5 ms·
solarpunk is just socialism with afrofuturist aesthetics. happy for them!
by r14c 11mo ago
solarpunk is just socialism with afrofuturist aesthetics. happy for them!
- dingnuts 11mo agowhy are you happy? many African nations attempted socialism in the 20th century, and all of those states have since collapsed. trying the same failed strategy over and over doesn't bode well. anyway, I hope they get electricity. the article said a lot about markets for something related to an ideology that rejects them.
- HeinzStuckeIt 11mo ago> many African nations attempted socialism in the 20th century, and all of those states have since collapsed This is false. Senegal attempted small-s socialism under its first postcolonial regime (under Léopold Sédar Senghor, 1960–1980) and has had democratic political succession to the present day.
- baq 11mo agoFunny. I read the article and couldn’t shake the feeling that this is exactly how capitalism lifts whole countries out of poverty.
- czbond 11mo agoAgree - I am an ardent capitalist, but a conscious capitalist. I believe the purpose of capitalism redirected can be used as a vehicle for massively changing economies and lives - such as in this case.
- griffzhowl 11mo agoIt's not capitalism, it's technology. That can often go together with capitalism, but Russia from 1917-60 and China from 1960-2025, say, are big counter-examples. As are the many poor countries with capitalist economies. Growth in electrification, transport infrastructure, manufacturing and mechanized agriculture will grow any economy, capitalist or socialist
- tick_tock_tick 11mo agoStrongly disagree, you're example is nonsensical as it's normally used to prove the exact opposite. Nearly every quality of life improvement and economic boom in China and Russia during those periods are directly tied to adopting some parts of capitalistic systems.
- griffzhowl 11mo agoWhat quality of life improvements are you thinking of that weren't based on mass electrification and mechanization of agriculture?
- Ray20 11mo agoThose that happened in the USSR and China, no? After the start of electrification and active mechanization of agriculture, more peasants died of hunger there than in the previous 100 years (in Russia more than in the previous 200 years).
- baq 11mo agoAt least some of them died because they weren't allowed to consume what they produced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
- Ray20 11mo agoThat is simply how socialism works. Land as a mean of production is no different from a factory, so naturally, the products created on the land belong not to the peasants (Petite Bourgeoisie), but to society as a whole. And guess what this bourgeoisie did when they found out that the grain they produced would now become common property (they sharply reduced the amount they producing).
- Ray20 11mo ago> It's not capitalism, it's technology. Seems like it's completely capitalism > but Russia from 1917-60 and China from 1960-2025, say, are big counter-examples. Russia and China are good examples of that. We have Khrushchev's memoirs about how, before the communist revolution, he, as a simple worker, lived better than workers live 40 years after the revolution. That is, the period from 1917 to 1960 in the USSR was one of complete stagnation, despite all the technological progress. And in the example of China in the second half of the 20th century, we see yet another confirmation: their standard of living was literally directly proportional to the level of implementation of capitalist mechanisms. > As are the many poor countries with capitalist economies. As far as I understand, there is not a single poor capitalist country. Name a single poor country where private property is reliably protected and people enjoy economic freedom. There is no such country. As soon as even the poorest country begins to protect private property and guarantee economic freedom, it becomes rich within 10 years or something.
- r14c 11mo agoWhat's capitalism to you?
- baq 11mo agoan economic system which rewards winners and tears itself apart in a winner-takes-all tragic finale without an impartial regulator/judge.
- beeflet 11mo agoPeople buying and selling things with minimal interference from protection rackets
- r14c 11mo agoAfaik markets predate joint-stock companies. The concept of "raising capital" is much newer than the concept of a market economy. Did capitalism exist under feudalism? How do modern capital markets differ from historical markets under various other economic systems?
- beeflet 11mo ago> Did capitalism exist under feudalism? I would say it's more of a matter of the level of interference of the fief on trade. When 100% of the economy is controlled by the monopoly on violence I would say that is complete communism, and when 0% of the economy is controlled by the monopoly on violence that is complete capitalism. This is a kind of asymmetric definition of communism/capitalism because "complete capitalism" is a pretty unstable configuration. Joint-stock companies are not a prerequisite in my opinion; You can have an capitalist economy of merchants that run everything as sole proprietorships. Socialists will try to define capitalism around ownership of the means of production but I am not sure this is a useful definition. Modern industry is more capital-intensive than labor intensive historical industries. So the sort of pro-labor communist movements that design systems that ignore the value of capital have pretty much gone extinct in the current era. The "communist" party of china has adopted a number of capitalistic practices since deng xiaoping. At the same time, the "capitalist" american economy looks awfully communist under my definition as a significant chunk of the economy flows through the government, the military-industrial complex and such.
- manoDev 11mo agoSure, capitalism has been working great for Africa since the 1700! The poverty was caused by not enough capitalism.
- beeflet 11mo agoI find that arguments against capitalism like this are unconvincing. It is like saying that a sword is useless technology. It's directional: the pointy end goes in the other guy.
- p1necone 11mo agoHow is small businesses selling solar panels to people socialism?
- jandrese 11mo agoIt's Power to the People.
- AtlasBarfed 11mo agoIt's part of modern double speak Capitalism is really centralized monopolistic oligarchical control in modern media parlance. Distributed empowering democratic grassroots level capitalistic allocation of resources that don't provide centralized control and administration is "socialism".
- Avicebron 11mo agoI think this is really insightful definition, username aside, I think forcing the conversation to include "oligarchical control" (the part people usually have issue with) prevents the lazy "but muh free market!" arguments when discussing our modern economic system
- onraglanroad 11mo agoYou're attempting to be sarcastic but that's actually accurate: > Capitalism is really centralized monopolistic oligarchical control in modern media parlance. Of course, because the Capitalists try to control the industry they've invested in. > Distributed empowering democratic grassroots level <word> allocation of resources that don't provide centralized control and administration is "socialism". Yes, it is. When the people who actually do the work own it.
- beeflet 11mo ago>Of course, because the Capitalists try to control the industry they've invested in. But does the system eventually result in a small number of capitalists taking power or is it distributed over many capitalists? Not all monopolies are natural. What is the "work" being done here? Manufacturing or installation? It's not like all of the solar companies are co-ops and contractors.