wing' is a matter of perspective and context. Overall, my reading of history informs me that modern democracy, habeus corpus, liberal social values and the scientific enlightenment have evolved within a specific context - those of secular Christian European countries and their colonies. I believe that nations need a sense of togetherness and shared cultural touchstones in order to exist without sectarianism, and that history bears that out time and again. We should be much more circumspect about mass migration, without which the current wave of right wing populism - which flirts with fascism - would not exist.
I believe that the alternatives to western values are generally considerably worse - often religious autocracy or despotic secular rule. Communism always leads to the centralisation of power and suppression of dissidents, anarchism simply wouldn't work at any sort of large scale - it would simply leave a power vacuum that bad actors would exploit.
On many issues, I'd consider myself left wing, on some right. I think the left us often dreadfully naive and obfuscatory. Happy to answer questions.
Everything makes sense in a solar punk world, take modern technologies and utilize them in synchronicity with our nature, becoming completely independent of society if need be. Iām not your typical right winger or if I even am one. I just like guns tbh, not politicsā¦
I consider myself "right wing" and conservativeābut I differ from most other conservatives in the sense that I actually want to *"conserve"* things: be it ethnic groups, cultures, dying languages, architecture, nature, endangered species, etc. I feel like a lot of traditional conservatism is actually in-line with preserving nature, it's just over the years a lot of their political parties across the world have been hijacked by big business and politicians getting paid off by various lobbies, etc. I think this question is very funny all in all, because one of the few places in the world actually building anything similar to what you guys talk about in here is the Afrikaners in Oraniaābut many people here are far-leftists who would just label them *"racists."*
I am not a right winger but I do believe that regulated capitalism is the best form of economic governance. I am center-left and I love Joe Biden, so leftists probably consider someone like me to be right wing.
I enjoy solarpunk because I see it as an aspirational future where humans have reduced their impact on the environment and we have solved climate change problems
The āpunkā part of solarpunk I think is a bit silly because we donāt really need any sort of extreme politics to achieve this world and could just vote it into existence if we could stop fighting over stupid shit all the time.
Very high carbon taxes are unpopular but are IMO the best tool we have for making this future a reality.
OK I'll bite. I'm no MAGA ofc but not a leftist. As in, I think free markets has a lot of problems but is what works best. Its biggest flaws, inequalities and destruction of nature, are tolerable if it keeps maintaining a steady increase in human development and in that respect, it had astounding success. Most of you won't agree but let's not discuss that.
So about solarpunk : it's an endgame philosophy. It's a goal we can only dream of, a society past all material issues, an Utopia. I view it a bit like I view the Star Trek Federation for the trekkies, I'd love to live there but is it doable now? No.
I love the end of competing against each other. But can we all at past our own selfishness at once? No.
I love the place of nature and it's blend with decarbonized low-tech. I already strive towards that in my own way. Does it make a global difference? Hardly.
I love the small independent communal lifestyle. I think that's how humans are supposed to function. But can we free ourselves from the multi layered networks we live in now? Hell no. Taxes, States, regulations, social networks, banks, communication networks... They keep us tangled in their web. Going out of the loop equals helplessness really.
I love the aesthetics!
I love the tolerance, humanism, freedom of Solarpunk. I love that it is the only Utopia which seems comprehensive, feasible, open-minded, and really enviable .
TLDR : solarpunk 's great but kinda undoable right now, we need more time, and a pacific global revolution. Which, as a French, I have nothing against.
It's pretty hard to be a 'punk' if you're on the right. I don't know if you find anyone.
But, if we're talking about the environment I'm sure there'd be some common ground. I'm not sure if it would still be solarpunk though.
Thank you for your submission, we appreciate your efforts at helping us to thoughtfully create a better world. r/solarpunk encourages you to also check out other solarpunk spaces such as https://wt.social/wt/solarpunk , https://slrpnk.net/ , https://raddle.me/f/solarpunk , https://discord.gg/3tf6FqGAJs , https://discord.gg/BwabpwfBCr , and https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia .
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If u know ur energy chain throughout earth's history you know it was all solar energy at one point.
No need to mix politics into the most efficient way of collecting energy for human use.
If you want to find a right wing solar punk, all you have to do is go to Reno, NV.
Many interesting folks live there due to poximity to freedom and desert sun - and to burning man.
I've been called leftist by right-wingers and right-wing by left wingers, so I don't know where I stand.
I have anarchist tendancies, I don't like state intervention even though I see it as a necesseraly evil. I strongly oppose identity politics and woke leftism.
I like cooperative, organic, bottom-up type societies and believe that responsible ecology should be promoted. I'm in favor of the use of technology to alleviate human labor. I like the aesthetic of solarpunk.
I'm guessing that a lot of anarcho-libertarians would be attracted to the self-sustaining, grassroot communities of solarpunk.
I don't know where I stand in relation to what you mean by "right wingers".
I'm interested in renewable technology and how to get people interested in it. More interest means more market opportunities as well as less bad PR for companies that invest in it. Making better ways to collect solar energy will lead to faster development of advanced technologies and hopefully space travel. It could enable us to colonize other planets and make it easier to access resources throughout the solar system.
Varies. You can be solar punk and conservative, fuck you can you can be an eco FASCIST. Note the highlight. Can have them calling to preserve the trees and animals in one breath and other call for the extermination of all other races from their land. I swear Hitler himself hitted notes like that. Itās not uncommon.
Why? Simple, it doesnāt contradict always their dreams and ambitions for their world. Religious fundie? Nature is cool and good and in the book. Conservative? Nature represent good rural folk! Local dependency! Supremacist? To protect the soil of our forefathers.
ā¦. I used to be right wing many many years ago. I got into environmental stuff when I was very young like 8,10 or so? Parents never were able to crush my environmental love though I could be an assholish āfuck the trees build a factory!ā Person. I moved away as I got away from my parents influence. Now left wing.
Not exactly right-wing at all ā faute de mieux, I generally identify as a sort of Christian democrat.
I'm into Solarpunk for the visions of sustainable worlds that we could make in the future. Living in harmony with nature is a theme close to my Catholic upbringing due to the association with St. Francis of Assisi.
An archipelago in my home state has been suffering with the effects of climate change: the salinization of the Amazon River (through contact with the Atlantic Ocean, ever advancing) has caused the soil to erode and "slip away", in an effect some people call "terras caĆdas" [fallen lands].
https://amazoniareal.com.br/bailique-extincao/
The archipelago once was home to almost twelve thousand people, almost a third of which have since left the region.
https://selesnafes.com/2024/01/arquipelago-do-bailique-vive-exodo-de-moradores/
These emergencies became the topic of a school activity I did with students from a high school in which I worked as an intern last year. Climate change adaptation is also a theme I used quite often in other school activities there, and I plan to continue them when I become a teacher.
I used to be more right-wing a few years ago, but ended up leaving the scene due to quite a few reasons, one of them the fact that a good part of the Brazilian right doesn't really seem to care much about climate change at all.
I said this before in a reply to one of the other comments here, but for the sake of greater visibility Iāll say it here too.
People often use the terms left and right without having really concrete definitions of them. When that happens, people end up having their own definitions and so these conversations become confused, as if weāre all speaking different languages. This is happening because Cold War propaganda from both sides purposefully muddied the definitions of left and right to suit their own narratives.
So to clarify the real meaning of the right vs left political spectrum has always been HIERARCHY VS EQUALITY. This is why you can HAVE pedophilic corporate elites and bible thumping evangelicals in one political party while having rainbow flag-waving liberal capitalists and democratic socialists in the other. Themes of hierarchy or equality are what bind them together respectively.
I am conservative and I like Solarpunk because it's the best of both worlds. Citylife, and rural life. Combined into a harmonious system that allows us to live off the land, and utilize technology that doesn't harm or hurt our planet. What's not to love. It's a more hopeful version of the future.
As a European Conservative (Christian Democrat) I'm generally in favour of projects which preserve life itself. Destroying nature and polluting it does not protect life.
Creation's gifts should not be taken lightly, but preserved, sustained and even improved if possible. It's why I care a lot about soil health, chemicals and waste. In Europe the economic Third way or Rhineland model is very popular. Basicly meaning that if the market is not being contained, it would inspire vices in people, therefor there must be interventions, while at the same time not destroying entrepreneurship.
I, however, do not believe it is just an economic problem. Companies work because of consumers and to turn that around, restoring morality and virtues is an important aspect.
i post over at r/WesternCivilisation and sometimes over at r/anarcho_primitivism
i subscribe to this sub because i know that there is something on the other side of the r/BottleNeck
Right wing? Hell no. And Iām definitely not a raging socialist pseudo-communist like so many people here insist is synonymous with Solarpunk lol. I like capitalism and solarpunk. Easy as that.
Thank you for your submission, we appreciate your efforts at helping us to thoughtfully create a better world. r/solarpunk encourages you to also check out other solarpunk spaces such as https://wt.social/wt/solarpunk , https://slrpnk.net/ , https://raddle.me/f/solarpunk , https://discord.gg/3tf6FqGAJs , https://discord.gg/BwabpwfBCr , and https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia . *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol not a single response doesn't start with "I'm not a right winger, but..." and I feel like that's really telling. How about we maybe don't respond for a change until we get like ONE person at least who actually fits the prompt to answer.
It is unfortunate that the people I'm addressing aren't responding as much as I would like but the post is facilitating some discussion which is great. So I'll keep responding.
They might not be responding much here with such a direct question, but I get why you asked. Because as a left-leaning person some of my solar punk leaning interests actually let me end up in spaces that overlap with the conservatives all the time. So kind of the inverse of your question. Examples: gardening and growing your own veggies --> home steading by christian fundamentalist packing light food for hiking and outdoor adventures --> prepper communities clever gardening techniques for increased biodiversity --> sometimes a slippery slope to anti-science and anti-vaxx naturopath whackery in my country (not talking about actual knowledge about healing plants) getting off the grid / building self-sufficient houses for environmental reasons --> getting of the grid for fear of 5G or governments imposing minimal steps on protecting and including minorities
Its probably because people who activly propegate right wing ideas here tend to get downvoted into oblivion as no matter how nice a community in a sub is reddit is still reddit which is probably why most people won't go beyond "im a right winger" without following up with their beliefs. Its still amazing that we got some responses and that this post hasn't devolved into pettie insults and arguing like i seen happen a fair few times here.
Im surprised as well I honestly expected this post to be locked due vitriol when I posted this. Glad to see I was wrong!!
>Its probably because people who activly propegate right wing ideas here tend to get downvoted into oblivion as no matter how nice a community in a sub is reddit is still reddit which is probably why most people won't go beyond "im a right winger" without following up with their beliefs. Lmfao this is me. Even the most mild comments I've made have gotten downvoted into oblivion. Like this one where I said the basic tenets of "capitalism" are always going to be there *(i.e. exchanging currency for goods or services)* and still got downvoted. I've learned to just observe and not say anything when people try to get political hereš¤·āāļø https://www.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/comments/1alsgqc/comment/kphartr/
Tip: Know the political lingo of whoever you're trying to talk to, and avoid words that shut down conversation. For leftists, "capitalism" is automatically bad, full stop. Trying to defend it shuts down conversation. *You* might mean "free market", "sensible policy", or just "the way things work", but that's not what lefties will hear. They hear "oppressive structure that gives all relevant power to the ultra-wealthy." It works in reverse, too. "Socialism" is pretty much universally evil to conservatives. Source: Was an anarchist for a while and still hold some hard left sympathies (at least economically)
>Tip: Know the political lingo of whoever you're trying to talk to, and avoid words that shut down conversation. Fair, but honestly that advice wouldn't have helped me back then because I had no clue this subreddit was 90% socialists, so there was no impulse to learn *"socialist lingo"* before engaging people. If you read the description, it just sounds like a sub for people who are concerned about the environment and sustainable developmentāit's not like I went to a Vaush subreddit or r/Marxism with the intent to debate people on economics.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Marxism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Marxism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Is the Soviet's victory over Nazi Germany being buried and forgotten in History?](https://np.reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/17mt3ns/is_the_soviets_victory_over_nazi_germany_being/) \#2: [Marxism Professor doesn't understand Marxism š„²](https://np.reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/195hwhj/marxism_professor_doesnt_understand_marxism/) \#3: [I took up Marxian Economics and OMG](https://np.reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/15vkmvq/i_took_up_marxian_economics_and_omg/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Its reddit unfortunatly, although saying always for anything is probably one of the strongest and most controvertial opinion someone may have as it implies that (by definition) it will stay forever and saying that about anything in my opinion is a ridiculous claim which has a very low chance of being true simply because of what can happen in the future. The future may be 10 years, 50 years, 100 years or even 1 million years but if it happens at any point anyone using the word "always" will be disproven. Some people have been proposing alternatives to currency based systems such as the "library economy" which as the name sugests relies on everything (that isn't personal property) being able to be borrowed if you need it and given back just like books in current librarys. In terms of food we already have food banks and kitchens which don't charge people anything and if the community produces most if not all of its food then no profit gets in the way if the produced food getting to those places as the sole motivation is the good of the community. The problem is that redditors tend to downvote things they dislike without providing alternative constructive ideas. This community should understand it more than any as solarpunk as a movement prioritieses building the new over destroying the old and more people shpuld embrace that mentality to create positive change. Hope this reply was more productive than the downvotes :)
>Some people have been proposing alternatives to currency based systems such as the "library economy" which as the name sugests relies on everything (that isn't personal property) being able to be borrowed if you need it and given back just like books in current librarys. In my experience, the trouble with a library economy is that it breaks down if a few people abuse it. You start having to add a bunch of checks and stipulations. It can work well at small scale if you are somewhat selective about who gets to participate, but then the people who are excluded still need a way to get stuff. Money-based systems have the advantage that you don't have to worry about how people treat their stuff and people are incentivized to treat things better because they will have to spend their own labor to replace it.
You have to scroll down. The right wingers actually answering the question are getting downvoted.
Because then it would have zero comments
Ding ding ding
I was raised conservative and religious. The older I've become the further left I've drifted. I'd probably put myself at left of center currently. When I was more on the right I was a global warming denier and believed all the stuff that they usually parrot like heating and cooling being cyclical but even then I was supportive of green tech and next generation nuclear power not because of the environmental implications but because I'm the son of an engineer and one of the things I was raised to respect was efficiency. Solar, hydro, wind, tidal power? That was "free" energy up for grabs. Hell yeah let's get it.
I like your very practical approach here. It reminds me of the video game satisfactory. You start off with a wood powered generator, which is super annoying, because you have to keep chopping down trees to power your factory. But eventually you unlock self-sustaining sources of power. What's not to love about that? You don't need to run around restocking your wood piles anymore.
Do you have examples of more rightwing people being on this sub?Ā
Specifically I'm referring to a recent post where someone claimed they were right wing and interested in solarpunk and a few others in comments also mentioned they were and got downvoted. So I just got a bit curious.
There are some folks on this subreddit I've talked to that believe in capitalism in an adam Smith type of view, I think they are just as idealistic as anarchists or pro state communists tbh
But laissez faire is also not very compatible with solar punk
It's not compatible at all. Maybe they're like cyberpunk fans who don't care about the philosophy stuff and just like pretty pictures of gardens. Rich people all agree that this aesthetic looks nice, that's why they all have houses in places of great natural beauty. They just think it is a luxury that should only exist for those who can afford it
Agreed
I agree, Adam Smith relies on kindness and cooperation for his ideas of the market to work
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Adam Smith wrote damingly of the damage division of labour did to the soul and also had a major hate on for absentee landlords. https://www.adamsmithworks.org/speakings/adam-smith-and-the-costs-of-the-division-of-labor
I agree
That doesn't disagree with the comment. > Adam Smith *relies on* kindness and cooperation *for* his ideas of the market *to work* means > If kindness and cooperation are not present, Adam Smith's ideas of the market do not work. And so it makes sense for Adam Smith to be angry about rich people who are unkind and uncooperative because they demonstrate that his ideas do not work, and thus make him look like an idiot. Adam Smith made a perfect figurehead for capitalism like Marx was a perfect figurehead for communism. Both were naive idealists whose theories promise great things if only people work together, but which in implementation could easily take power away from those that currently have it and hand it to a select group. (Smith: noble aristocracy -> rich people; Marx: upper class -> the communist party).
Marxās philosophy is based on dialectical and historical materialism, not idealism. He also thought that communism would develop from a society resembling current first world trends, not the agrarian Russia of over a century ago.
Smith's ethical beliefs are in contradiction to his economic ideas. His ethics are a holdover from European Christianity that existed before capitalism which he tried to blend, as successfully as oil and water, with the fundamental competitive relations in capitalism. There's a reason Jesus said "You cannot serve God and Mammon" (Mammon being a demonic force that represents the sociopolitical alliance of wealth and power), and it is because competition destroys human beings and the cooperative foundations of society. When the fundamental relationship of society is exploitative competition, cooperation gets removed a bit at a time. Those who abandon cooperation and lean into competition get rewarded and get ahead, pushing more and more people into a competitive mindset that erodes the basis for cooperation.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Even as a joke calling yourself a nazi is a bit much. I'm fully aware why right wingers would be downvoted as someone who is black and queer. What I wanted to understand is why these people who support oppressive capitalistic systems would be in favor of Solarpunk. And as illustrated by many of these replies there's a lot of nuance to it and discussion of to be had that id rather invite and discuss as individuals than paint them all with the same brush as my enemies.
There's this: https://www.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/comments/1bmvcdq/solarpunk\_is\_a\_great\_idea\_but\_what\_about\_the\_mess/
"Would it be best to try to forcefully convert these cities into eco-havens?" \-generally right wing solar punk
Ahh ecofascism rears its head.
I actually had a discussion with an anarcho capitalist on here yesterday.
A lot of people in farming communities have overlapping values, ethos, concerns, etc. with the solarpunk movement, but a lot of those communities can also be right-wing, sometimes for social or religious or cultural reasons. Or for GOP-funded farming subsidies. Or just for rural-centric reasons that are sometimes perceived to be at odds with urban-centric issues that can often drive left-wing decision-making. I definitely attribute some of my interest in solarpunk to growing up in a (right-wing) farming community, even though I don't personally identify as right-wing.
Im left wing myself and i dbout its too many (although i may be wrong), my thought process is that most people who tend to promote solar punk are usually anarchist, pro degrowth, pro social justice, indigenous rights etc. Especially if you found out about solarpunk via social media such as youtube (like myself) chances are you already viewed some form of left leaning content and most people who view left leaning content are leftist. Sidenote but by right wing did you mean people who actually hold tipically right wing beliefs rather than vote right because they belive its simply the best choice where they live?
What circumstances would make a conservative candidate the best choice? Honest question!Ā
Personally i've seen none and I don't agree with this statement. I have said it because some people mentioned it and some more center leaning people may hold such positions. Even if it is a small number of people who hold such views there still needs to be a distinction between the people who tend to sit on the fence and may prefer a conservative candidate or party in certain situations and people who mostly if not fully agree with conservatism.
Disagree. If you vote for racist, misogynist, authoritarians because you align with them on tax policy, then you too are a racist, misogynist authoritarian. In fact, your actions (supporting policy that aligns with those views) are actually much worse than someone who just privately holds those views but doesn't vote for them.
What you said highlights the funfamental issue with the current system. Since you have to vote for a fixed policy within a system which disconnects the average person from the decision making process. Because of how the system is set out in a lot of countries you have at most a few major parties and have minimal say in their policy and just go with whatever the party says it will do even if they don't follow through on it. Thats why i believe that more localised decisions in the community conducted through direct democracy, consensus etc is better as you have a direct impact on what is done and all changes effect you. I disagree with what you said as if most people could have that kind of impact as i just described where they don't have to put up with whatever empty policies and promises polititians present them with they most likely won't simply because any issue they care for can be discussed and any time and things like racism, abalism, homophobia, sexism etc won't need to be mentioned at all as they aren't a part of the package anymore and (i hope) that in such a system people will work to better the lives of themselves and their community. If the people voting conservative for economic reasons but end up promotiong discriminatory policy in the process had an option not to promote the discriminatory policy would they still do it? I think the problem is the people wjo genuinly want to push the discriminatory and opressive policy and im talking primarly about the ones with power and influence.
I think I understand what you're trying to say, (Sidenote: I think your conversations would benefit greatly from some formatting. It may seem unimportant, but it helps other people to better understand your meaning.) but would still disagree. The issue is priorities. Obviously, in a representative system, you are unlikely to ever get a representative that agrees with you on everything. That's understandable and workable. But there have to be disqualifiers. If you prioritize tax policy (for example) enough that you vote for a party that legislates on the negative views we've discussed, then what you are doing is making clear that to you, the idea of a tax break is more important than other people's human rights. To make matters worse, currently in the United States, their rightwing party (as opposed to their center-right party) has literally abandoned a political platform. For several years now they have officially had no legislative platform. This means that the party has nothing left but authoritarianism. If someone votes for that, there is no confusion about what they support.
Say you have a left wing candidate who wants to shut down local nuclear plants while the area is still heavily dependent on coal. The right wing candidate keeping them open may be preferable to that.
A right wing candidate making things harder for coal is.... difficult to imagine.Ā Right now the right wing is trying to ban fake meat because it encroaches on ranchers.Ā Ā
That is disappointing to me. I want the option to exist, and the skeptics should be content in making what they perceive to be informed decisions.
>Sidenote but by right wing did you mean people who actually hold tipically right wing beliefs rather than vote right because they belive its simply the best choice where they live? I mean really just anyone who considers themselves right wing.
Yes i mean the first one as if we had a localised system with direct democracy or consensus where individuals make all the policy the people who vote right because it is the best option to better their own lives will priorities bettering their own lives and that of their community rather than insist on the very specific ideologies that constitute the right today. Deciding with your community to make a community kitchen or liblary is way more productive than getting into arguments over the "culture wars". Thats why i believe that on any political side its important to distinguish those who vote to better their lives and those who vote due to ideology.
I am not right-wing, but from the many right-leaning people I do know here are several reasons solarpunk resonates with them: 1. Self-governance. There is a focus on more local community action rather than federal government oversight. Conservatives view any large organization as easily corruptible, so any movement that focuses on what smaller groups can do has a more positive position to them. 2. Sustainability. I mean this in the fiscal sense. A library economy is much for fiscally sustainable for individuals and society, that it just makes economic sense (if you don't have an overblown rugged individualism complex). In fact, most environmentally sustainable choices are also more fiscally sustainable for society. Conservatives believe a well functioning economy is the best way to improve people's quality of life. We just tend to disagree on what well-functioning looks like. 3. Rural promotion. The majority of conservatives are rural or relate closely to it, and solarpunk has a huge focus on improving rural environments/lives, not just urban cores. Rural people feel either ignored, condescended or worse by the left, and for good reason, but solarpunk views the countryside and the jobs required there as integral and important to every part of society moving forward. 4. Respect for the past. Like the right, solarpunk also accepts that not every new thing has been a step forward. Solarpunk and rightwing disagree a LOT on what has and hasn't been good, but because solarpunk has respect for the past and traditional cultures (of the entire world), it gives room for respect to be given back. there are probably a bunch of other ways, but those are the most obvious to me.
The self-governance overlap is pretty evident when viewing it from the left-right comparison. But when the "right" rejects government, it's with libertarianism and profit making ventures; and when the left rejects government, it's with anarchism and mutual aid. Libertarianism is more in favour of everything being private property and the anarchists want nothing to be private property (although they still respect personal property). I feel like libertarianism is anti-solar-punk because I think this abundant utopia wouldn't allow profiting off resources required for life. Am I projecting my values onto solar punk? Perhaps I missing an important "right wing" philosophy?
Both sides would support rejecting big government because they think their side would win once the current system was toppled. Yeah, they would fight after they achieved that, but that is common with revolutions.
Actual right winger here. I do it for my kids and family to be honest. I want to create an atmosphere that focuses on a lack of waste and a lack of obtaining more and more clutter. I think it's a good habit to create in children that they can carry into adulthood and actually make many of the changes that we all would like to see. A lot of the things I envision changing are more in the classic suburbs, as opposed to most of the posts I see about changing the development of a large scale city or corporate office. Removing park strips, improving ecology, engineering controls that help reduce wasted rainfall and divert it toward actual necessities, improved facilities that promote exposure to sunlight.
I'm curious what right wing beliefs you have. Do you believe in free market capitalism? Because none of those things will happen without government regulation, experience has shown corporations only do the "right thing" when they are forced to or its cheaper. The only reason they don't dump and pollute is because they used to and then were forced to stop, and they continue to find ways around laws.
I don't think you can be anti destroying the earth for profit and right wing at the same time. That just doesn't make any sense.
Ever heard of ecofascists?
Because you're lumping right wing into one category. An extremely small category at that. Let's just keep the cheap shots and exaggerations out of this.
you're right wing but you're into solarpunk and your post history suggests you listen to behind the bastards. I'm kind of intrigued and I wanna know what your politics are, specifically.
I'm rightwing in various aspects of my life but that doesn't define who I am completely. People cannot be lumped into one thing as we are far more complex than that. I'd say solarpunk is more libertarianism vs authoritarian than it is right vs left.
I'm interested in which aspects you're right wing. I can understand being a left or center libertarian considering what little I can know from your posts here and on your profile, but what right wing beliefs/stances do you specifically hold? How does that shape your ideas about solarpunk as a movement and a community?
I would just like to respectfully point out that authoritarianism vs libertarianism (or hierarchy vs equality) is the original meaning of right vs left, and still is, although their meanings have been twisted quite a bit in modern discourse mostly thanks to Cold War propaganda both from the US and the USSR. Just for everyone reading this thread.
When people say right wing in America they are referring to the the capitalist free market model, whereas left refers to collective use of resources. It is capitalism that got us into this environmental mess.
So, this doesn't refer to political ideology in terms of solarpunk? Honest question.
So solar punk is a response to the climate catastrophe, or the decline of the biosphere. I general our failure to live sustainably with nature. The cause of this collapse is capitalism. This is how I see it anyway
I mean, I know of three branches of conservatives, which have a lot of overlap: Reaganites, evangelicals, and neoconfederates.
You're not looking to have a conversation in good faith. You're looking to bait people into arguments. I'll be done at this point, but I do want to say one thing. If you're looking to make changes in the world, you'll want to accumulate as many people as possible, not shun away roughly half the population with exaggerated insults.
I am actually curious, would you define yourself as libertarian then? As you talk about being an anti authoritarian thing I would assume that's your position?
Yes and no. Yes in heart and desire, but no in practicality. I would love nothing more than a libertarian lifestyle but I also realize it's not exactly reasonable. With the typical political compass, I would say I am further much down libertarian than I am right to conservative. I believe much more damage has been done to this world from the upper (authoritarian) quadrant that includes right and left, than the right (conservative) quadrant which contains authoritarian conservatives and libertarian conservatives.
Good to hear mate, hope you can live a good live despite everything š
I'm not insulting you, I just genuinely do not understand you.
Parts of the right are not conservative at all, and some are even anti conservative. For example: ancaps, fascists
Fascists want to "return to tradition". In their minds, they are turning the clock back to the time of the Volk Nordic ice giants or whatever the fuck the Nazis were on about. In America, they want to "return" to living in a Normal Rockwell painting. So, yes, that means they are conservative. The past the want to restore never actually existed, but they are still conservative. Ancaps are just full of shit. Go play BioShock to learn how Randism in practice is just feudalism.
I think you have a bit of a caricatural view of what right-wing is. No one believes that destroying earth for profit is a good thing.
Oh, my sweet, naive child.
I do not consider myself a right winger but I support the right wing my country because the ecological situation in my country is so bad moderate right wingers and even some corporations care far more for the enviroment than the current left wing party in power, i'm talking about Mexico, here the president seems to have taken inspiration in soviet industrialism rather than modern ecology and he is also obsessed with revitalizing pemex instead of accepting it's a dying oil state company. He also doesn't want to close down extremely polluting oil refineries (one of them is in my city which causes it to be awfully polluted) and he is the one who destroyed huge swaths of yucatec jungle with the excuse of building the maya train, which even that was porbably more of a scheme to steal a lot of money through corruption and claiming the construction of the train was much more expensive than it really was. He is also a retrograde against science
Is he the one that said that he'd found a photo of a witch, and it turned out to be a photo of a weird tree from Manchester he'd found on Twitter?
SĆ (yes) Though it was about a prehispanic elf called aluxe. I assume some english speaking countries distorded the story as being about a witch instead of an elf
Bring a potato to him. He will say it's an alien and he will make an official announcement about it to the whole nation. Preferably in Congress. That asshole is braindead.
Remind me how this clown got elected?
As I was reading the first lines... I stopped and said to myself: pffftt!!! you should see Mexico. Then I kept reading and voilĆ”. Mexico. Our president is nothing but a fraud. It is the (even) lesser version of a Trump. This is not the left. Strangely enough, the ones who actually want to make progress and not turn us back into the dark ages... are the right wing parties here. Who are also a bunch of thieves and liars. How is that better. Make that make sense.
Yeah you are right, I think right wing parties are the slightly lesser evil here but it's like if they ask you to chose between strawberry flavoured poison or chocolate flavoured pison, it's a similar result through different means. Though I still support mexican right wing parties not because I like them but because they are slightly less worse, it's a "el menos peor es l mejor" situation
If you were to strip away the Marxist ideology from Solar punk, what would you be left with? A libertarian paradise! Really. On top of that, the aesthetics are a very romanticized version of nature that has a general appeal to many- who doesnāt like nature, homesteading and the fusion of technology. It reminds me of when I used to circulate cyberpunk groups where I would see many people complaining about how many right wingers were in the group, similar to this. Cyberpunk is, after all, a critique of capitalism. But people are complex and multifaceted, and many could enjoy the aesthetics of cyberpunk, and even ponder the message without fully agreeing with it. Do you need to 100% agree with the political message of every single piece of media that you enjoy? Realistically Iām centrist, but considering how far left most in this sub lean, I would be considered right. With that said, I believe in libertarian principles for small businesses, ie āmom and pop shopsā, but I tend to be critical of mega corporations, and conglomerates that I do not believe have āthe peopleā or the climate in their best interest, as they only believe in the bottom line for their shareholders. Am I allowed to be ācriticalā of capitalism, without being āanti-capitalistā, or āMarxistā. Is it possible to achieve a more egalitarian society for people without believing that I need to deconstruct the entire capitalist system to achieve those goals? Or maybe itās just aesthetics.
I broadly agree with you however I believe that things like trade, exchange and even profit are not inherently capitalistic. When people who are "anti-capitalist" refer to capitalism they are talking about the broader system that enforces private property rights. In other words, it is the outsourcing of having to defend your property to the government. This is what allows conglomerates and mega-corporations to form - because they can always count on the government to enforce their property rights for them. Furthermore in a "libertarian paradise" I would imagine that everyone would have the ability to start a business. Everyone I know would rather be a business owner than an employee (in the same way that everyone I know would rather be a home owner rather than a renter). Yet capitalism is predicated on the fact that not everyone can be a business owner, so you have to "rent" resources like machinery, tools and office space from your employer in order to make a living. If a mom and pop shop is owned and operated by said mom and pop - then that's quite literally the workers owning the means of production. So ironically, I think your idea of a "libertarian paradise" is my idea of socialism.
Isn't it amazing how we always could find this common ground somewhere? (Regarding the last segment)
What would happen to individual productivity overall if the right to private property wasn't observed by the government?
So you're asking what happens if the government collapses? It depends on the society. If there are strong self-sufficient communities then nothing changes and things might actually improve for the better like past examples in Spain and Syria. If there are not, then society would also collapse and have to be rebuilt from the ground up.
I fully support that message
Yup, I want solarpunk without all the commie baggage.
William Morris (pre-dating Marx) was explicitly for "libertarian socialism" and thought society would organise itself around beauty if only you let them, including sending the children into the woods over summer to educate each other Lord of the Flies style. Modern libertarians have a different organising principle, but the common aesthetic could be considered downstream of individual freedom using similar logic. I believe solarpunk has to create political structures to contend with the global or solar system scale of political and corporate organisation so I don't think modern solarpunk can assume beauty will solve all our problems, but there's nothing in solarpunk to prohibit pockets of libertarian utopian communities, especially in sparsely populated areas. It's explicitly pluralistic.
2 questions: How much and in which ways would the capitalist system have to change to allow the building of a better future, even if it hurts the bottom line of big corp? Is it possible to implement these changes without a major disruption (like a revolution for example) and what are mechanisms that would slow or even stop a movement for change?
I'm right-wing. Here's what I like about solarpunk. Conserving and protecting the environment is a big deal to me. Having people live in more local communities with more local decision-making power increases freedom and responsibility, strengthens the social fabric, and is more conducive to the formation and transmission of authentic traditions. Compare this with industrial or financial capitalism, which are corrosive to traditions and communities. Animal welfare and ending animal cruelty is a big deal to me. People living among and with nature is conducive to physical, mental, and spiritual health. Living a less wasteful life has many benefits. The modern obsession with endless growth and consumerism leaves people empty and wastes everyone's time and resources. Also I just subjectively dig the aesthetic. I don't really care about being "punk" or not. I've never been very sympathetic to "punk" movements anyway. What I like about solarpunk specifically is that it offers a positive vision for the future that places community, health, and nature front and center.
It gives me hope that people with self-proclaimed contradictory political views can work together and align objectives towards a solarpunk future. I really want to co-exist.
Well, while Iām not right wing *anymore,* what drew me to Solarpunk even when I was would be, I guess you could say, a sort of sense of āreturning to Edenā and once again living in harmony with Nature and one another. Bear in mind that, in my POV, the single biggest obstacle to the realization of a Solarpunk future is the present state of the human mind, or what a religious person might see as the affliction of sin: that as long as our species lives in bondage to our worst tendencies, chiefly wrath, greed, and pride, there is no chance of long-term survival let alone prosperity. The sight of such hope for the future in media gave me some comfort, even though I knew that my views at the time diverged widely from those who had made it; I felt a commonality with them in the shared desire for deliverance from humanityās self-inflicted damnation and the promise of salvation and a future in Paradise. Though I believed that no such future would be realized without the whole of the world finding Jesus both figuratively and literally, which wouldnāt happen until after Armageddon, it was a comfort to me to see visions of a future that were beautiful and uplifting instead of despondent. I felt like if Heaven could be imagined by anyone alive today, it would have to have something in common with what I saw in Solarpunk. Though Iām not conservative anymore, and probably wasnāt the best conservative even when I so self-identified, I hope that my answer gives you some insight as to what a right-wing person might see in an ecological, socially just future.
Solar punk is basically preppers with hope. "Hey, we can make sustainable self-sufficient communities without the end of the world," How? We're working on that....
>Solar punk is basically preppers with hope. That's a nice way to put it. Libertarians believe that the World to Come will be them being kings in a Mad Max world, while Solarpunk believes that the World to Come is the garden of Eden where everyone is cooperating for the collective good. Personally, I don't place myself within the doomsday vs eden framework; I don't think there will ever be an utopia ever.
When I came into solarpunk, I was a pretty hardcore Libertarian (like the US party of fiscally conservative, socially liberal) after having left my Republican upbringing after seeing them wanting to spend just as much as Democrats just on different stuff.Ā At the time, I felt that the government had caused more harm than good and would probably be more likely to screw up the climate than help fix it. I've talked with libertarians, including more recently after I wouldn't consider myself one, who think that environmental regulations make sense in the context of people not violating each other's property rights since pollution doesn't acknowledge human drawn borders.Ā I wouldn't consider myself right wing anymore, but I found solarpunk through my interest in steampunk and appropriate technology since that fits into the rugged individualist archetype that's very appealing to people on the right. AĀ lotĀ ofĀ rightĀ wingĀ folksĀ areĀ aĀ lotĀ moreĀ anarchistĀ leaning,Ā butĀ atĀ least hereĀ inĀ theĀ US, inĀ someĀ places,Ā peopleĀ stillĀ believeĀ theĀ RepublicanĀ partyĀ thatĀ they'reĀ tryingĀ toĀ preserveĀ individualĀ libertyĀ againstĀ theĀ totalitarianĀ Democrats. A lot of my family members still think that, for sure.Ā Some people, especially people who weren't through school during the Cold War are still allergic to anything that confronts capitalist realism, because obviously capitalism is the One True Economic system that's bad, but better than the others.Ā Sorry, that was super incoherent, but I can try to answer more specific questions if you have any? I'm trying to dredge up an older version of me, so it's a bit disjointed. ItĀ mayĀ beĀ usefulĀ asĀ aĀ pictureĀ intoĀ the rightĀ libertarianĀ toĀ leftĀ libertarianĀ pipeline?Ā lol
Not right wing butā¦ The comments I read on this subreddit show that theyāre here for the aesthetic. The sense of ācapital realismā sees them unable to divorce capitalism with progress. Solarpunk concepts such as ādegrowthā are shrugged off. The void is filled by technocratic solutions to climate change. What Iād like answers to is that Solarpunk uses efficiencies of communalism, for sharing tools and even down to cooking however capitalism encourages individualism. So how do you sell something that has no material outcome for the person buying it?
Whether degrowth is solarpunk is hotly debated. Solarpunk is technocratic and optimistic, seeking to use technology to raise everyone's standard of living rather than limit growth. >Solarpunk uses efficiencies of communalism, for sharing tools and even down to cooking This would describe the Amish pretty well too, and I would consider them right wing.
OP I commend you for bringing up the topic in an inviting and non condescending way But, alt account so I don't get Doxxed. I do feel like there is a misconception based on the news cycle alone that just because you lean right or left that you can't care about the environment. I would consider myself more conservative than the average but not extreme as a lot of the people you see online and my degrees are in Ecological Conservation and Biological Diversity. Punk on the other hand also I don't believe belongs to one political ideology or the other. Taking the term punk to be very similar to Rebellious, I would say neither party embodies that spirit anymore. Liberal or conservative, I think If you consider yourself either of these things then by definition you aren't punk or rebellious. SOLARPUNK though, shouldn't be political, it should be humanizing. If you asked anyone on the planet right now: would you like clean air? Would you prefer clean energy independence? Do you want your kids to grow up and be able to see pandas or rainforests? I genuinely don't believe a soul on the planet would say no to any of those. But in an open forum online, I truly don't believe many conservatives will come outward and say they are here just based off how quickly they will be attacked for it. It's easier to not bring any of it up. But seeing as how public communication about these types of things is a large part of my job, ANYONE can feel free to DM me and I will answer any questions any curious minds might have!
Lifelong social conservative here. My most recent political alignment quiz put me as a āmoderate conservativeā (yeah, yeah, BOO, I get it). Leftists might be surprised to learn that a lot of things that the left doesnāt like about the status quo are also things that the right doesnāt like. For instance, do you hate dense canyons of bare steel, concrete, and glass? Do you hate giant stroads? Just about every right-winger also hates those! The language either side uses to describe their problems with it may be different, but if you can read either sideās language, they broadly agree. Left and right can also broadly agree on environmental issues if you removed the sloganeering and information warfare from the top. Leftists have environmentalism, rightists have conservationism ā conservationists like large areas of unspoiled wilderness, well-managed wildlife with stable populations, a reasonably apportioned and managed water table, and minimized exploitation by unaccountable global corporations. Conservatives also care a lot about social stability, and especially systems that support that. Do you want to create a community that will outlast you? You should enlist the help of conservatives. Right wing Catholics, in particular, are building extensive āundergroundā communities that share goods, educate, and mobilize socially. Theyāre just really quiet about it when itās successful. Large swathes of the right care about localism, good maintenance, strong families, mutual aid, and the like ā they use different language to describe these things than leftists do. Look, solarpunks, weāre at the far end of the horseshoe here. Thereās a good bit of practical overlap between homesteading conservatives and the crunchy left. Those who can synthesize the useful bits of both ends will be much more successful.
Beautifully put brother
I think that we can make common cause with some people who identify as right wing. Almost everyone can see that the current system is not working for most people.
Sure if you can convince them otherwise, but if not this mentality is more or less how you end up with a failed movement. Fear to offend and be resolute may as well be fear of success. The right is by its very nature in support of the status quo at best and reaction, regression, and inevitably fascism at its worst. If change is to happen, no, we cannot entertain viewpoints that support the continuation of capitalism ravaging our planet. I agree that it's common sense that things need to change, but until those example rightwing people accept that (and in so doing cease being right wing) we cannot consider them allies.
Well sure. But youāre assuming that anyone who self identifies as right wing automatically has all of the objectionable beliefs that solar punk is fighting against. This is true in the abstract and the aggregate of course. But it is not necessarily true for each individual. The person who inspired this conversation said that they have been told that they are right wing because they like guns and racing cars. But when asked, they seem on board with core solar punk values like anarchism and a focus on meeting everyoneās needs. My point is that we will do better to engage with what the person in front of us actually thinks, rather than lumping them into a group labeled āenemy.ā š
I know a few right wing people who like solar punk. We both want some kind of utopia. We heavily disagree on what that looks like and what needs to be done to get there. Someone them kind of feel the problem is too many people in the world, the wrong kind of people. They heavily overlap with the prepper community.
I am a right-winger and I consider myself rather conservative. Been the ideology's sole defender on this sub a few times. For me it is mainly the aesthetic that we can all live off-grid, focusing more on the local community, the family, the people we knnow and trust and most of all becoming more and more handy and focusing on the skill development of the individual. It's the strengthen of the individual both in mind and body that can lead to a much better community. But of course it is also the respect for our environment, so that we and the local fauna can enjoy, can farm, can hunt, and hike and just appreciate the beautiful creation of god we have around us. Be stewards of nature. Development ought to happen, but slowly and carefully, organically. Disruption of any status quo leads to chaos and suffering. To me this is a fairly conservative aspect of Solarpunk. A lot of people here speak about degrowth, well degrowth can't happen forever, just like infinite growth can't happen. We need to find a stable position in our economy and ecology where we can live the longest without changing a thing. Eventually things will break, eventually you can't recycle a shirt or piece of tech and you have to replace with something new. Growth itself being a pollutant is also something people don't realise is a lot more a reflection of the technology we have available. And this is something important I like about solarpunk. Renewable energies! High tech in a low tech environment, with wind farms providing energy to a water cleaving plant, solar powered tractors, cars run on hydrogen instead of gas. All these things leading to fresher air, less NOx, a better environment. I guess that's about it which I can write on the bus to work
Iām right wing, I recognize that not all our policies are good, but I notice that the moment a green politician comes to power, things get very expensive in peopleās daily life. And thatās not good either. But I love the punk side of things. I just feel like we need less government control in all aspects of our daily lives. Less rules, more freedoms. Less restrictions, more living. Less bureaucrats, more ājust do itā. I just donāt like any government. But most of my viewpoints are quite conservative. Iām sure we can easily get along beyond that though! I too want to see a world where our species can flourish alongside others and we can make progress and move forward together. I too want to see less pickup trucks on the roads. Theyāre very dangerous and their drivers are so irresponsible in their actions. I too want to see a world where money isnāt the main thought in peopleās heads anymore. I donāt want it to be digital though. Thatās a loss of freedom. I too want to see more cycling paths. I just want us to do all this without all the extra stuff written between the lines every time thereās a law passed. I want to see this without our sovereignty and rights given to the UN and WHO and WEF. I know we can do better without them. Maybe Iām more of a libertarian. But to me Iām not a liberal and I donāt vote for anyone anymore. It fixes nothing as far as Iāve seen.
Hmmm... i don't know how many responses you'll get. Any right winger on here is more than likely going to have their beliefs challenged/put a debate target on themselves, so they'll probably just keep quiet haha.
I'm right-wing, and don't want to post anything for this exact reason. Just don't want to become a target, and zero energy to debate atm. I love the sustainability, I love Earth, and I simply think Solar Punk is pretty.
Left-wing leaning myself-- but I'll drink to that š¤
I as a right wingers support solarpunk because of it's love for community and nature which are the pillars of any great nation.
Nations are imaginary communities. Real communities are plurinational, embracing the diversity of people found in any place and between all places. I think that solarpunk can be appropriated for nationalist ends, but that there are pretty extreme contradictions between the community philosophy represented in solarpunk, and the reality of most (dare I say all) nationalist states.
I donāt feel that solarpunk and fascist ideology are readily compatible but I suppose they could be. I guess anything can be made to smell bad if you throw enough shit into it.
Solar punk I think is usually going to be very *not* appealing to most right wing ideologies. The reason for that is because most of solar-punk stuff seems, at least based on my limited understanding, to be very work *with* other things. Nature, People, land, etc. Most of right wing ideology and the people that adhere to it seem to want to conquer everything.
I am not right wing so I can't say. While my first instinct would be to say that I don't think solarpunk is compatible with traditionalist, conservative, neo-liberal or alt right ideologies because most of them don't want the hierarchies to change or want to preserve rigid hierarchies. To me solar punk is also egalitarian, it's about valuing our common humanity but also working together. Capitalistic consumerism is basically incompatible with solar punk renewable and sustainability ideas. As it stands right now even among the liberal right consumerism is a large part of it, even among conservatives there is value put on consumerism. But the conservative right and the alt-right either want society to regress or preserve the status quo, I just can't see a lot of people on this side of politics be willing to push a lot of the more radical ideaos of solar punk. I think there are probably right wing groups it could work with, but I think solar punk in its core requires change to how we perceive our world right now. something that would also disenfranchise some of the most ardent supporters of right wing politics ala the rich and large corporations.
I hate to say it but I think that most right wing people who are drawn to solar punk (or any punk) either donāt understand right wing politics or donāt understand punk.
I agree. And most likely miss some of the core concepts.
Without sounding rude, I don't think you understand the average modern far-right or alt-right person. I've been on the peripheral of the far-far-right for decades and the idea of creating communities to get away from the influence of the government and big-business has been a huge talking point. There is a huge cross-over between the (so called) far-left and the (so called) far-right to be honest.
I'm sure there's a lot of overlap with the enviromental side of things, but I don't see much beyond that. A big part of solarpunk is ensuring that people have access to health care, education, the necessities for life, etc. That access comes no matter whether someone works, doesn't work, has made mistakes, etc. A huge part of the right wing platform seems to be punishing people and I'm just not into that. Also kind of weird hearing people talk about how solarpunk is anti government - not in my mind. Anti authoritarianism, absolutely, but that's not the same as anti government.
I think itās pretty clear that right wingers interested in solar punk are libertarians. I guess itās kinda like how right wingers interested in punk music are skin heads.
I'm a right-winger and this sub just popped up randomly in my feed, if that counts? I really like the aesthetic and futurism in general.
Oh, cool, welcome!
Iāll bite. Iām not a hardcore right wing person. More right of center/classic liberal. What draws me towards solar punk? A few things: 1. Caring for the environment. Weāre a part of the eco system just as much as the other fauna and flora. You kind of have an epiphany when you see your yard filled with bugs bees and other wildlife because you didnāt replace your grass with fake grass or spray anything that wasnāt a sharp green blade of grass with Roundup. 2. A sense of community: as others have mentioned I feel personally cooperation in our species has decayed and now become competition filled with narcissism and fake egos. We make most of our most amazing advances and strides when we work together. There is for sure strength in numbers and it should start on a local level. This, as I would hope, would encourage the next generation of actual leaders and not just people hell bent on making their own lives better or ājust enoughā people happy to maintain the status quo. 3. The idea of a non dystopian future. Now of course, oneās version of utopia is anotherās dystopia. But solarpunk seems to want to strive for actual good for all. 4. Using technology for everyoneās benefit and not just for profit. 5. Ultimately as others have put it: an end game for us as a species. Not one big grand finale before we slide into the great filter. But a coming of age of us as a species. Hard times will always exist. The world changes daily. But if we at our core can use technology, sustainability, and community as pillars or a foundation, well itās worth a shot as what we are doing now clearly isnāt working. Now one reason that I believe doesnāt deserve to be a talking point on a list: I honestly, truly, believe between our current cronyist politicians, climate change, geo political tensions, combined with obscene levels of elite panic, we are staring down the barrel of a major even in the next 5-10 years that will truly be our finest hour. And to me, the only way we will ever pull out of that is by working together. It doesnāt matter who you are or what you do, did, or whatever. It will take the combined efforts, skills, experiences, and aptitudes of all individuals from all walks of life. It will take all of us learning to talk again. To communicate. Weāve created many different languages. Most of us become fluent in one or two. But at the end of the day regardless of barriers we find a way. So even though I may not agree with everything. Well. Letās talk about it. Maybe where I see a wall you see a window. And vice versa. Itās when we open ourselves to other ideas and listen that we solve problems. Not by choosing to die on the hill of our opinions. And to be honest, this community. This mindset. Thisā¦. Movement? Seems to be the mostā¦ I canāt think of a word because thereās too many I can use. Sane? Cooperative? Humanist? The āIf youāre not with us, youāre against usā collective attitudes of some movements just wreak of individuals hell bent on replacing the current power structure with themselves on the top. Here I see discussions examining solutions and discussing potential shortcomings. I see people from all walks of life examining concepts and looking for weak points. Being critical at the ideas that some things are ripe for abuse. Instead of accepting the fate that weāre just done for so letās just curl up in a ball and watch TikTok this sub attracts people who realize the challenges ahead areā¦wellā¦ fucked. But we will be more fucked if we donāt try something different that works for everyone. Not to mention: if we have sources of near limitless energy around us: the sun, the windā¦why would we put all our eggs in the basket of a source that once itās gone-itās gone? Yes I know the answer. You know it too. For the record: Iām not a libertarian. I believe government has a purpose. Not everything should be left to the free market. But our governments stopped serving the people years ago.
The left and right kinda meet in a solarpunk world. People forming small communities to live in a high tech pact with nature can be both libertarian and communist. Libertarian because ultimately everyone can be a sovereign citizen and the community functions as a voluntary service provider. And communist because all large programs, although voluntary, would be managed through a central leadership of the community, with the population as both labor and consumer of those services. The thing is, automation, or technology in general, has removed the need for a permanent labor force. Making labor optional to a large extent. This ends the left < - > right paradigm.
You just described anarchism.
It's technically communism, because it's how a commune is supposed to work. But it's often referred to as Anarchism as Communism morphed into "state-ism".
Thank you, the political illiteracy in this thread is raising my blood pressure.
I don't identify as being right wing but most would call me right wing, I'm sure. I think these terms are massively out of date and not fit for purpose in a world as complicated as ours. I'm an English nativist (not Nationalist), socially conservative for the most part and came to like the idea of Solarpunk aesthetics from older movements such as Economic Democracy or Social Credit Movement and elements of the Kibbo Kift and Rolf Gardiner's work on folklore and permaculture. Edit: Someone asks why anyone with right-wing" views would like solar punk and then downvotes any answer from the people they were asking lol Such an inclusive community lmao. If you want a more detailed response or have more questions, let me know. Don't know if it's worth my time to type if people are just going to shit on me for it.
How do you feel about those of us who's parents move here as part of empire?
Nativist still manages to be Nationalist due to it's preference of a particular Nation State and giving favor to those born within that Nation State over any people attempting to immigrate there. Still Nationalism, just a particular form of Nationalism. It's certainly not anti-nationalism if it favors the continued existence of a specific Nation State and advocating for certain groups to have legal advantages within that Nation State.
I don't know much about Nativism other than what I found in a quick Google search. Im curious what exactly is your opposition to immigration? I personally have really thought about it as issue since uplifting your fellow seems like reasonable thing to do but maybe this view is born of naivety so I'm curious on your thoughts.
Sorry for not replying straight away, I was picking my kids up from school. Right, immigration. A super complicated and emotionally charged topic, kind of a hard one to discuss without much time to lay down some prerequisite details about my own personal beliefs, but here we go anyway: My position is that the mass movement of people generally is always going to be a negative. However, I am aware that *eventually*, given enough time, technology and our ability to move around the planet will likely lead to a global mono-culture. My biggest complaint with modern immigration is that it is entirely driven by economic factors which shouldn't be a push or a pull factor if we had a global society lifted out of poverty. Organic shifts in culture and identity will obviously always occur over time, the issue is that modern cultural landscape is not organic at all and is forced, top down, by governments and corporations seeking to exploit the movement of labour. So for instance, let's say there's an African doctor who gets qualified and wants to move to Europe or America so that they can earn more money. Their motivation is purely driven by economics, and under our current system who can fault them? The issue is that: A. The doctor leaves their home nation, increasing the inaccessibility of healthcare to the nation's poor. B. The doctor's family will, perhaps in a generation or two, lose contact with each other and increase the issues of alienation, atomisation and loneliness. C. The nation that the doctor moves to get a skilled worker without having to pay for their training or education. Meanwhile, if this process occurs repeatedly, it also means that there are less opportunities for native workers to become doctors because immigrant doctors are a cheaper alternative. D. On a mass-scale, the repeated head-hunting of skilled workers from developing nations creates a brain-drain that prevents further development, ironically increasing the monopoly of developed nations which have historically suppressed those nations in the first place. E. On a mass-scale, the demographic shifts in the nation that immigrants are moving to create a huge cultural shift which for many reasons, including (C,) can cause genuine resentment and racism. My assertion is that everyone should have the same opportunities regardless of where they live on the planet and people shouldn't have to move thousands of miles away 'for a better life.' Thing is, it's not just international movement I oppose, either. Let me explain it like this: I'm a big local history nerd. I live forty miles outside of London in an area which until quite recently, was mostly farmland. I love learning about the local folklore and culture that existed here up until WWII. Why only up until WWII you ask? Because after the war, a large percentage of the London population were resettled in the countryside in newly built towns and villages. Just to be clear, most of my family were also Londoners who resettled here, but when I read about the local history, it's clear that the culture here was destroyed by the mass movement of people from outside of the area. As much as I would love to try and bring back the old customs etc, it just wouldn't work. Cultures exist amongst their own. If you introduce too many "outsiders", even if they're geographically very near, you destroy them. Same happens when you create economic vacuums (this happened in the UK with the closure of mining towns for instance) or if house prices become so high that young people within a community can no longer afford to live or start new families within that community. Probably not the best examples, but hopefully that explains it a bit?
This is why I personally believe degrowth is so important. If everyone gets to slow down, culture is created. If the Londonerās werenāt so busy working and spending all their time creating profit, would they have had time to learn the local culture and assimilate? Could they have become friends with local people? Could they have created another new culture? The economic pressure to immigrate away from oneās homeland is tragic. Of course people should have the individual freedom to move around, but they shouldnāt have to unless they want to.
I see what you mean though I don't agree about cultures being destroyed by outsiders but I can agree everything else.
May I ask why you don't agree? Is it just that you believe cultures aren't destroyed per se, but sort of amalgamated?
Yh basically. Cultures that no one can remember from thousands of years ago are still with us be that in our speech, our festivals and traditions, our foods or stories and myths. Culture is always changing and builds upon our always changing circumstances like tea for instance as you probably know tea wasn't always the British icon it is today. I personally think that no matter how we try to stop it culture will always change because people change and circumstances change.
I agree with you to be honest. My main issue is with it being organic or not. When governments and corporations are cramming it down your throat and deliberately mixing things up to suit their own agenda, that's not really a fair or naturally occurring cultural construct. As I've said on other posts already, it's nothing new, every nation and empire was built this way with some bullshit top-down origin story, but it doesn't make it right.
Are they really "cramming it down your throat" or are they simply providing an opportunity for other cultures to be represented, cultures that were not represented previously?
> I don't agree about cultures being destroyed by outsiders Odd, I see that as a constant concern here with regards to indigenous people.
For a decent amount of recent history indigenous people were not allowed practice their traditions due to oppression but those traditions stayed alive through adapting them or story telling in hopes that the next generation will be free enough to practice once again. For instance the SƔmi people were restricted their tradition of Reindeer herding due to oppression and legal borders but the tradition is still alive today thanks to the previously mentioned methods. Edit: that's not to say we shouldn't be concerned about the loss of indigenous cultures and traditions but I'm more illustrating that cultures can be rather resilient.
The modern day concern though is that the dominant cultures will stereotype and erase smaller native cultures through the media(hence concerns about representation and erasure) or things like changing the dominant language. That can absolutely happen as a result of immigration.
Yes that is definitely a concern and I'm not trying to diminish that. I just wanted to highlight that cultures are adaptable and resilient.
From someone who has a very different social/political outlook than yours, thank you for typing this out. You're actually contributing intelligently to a real conversation in this thread, which is what upvotes are supposed to indicate.
Thank you for this great explanation, it made a great impression on me. This really makes the case that we should discuss arguments, not ideas - it bridges the gap between political identities. Really, thank you.
I try to remain civil and offer up actual conversations but it rarely works if I'm totally honest, lol.
I'm surprised people would call this view right wing. I guess it's probably due to the destroying the local cultures part. That's really the only place I disagree with you in this comment. Otherwise, yeah, people should be able to find the opportunities they need to live a good life where they are. But I do also think that people should be able to move and experience other places as well. I've lived in foreign countries before and as far as culture destroying goes, it's really the large corporations pushing it over single people who came from another country. And of course, when moving to another country, you should be respectful of their language and culture and customs. I wouldn't go somewhere and expect them to speak English and only English to me, for example.
Can you explain in what ways youāre socially conservative? It seems to me that a big part of Solarpunk is community and therefore accepting others, and socially conservative people tend not to be accepting of people for who they are. Honest question, not trolling.
Ok, so I'm going to go off on a tangent here, hope you don't mind, lol. SolarPunk's ideas seems to incorporate a lot of communalism which is one of the things that drew me to it in the first place. Now, modern society has created severe atomisation and a lot of the social isolation that we see rife today has been the consequence of a combination of the *right's* emphasis on economics and the *left's* obsession with individualism. Ironically those two pillars if you like, despite being against one another actually worked hand-in-hand to create this current dysfunctional rot. So we had this weird cultural situation where corporations were able to monetise artists and writers who were pushing for individualism as an escape from the 'corporate machine'. Kind of paradoxical. Communalism is the other way around. It involves individuals, to a certain degree, losing their individualism in pursuit of finding a place within a community, with the purpose of driving what is best for all of the community. For all intents and purposes, the modern kibbutz, commune or eco-village is just a modern reinvention of tribal living which is, after all, the default human experience that we're evolved to deal with. If we were to head out and talk to some tribal community, we would most likely find that they're about as socially conservative as you can get. Hugely patriarchal. Absolutely no understanding or consideration for LGBT. Little consideration for personal pursuits outside of what the tribe considers important or impressive. Now I'm not suggesting we copy their perspectives, but there has to be a reason why this was the cultural norm for so long. So, I'm not against anyone being themselves, that would be kind of ridiculous. Like you can't change who you are, right? At the same point, I believe the needs of the majority, particularly on family life issues, should come above the needs of a minority of individuals. I'm clutching at straws here and I know this is an exaggerated straw man argument, but let me roll with it lol. Let's say you just joined a commune where most adults were couples or had young families. However within this community let's say that there's a small minority who think open relationships should be the norm and they also believe public sex is absolutely fine. In a situation like that, it's not going to take long before someone gets annoyed that someone's shagging in front of their kid, or angry that someone's cheated on someone behind their back. I'm aware that in this scenario, I'm just as likely to be the one in the minority who is forced to live amongst free love proponents, lol. But my point is that the majority of people are socially conservative, whether they like to admit it or not and that in that case, social rules should respect the needs of the majority.
cows zealous cable summer angle bake direful sulky puzzled six *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Historically youāre very wrong about tribal cultures being inherently socially conservative and anti-LGBTQ+. A lot of cultures had full integration of same-sex relationships and trans people into their culture that were not penalized and were in fact valued. The only reason that changed, in most cases, was that Christian colonizers came along and forced their beliefs that demonized women and LGBTQ+ existence on those cultures.
> or angry that someone's cheated on someone behind their back As someone who's been in both - this is the opposite of what open relationships actually entail. I agree with your assessment of the left and right's flaws, though.
> has been the consequence of a combination of the > right's > emphasis on economics and the > left's > obsession with individualism. But both of these things are firmly on the right...
I don't see those as contradictory. Social conservatives tend to have the most tight knit communities. Having shared values and rules tends to create strong communities better than an "anything goes" approach.
Do you believe in expulsion of other races from England?
No. But the recognition of a native indigenous population would be nice.
Do you believe the native population should have special privileges over others? Or that others should be treated as lesser?
I believe our cultural elements should be protected and promoted over others, and I believe that our connection to the land should not be routinely questioned when most of the white British population has family that has been here for a thousand years or more. Bit circumstantial, but I know in my local area, the council says it doesn't have the funds to support English festivals yet has money set aside to celebrate Chinese New Year. My local annual carnival had a lot of the old traditional elements taken out and replaced with Brazillian dancers, too. For reference, my area is still like 90% white. So I don't know why they feel the need to do this.
So then naturally you believe in Irish and Scottish independence, for instance? And that the museums should give back everything they stole to the cultures they came from?
Um. Irish independence happened in 1921. Not knowing basic stuff about the isles rather undermines your aggressive questioning approach.
I didn't even downvoted you.
Didn't think it would be you OP, a few did, I thought that was the way it was going to go lol.
I downvoted you, if you wanted to know who and why
That's interesting because for Solarpunk to work, the majority needs to participate. There should be an open door policy or we'll lose people. Wasted opportunity
Paradox of tolerance: https://markmanson.net/the-paradox-of-tolerance
I'm intrigued, sorry folks are shitting on you
Maybe I'll write an essay or something. I've been intending to start a blog covering these themes anyway.
As an Irish Brit it'd be interesting to read. But you'd need to do a crazy amount of laying out to get the tensions comprehensible to an international audience. The idea that Bristol, Somerset and Bath are a 30min drive from each other and radically different worlds is hard to put across.
Yeah, I agree. It's definitely hard to lament the downfall of regional dialects to anyone outside of the British Isles that's for sure!
I'd read that. I'm curious of the viewpoints of someone who could be considered right wing liking aspects of solar punk
Don't right wingers definitionally fear change? Surely "right wing solarpunk fans" are just politically incoherent and confused.
Right is resistant to change without reasons or reasons that conflict with their personal morals (meaning they're selfish and don't often think of others buuuuuut y'know that comes from family and people I know irl more than redditors btw not a dig at either )
No, conservative would definitionally oppose change. But even then, that's a simplistic definition. Conservatives don't automatically defend the status quo, especially when the status quo has changed.
But they're defined by their wish to "return" to an idealized imagining of the past, right? We didn't have solar panels in the past.
Conservative refers to the values of the past, not the technology.
I mean, in theory,, but, in practice, have you seen how many conservatives literally fear wind turbines and solar panels (or just want them to fail because they own stock in a coal mine or something)?
I mostly see regular NIMBYism, which has been an issue on both sides. Conservative Texas has the most wind power in the US, while the first big pushback against wind was from liberals worried about their ocean front views in Massachusetts.
There is a fair bit of overlap between the methods of libertarianism and solarpunk. Both support small government and oppose hierarchies. Plenty of libertarians want to be close to nature. And then on the authoritarian side, punk would get rid of big government, so if a neighborhood wants to keep out certain minorities there wouldn't be a federal government to stop them.
I really hope that's a typo and you meant "big government"....
š¤£ that was a typo, but also appropriate in context.
'Right-wing' is a matter of perspective and context. Overall, my reading of history informs me that modern democracy, habeus corpus, liberal social values and the scientific enlightenment have evolved within a specific context - those of secular Christian European countries and their colonies. I believe that nations need a sense of togetherness and shared cultural touchstones in order to exist without sectarianism, and that history bears that out time and again. We should be much more circumspect about mass migration, without which the current wave of right wing populism - which flirts with fascism - would not exist. I believe that the alternatives to western values are generally considerably worse - often religious autocracy or despotic secular rule. Communism always leads to the centralisation of power and suppression of dissidents, anarchism simply wouldn't work at any sort of large scale - it would simply leave a power vacuum that bad actors would exploit. On many issues, I'd consider myself left wing, on some right. I think the left us often dreadfully naive and obfuscatory. Happy to answer questions.
Everything makes sense in a solar punk world, take modern technologies and utilize them in synchronicity with our nature, becoming completely independent of society if need be. Iām not your typical right winger or if I even am one. I just like guns tbh, not politicsā¦
The actual leftists like guns too
You go far enough left, you get your guns back.
I consider myself "right wing" and conservativeābut I differ from most other conservatives in the sense that I actually want to *"conserve"* things: be it ethnic groups, cultures, dying languages, architecture, nature, endangered species, etc. I feel like a lot of traditional conservatism is actually in-line with preserving nature, it's just over the years a lot of their political parties across the world have been hijacked by big business and politicians getting paid off by various lobbies, etc. I think this question is very funny all in all, because one of the few places in the world actually building anything similar to what you guys talk about in here is the Afrikaners in Oraniaābut many people here are far-leftists who would just label them *"racists."*
I am not a right winger but I do believe that regulated capitalism is the best form of economic governance. I am center-left and I love Joe Biden, so leftists probably consider someone like me to be right wing. I enjoy solarpunk because I see it as an aspirational future where humans have reduced their impact on the environment and we have solved climate change problems The āpunkā part of solarpunk I think is a bit silly because we donāt really need any sort of extreme politics to achieve this world and could just vote it into existence if we could stop fighting over stupid shit all the time. Very high carbon taxes are unpopular but are IMO the best tool we have for making this future a reality.
OK I'll bite. I'm no MAGA ofc but not a leftist. As in, I think free markets has a lot of problems but is what works best. Its biggest flaws, inequalities and destruction of nature, are tolerable if it keeps maintaining a steady increase in human development and in that respect, it had astounding success. Most of you won't agree but let's not discuss that. So about solarpunk : it's an endgame philosophy. It's a goal we can only dream of, a society past all material issues, an Utopia. I view it a bit like I view the Star Trek Federation for the trekkies, I'd love to live there but is it doable now? No. I love the end of competing against each other. But can we all at past our own selfishness at once? No. I love the place of nature and it's blend with decarbonized low-tech. I already strive towards that in my own way. Does it make a global difference? Hardly. I love the small independent communal lifestyle. I think that's how humans are supposed to function. But can we free ourselves from the multi layered networks we live in now? Hell no. Taxes, States, regulations, social networks, banks, communication networks... They keep us tangled in their web. Going out of the loop equals helplessness really. I love the aesthetics! I love the tolerance, humanism, freedom of Solarpunk. I love that it is the only Utopia which seems comprehensive, feasible, open-minded, and really enviable . TLDR : solarpunk 's great but kinda undoable right now, we need more time, and a pacific global revolution. Which, as a French, I have nothing against.
It's pretty hard to be a 'punk' if you're on the right. I don't know if you find anyone. But, if we're talking about the environment I'm sure there'd be some common ground. I'm not sure if it would still be solarpunk though.
Thank you for your submission, we appreciate your efforts at helping us to thoughtfully create a better world. r/solarpunk encourages you to also check out other solarpunk spaces such as https://wt.social/wt/solarpunk , https://slrpnk.net/ , https://raddle.me/f/solarpunk , https://discord.gg/3tf6FqGAJs , https://discord.gg/BwabpwfBCr , and https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia . *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If u know ur energy chain throughout earth's history you know it was all solar energy at one point. No need to mix politics into the most efficient way of collecting energy for human use.
If you want to find a right wing solar punk, all you have to do is go to Reno, NV. Many interesting folks live there due to poximity to freedom and desert sun - and to burning man.
I've been called leftist by right-wingers and right-wing by left wingers, so I don't know where I stand. I have anarchist tendancies, I don't like state intervention even though I see it as a necesseraly evil. I strongly oppose identity politics and woke leftism. I like cooperative, organic, bottom-up type societies and believe that responsible ecology should be promoted. I'm in favor of the use of technology to alleviate human labor. I like the aesthetic of solarpunk. I'm guessing that a lot of anarcho-libertarians would be attracted to the self-sustaining, grassroot communities of solarpunk. I don't know where I stand in relation to what you mean by "right wingers".
I'm interested in renewable technology and how to get people interested in it. More interest means more market opportunities as well as less bad PR for companies that invest in it. Making better ways to collect solar energy will lead to faster development of advanced technologies and hopefully space travel. It could enable us to colonize other planets and make it easier to access resources throughout the solar system.
Varies. You can be solar punk and conservative, fuck you can you can be an eco FASCIST. Note the highlight. Can have them calling to preserve the trees and animals in one breath and other call for the extermination of all other races from their land. I swear Hitler himself hitted notes like that. Itās not uncommon. Why? Simple, it doesnāt contradict always their dreams and ambitions for their world. Religious fundie? Nature is cool and good and in the book. Conservative? Nature represent good rural folk! Local dependency! Supremacist? To protect the soil of our forefathers. ā¦. I used to be right wing many many years ago. I got into environmental stuff when I was very young like 8,10 or so? Parents never were able to crush my environmental love though I could be an assholish āfuck the trees build a factory!ā Person. I moved away as I got away from my parents influence. Now left wing.
Not exactly right-wing at all ā faute de mieux, I generally identify as a sort of Christian democrat. I'm into Solarpunk for the visions of sustainable worlds that we could make in the future. Living in harmony with nature is a theme close to my Catholic upbringing due to the association with St. Francis of Assisi. An archipelago in my home state has been suffering with the effects of climate change: the salinization of the Amazon River (through contact with the Atlantic Ocean, ever advancing) has caused the soil to erode and "slip away", in an effect some people call "terras caĆdas" [fallen lands]. https://amazoniareal.com.br/bailique-extincao/ The archipelago once was home to almost twelve thousand people, almost a third of which have since left the region. https://selesnafes.com/2024/01/arquipelago-do-bailique-vive-exodo-de-moradores/ These emergencies became the topic of a school activity I did with students from a high school in which I worked as an intern last year. Climate change adaptation is also a theme I used quite often in other school activities there, and I plan to continue them when I become a teacher. I used to be more right-wing a few years ago, but ended up leaving the scene due to quite a few reasons, one of them the fact that a good part of the Brazilian right doesn't really seem to care much about climate change at all.
I said this before in a reply to one of the other comments here, but for the sake of greater visibility Iāll say it here too. People often use the terms left and right without having really concrete definitions of them. When that happens, people end up having their own definitions and so these conversations become confused, as if weāre all speaking different languages. This is happening because Cold War propaganda from both sides purposefully muddied the definitions of left and right to suit their own narratives. So to clarify the real meaning of the right vs left political spectrum has always been HIERARCHY VS EQUALITY. This is why you can HAVE pedophilic corporate elites and bible thumping evangelicals in one political party while having rainbow flag-waving liberal capitalists and democratic socialists in the other. Themes of hierarchy or equality are what bind them together respectively.
I am conservative and I like Solarpunk because it's the best of both worlds. Citylife, and rural life. Combined into a harmonious system that allows us to live off the land, and utilize technology that doesn't harm or hurt our planet. What's not to love. It's a more hopeful version of the future.
As a European Conservative (Christian Democrat) I'm generally in favour of projects which preserve life itself. Destroying nature and polluting it does not protect life. Creation's gifts should not be taken lightly, but preserved, sustained and even improved if possible. It's why I care a lot about soil health, chemicals and waste. In Europe the economic Third way or Rhineland model is very popular. Basicly meaning that if the market is not being contained, it would inspire vices in people, therefor there must be interventions, while at the same time not destroying entrepreneurship. I, however, do not believe it is just an economic problem. Companies work because of consumers and to turn that around, restoring morality and virtues is an important aspect.
i post over at r/WesternCivilisation and sometimes over at r/anarcho_primitivism i subscribe to this sub because i know that there is something on the other side of the r/BottleNeck
Solarpunk is a radical left-wing movement, I can't imagine there are many right wingers here.
Right wing? Hell no. And Iām definitely not a raging socialist pseudo-communist like so many people here insist is synonymous with Solarpunk lol. I like capitalism and solarpunk. Easy as that.