Mica_Twist @ Mica_Twist @slrpnk.net

Posts

1

Comments

4

Joined

2 wk. ago

I still can't understand why nuclear power is still so popular even among solarpunks. Solarpunk is all about generational justice. Nuclear power is all but that.

Don't worry, I am enjoying what I find to be a very enriching discussion. I believe there is a general misconception here about horizontal and decentralized organization. Mutualist anarchists are (mostly) well aware that complex processes cannot be organized in small “cells.” Rather, it is about distributing power equally among everyone. A central control mechanism is not necessary for this. Some processes definitely need to be negotiated at higher levels (e.g., climate catastrophe), but with the premise that decisions must be confirmed down to the lowest level. However, this is only necessary in exceptional cases, as an existing, generally applicable ethical framework should be sufficient to carry out processes in the interests of society as a whole. Hence my example with the council systems such as those of the Zapatistas, or even the “administration of things”. The goal of both Marxists and anarchists is the equal distribution of power and ressources. The difference between Marxists and anarchists, and even among us anarchists, lies in the form of organization and which organization distributes power most equally. When it comes to Lenin, what comes to mind is the leadership of the vanguard party, the avant-garde of the educated elite. As an anarchist, I can only reject this outright and consider it very classist. But as I said, I may have misinterpreted this due to ignorance.

Even according to the Communist Manifesto, the goal of the communist revolution is to achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat, thereby abolishing the propertied class and creating a classless society. Once this has been achieved, the Manifesto states, state authority is no longer necessary, as the means of production are in the hands of those who produce. Anarchist decentralization does not mean that production does not have to be jointly controlled. It means that no single body rules over everyone, but rather that the respective producers have free access to the means of production and their products and manage them without hierarchy. The misunderstanding may be due to the sometimes significantly varying currents of anarchism. There are individual anarchists, but we are not talking about them; there are collectivists, syndicalists, communalists, and anarcho-communists. They all have different views on how communities should be organized in detail, but they all agree that no one should be ruled over. This also applies to Marxism. If we abolish the propertied class but place power in a state apparatus that has decision-making power over those who cannot or do not want to be an active part of that apparatus, we once again have a propertied class. Marx also points this out. The abolition of the state as an instrument of domination is therefore inherently Marxist. The creation of an organizational structure that regulates the administration of communities without exercising domination can be called a state (I wouldn't do so, but it's possible) and would not contradict mutualist anarchist principles. Examples of such organizations are the councils that exist in Germany, Russia, or today in northern Syria or among the Zapatistas. Yes, there is criticism there too, but ultimately what I am getting at is that Marxism also strives for the abolition of domination. There are differences in the design of the revolutionary process and, depending on the anarchist current, in the organization of production in the post-revolutionary community. I must admit, however, that I have not dealt with Leninism enough so far and my view of it is rather prejudiced.

I'm new and all but a techie, so I don't know how to reply directly on comments. I don't know of it worked.(It seems that some functions aren't working properly, as I can't see them but click on some of them :S)

@Cowbee: MLs and Anarchists have the same goal, especially Solarpunks, we just take different approaches.

1. Identifying as Solarpunk might have been to restrictive. I wanted to provide examples that are Solarpunk and initiated BY Solarpunks. As I can't find enough projects which meet this requirement, I will probably have to select projects, that meet the requirements without the project and its members identifying as Solarpunk. But still only few projects do so. So I'd still need help with my research.
2. As one of the core principles of the Solarpunk Manifesto is inclusion, every social group has to be heard, be included and participate in planning processes. Of course children have to have a saying in the shaping of their future community. Let me give you an exaggerated example. A group is planning a playground because everyone agrees that it is needed. The group considers what children need and builds a seesaw, a swing, and a slide. The children come to the newly built playground and notice that, first of all, there is no sandbox, which they had wanted so much, then the playground is right next to a nursery and they are not allowed to be loud, and in addition, pretty bushes have been planted around the playground, but now wasps like to build their nests there, making the playground too dangerous. All this could have been prevented if specific groups, including children were involved in the planning process.
3. The fundamental question that should be asked first is whether large-scale production is really always necessary. If so, there are certainly non-hierarchical solutions. Anarchist unions and cooperatives, for example. An organization can even have temporary leadership based on anarchist principles, for example due to a hierarchy of knowledge or skills. In this case, leadership would be more accurately described as guidance, and the position of power could be limited by a rotation principle.

Thank you for your thought-provoking comment. I hope I was able to provide some clarity.