My post was essentially a knee-jerk response to a blog I read. It’s not really all that important, I just thought it would make for a entertaining post. And it was.

Techy without nature? I don’t know where you’re going with this.

What kind of society would you like?

Oh jeez, I’m not going to try and tackle that question right now, but I will say I’d like a much fairer one where people are taken care of.

I wonder what you think of art deco such as the Chrysler building.

I love Art Deco! The Chrysler building is beautiful, but I don’t think the world needs skyscrapers.

I can’t think of much I’d rather not do than live on a farm. I’m from the Midwest (Indiana) and it is a backwards, intolerant place full of backwards, intolerant people. They have tech and they still suck. I also hate gardening so that’s also in my bottom 10. The ideals of solarpunk sound nice, but I don’t know how well that would play out in reality. I probably wouldn’t like it.

Yeah, thanks for clearing that up. I think I just got a bad impression from some posts I read and terms I may have misconstrued.

I think something about the style of writing or terms I’m not familiar with. Some of what I read on social media was off-putting, but it’s likely I misunderstood.

Thanks for the clarification!

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe it’s the way stuff is written that has given me a bad impression.

Because not everyone thinks the same way. I can appreciate the basic concept of solarpunk and would love to be able to say I’m all into it, but there are some important questions I personally need resolved. If I didn’t ask, I wouldn’t know. They may not be questions you have, however that doesn’t mean they’re not valid.

Yes, I’m picking up that “rugged individualist” energy. I did admit, I could be wrong. I guess I’m just looking for some sort of assurance that isn’t the case.

I didn’t write that. I wrote, “subsistence farming”.

Not at all. It was as much a challenge as a question. I suspect some push back, I was just hoping I’d learn something useful. What I’m picking up is that it’s not a fully formed set of ideals agreed upon by everyone. Which I suppose I shouldn’t expect among leftists anyway lol. Thanks for the response.

That wasn’t my intention and the quote is out of context (you left out “sounds like”) but if you want to be insulted, that’s your perogative .

That was helpful. I’m not convinced but it cleared up your personal ideas. I guess I see dangers that parallel mistakes made in the past by revolutionary governments. Things need to change but I have serious concerns. As much as I’d like to believe in a solarpunk future, what I’m reading doesn’t instill much confidence.

I’m not negative, I’m skeptical. Also, where did I insult you?

Ok but you do see the problem with subsistence farming, no? Because at the end of the day, that’s what it is. If there is no movement of food to where it’s needed, and communities are insular, one bad harvest and people starve to death. You say you aren’t anti-technology, but what I’m seeing is anti-tech.

Because what I see is knee-jerk reaction to tech and as you said, "self-reliance"which sounds like a cross between American exceptionalist frontier nonsense mixed with feudalism. It also parallels the anti-globalist wingnut paranoia. If that is supposed to be sustainability, no thanks. And no, I’m not an anarchist, I’m a socialist. Your ideals don’t have a monopoly on a more sustainable future. It’s like libertarians saying, “why do you hate freedom”.

deleted by creator

A dictatorship is bad whether it carries a hammer and sickle or a wad of $100 bills

Because they are. They are all very bad at social justice, probably because no matter the best intentions, humans are going to fuck it up. China isn’t even communist, it’s capitalist through and through. They have lousy worker protections, banks, housing markets, stock markets. The USSR was as expansionist and militaristic as any fascist regime, just like the current Russian one. Korea is essentially a tyrannical monarchy, no real communism to be found there. Why do you think the first ones to go up against the wall after a revolution are the true believers? Because they know it’s all gone wrong.

When you have a lot of bullets, you will never run out of targets. Or in other words, if your revolution involves killing a lot of people in the name of the people, you’re doing it wrong.

Edit: added another post that should go here, deleted the other one.