> Getting from here to there would require a pretty dark scenario
> Another element of my Conservative Futurism is (entrepreneurial/innovation-driven market) capitalism.
> But solarpunk is more than just a pretty aesthetic (and more than just excessive optimism about renewable energy). And that’s not just my opinion, as illustrated by a 2021 piece in Verge/Motherboard “Solarpunk Is Not About Pretty Aesthetics. It's About the End of Capitalism”
> At its core, and despite its appropriation, Solarpunk imagines an end to the global capitalist system
You make that sound like a bad thing. †
Capitalism should be a tool, a means to an end, not an end unto itself.
But far too many folks treat capitalism as a religion rather than an economic system.
As left-wing pinko-commie socialist Pat Buchanan †† said (November 18, 1998):
• "I am an economic nationalist. To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people. I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harness to work for man -- and not the other way around."
† This is not to deny that some proponents of solarpunk, environmentalism, or the end of capitalism don't have nefarious motives. But that doesn't discount the ideas themselves.
†† For you younger folks, that's sarcasm. Pat Buchanan worked as a speech writer for President Richard Nixon, and communications director for President Ronald Reagan.
This seems to be more of a critique of Ministry for the Future specifically than it is of Solarpunk in general? The title doesn't seem to match the essay.
Well, I think it's fair to say that if most of the leading proponents of Solarpunk seem to include 'end capitalism' in their vision, then maybe their real goal all along was "end capitalism," and "switch to greener energy and grow more vegetables locally" were just nice bonuses. Deep resentment of modern industrial capitalism dates back to shortly after the beginning of modern industrial capitalism in the 19th century, whereas environmentalism doesn't really get going until after WWII. If it looks like a commie, and marches like a commie, and quacks like a commie, maybe it's just a commie.
I guess I’ve been too busy building new solar to have even heard of Solarpunk. And anyone who thinks that solar is anti-capitalistic or can be free of capitalism has never, I must assume, actually had to finance and build a large solar project.
Market-oriented democracy is humanity’s best hope for long-term progress and better living standards. Enough of the utopian wishcasting; the truth is that Utopianism kills when the utopians start to understand that their project conflicts with human nature.
Well why would an end to capitalism be so bad in the first place? Capitalism, while being the most dominant economic system, is far from the best. You say that it would require a “dark scenario” but I really don’t understand how socialism itself is “dark”. I understand that I am biased as I am a democratic socialist, but I still don’t understand the logic. Thank you for reading.
I honestly see nothing dark about it. I think the fiction book described is even too dreamy and soft. It obviously wouldn't work that way. It would (will) be a much longer struggle, with national and international fronts in various nations simultaniously. There will unfortunately be very bloody, for the burgeoisie won't give up power without massacering thousands. But it will be worth it and it will be glorious.
I just don't see it as "dark" because it can't be possibly darker than what we live today and are headed to under capitalism. The liberation struggle will be an awe.
This is a great piece, thanks James. But I will quibble on one thing. There is such a thing as nuclearpunk, though it is called Atompunk, and it derives from the Raygun Gothic and Googie aesthetics that prevailed after World War II. Enough time has passed that we can consider Atompunk to be a retrofuturist aesthetic, not so much a vision of the future as much as what people in the past envisioned for the future.
“A society where people...are prioritized over the individual.” I think I know what that Mr. Robinson has on mind, but it seems like there’s a contradiction in the phrasing there.
This is why I prefer "Post-Cyberpunk" as an alternative. According to TV Tropes:
"Where Cyberpunk is anti-corporate and anti-government, Post-Cyberpunk is willing to give both parties redeeming features. Where Cyberpunk portrays the future as a Crapsack World, Post-Cyberpunk posits society will probably be about the same, just with cooler gadgets and Crapsaccharine World aspects. Where Cyberpunk is futuristic, forward-thinking and on the cutting edge of technology... so is Post-Cyberpunk."
> Getting from here to there would require a pretty dark scenario
> Another element of my Conservative Futurism is (entrepreneurial/innovation-driven market) capitalism.
> But solarpunk is more than just a pretty aesthetic (and more than just excessive optimism about renewable energy). And that’s not just my opinion, as illustrated by a 2021 piece in Verge/Motherboard “Solarpunk Is Not About Pretty Aesthetics. It's About the End of Capitalism”
> At its core, and despite its appropriation, Solarpunk imagines an end to the global capitalist system
You make that sound like a bad thing. †
Capitalism should be a tool, a means to an end, not an end unto itself.
But far too many folks treat capitalism as a religion rather than an economic system.
As left-wing pinko-commie socialist Pat Buchanan †† said (November 18, 1998):
• "I am an economic nationalist. To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people. I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harness to work for man -- and not the other way around."
† This is not to deny that some proponents of solarpunk, environmentalism, or the end of capitalism don't have nefarious motives. But that doesn't discount the ideas themselves.
†† For you younger folks, that's sarcasm. Pat Buchanan worked as a speech writer for President Richard Nixon, and communications director for President Ronald Reagan.
This seems to be more of a critique of Ministry for the Future specifically than it is of Solarpunk in general? The title doesn't seem to match the essay.
Many solar punk concepts are essentially fleshed out in the book
Well, I think it's fair to say that if most of the leading proponents of Solarpunk seem to include 'end capitalism' in their vision, then maybe their real goal all along was "end capitalism," and "switch to greener energy and grow more vegetables locally" were just nice bonuses. Deep resentment of modern industrial capitalism dates back to shortly after the beginning of modern industrial capitalism in the 19th century, whereas environmentalism doesn't really get going until after WWII. If it looks like a commie, and marches like a commie, and quacks like a commie, maybe it's just a commie.
I guess I’ve been too busy building new solar to have even heard of Solarpunk. And anyone who thinks that solar is anti-capitalistic or can be free of capitalism has never, I must assume, actually had to finance and build a large solar project.
Market-oriented democracy is humanity’s best hope for long-term progress and better living standards. Enough of the utopian wishcasting; the truth is that Utopianism kills when the utopians start to understand that their project conflicts with human nature.
Well why would an end to capitalism be so bad in the first place? Capitalism, while being the most dominant economic system, is far from the best. You say that it would require a “dark scenario” but I really don’t understand how socialism itself is “dark”. I understand that I am biased as I am a democratic socialist, but I still don’t understand the logic. Thank you for reading.
I honestly see nothing dark about it. I think the fiction book described is even too dreamy and soft. It obviously wouldn't work that way. It would (will) be a much longer struggle, with national and international fronts in various nations simultaniously. There will unfortunately be very bloody, for the burgeoisie won't give up power without massacering thousands. But it will be worth it and it will be glorious.
I just don't see it as "dark" because it can't be possibly darker than what we live today and are headed to under capitalism. The liberation struggle will be an awe.
This is a great piece, thanks James. But I will quibble on one thing. There is such a thing as nuclearpunk, though it is called Atompunk, and it derives from the Raygun Gothic and Googie aesthetics that prevailed after World War II. Enough time has passed that we can consider Atompunk to be a retrofuturist aesthetic, not so much a vision of the future as much as what people in the past envisioned for the future.
https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Atompunk
“A society where people...are prioritized over the individual.” I think I know what that Mr. Robinson has on mind, but it seems like there’s a contradiction in the phrasing there.
This is why I prefer "Post-Cyberpunk" as an alternative. According to TV Tropes:
"Where Cyberpunk is anti-corporate and anti-government, Post-Cyberpunk is willing to give both parties redeeming features. Where Cyberpunk portrays the future as a Crapsack World, Post-Cyberpunk posits society will probably be about the same, just with cooler gadgets and Crapsaccharine World aspects. Where Cyberpunk is futuristic, forward-thinking and on the cutting edge of technology... so is Post-Cyberpunk."
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PostCyberpunk