There are some interesting ideas in there, but it kinda feels like it was written with the explicit goal of being as obtuse and inaccessible as possible in the way it communicates…
Yeah this doesn’t seem relevant to solarpunk realistically. I appreciate the article, as hard to read as it is. It’s certainly aimed at those already deeply versed in complex political “philosophy.”
One should reject a visible identity and hide their presence, identity, and possible alignments from government. Though what the author doesn’t seem to note is that reading the article, in a society under surveillance, even reading this article should be enough to label you as someone who might align with its views.
On the other hand, more division of the left is certainly what the world needs… But seriously, continuing to diversify left-leaning identities while conservatives continue to rally is the last thing we need. Moreover, if more of the left “hides” their identity, it will continue to make the right appear stronger. And in a world where so much of people’s support depends on appearances and peer pressure, I don’t think we can afford to give up that metaphorical ground.
What part of this you think applies to Solarpunk and this community?
well, Solarpunk, being utopic, hinges on a complete alterity. Reflecting on how articulate a connection to actual praxis could be interesting for some. Also on the same blog there’s solarpunk references.
Thanks. Solarpunk is deeply connected to Praxis as evidenced throughout this instance and readings that have been shared already. I’m trying to understand what specifically in this article could be useful for this community. As the first commenter pointed out, it’s a bit unclear from the piece itself
Now that I have to articulate it, it’s not so easy to explain. I think it’s because for me the solarpunk is somehow associated to this idea of the Augustinian Left, but more in the way Nunes talks about it. All the people I know who are into solarpunk (environmental activists, green/orangepilled, ReFi/CoFi etc etc) are also somehow practicing, consciously or not, this Augustinian Left mode. It is true though that nothing in this article connects to SolarPunk directly.
I get the reason for alterity. While the term is new to me, the need for it has been clear for a while now. But I don’t get why you need to jettison difference.
Slop seems superficially different but structurally the same. But structurally different is the goal. We invite people into a new structure, such as solar punk, by living it’s principles. But is the argument for not being superficially different so you can be relatable to the average person? So you escape detection from the state apparatus? So it projects a deep root confidence that some might find alluring?
I feel like one of the biggest concerns I have with solar punk is it’s very beautiful aesthetic. It can get in the way of some digging deeper. And yet Id be lying if part of the initial appeal wasn’t the aesthetics. The author might consider the solar punk aesthetic as Manechian. I would never want to jettison that aspect. I would want it to inspire me to dig deeper. And maybe, through community, inspire changes in that aesthetic through a shared lived experience.
any case, thanks for sharing. Got me thinking.
