I definitely think it can be combined with socialist realism, and serve as good art for a coherent socialist party to use as agitprop. Clearly the ideas resonate, and fascists will just use it freely if we don't.
I'm not demonizing it. I partially agree with the post, but my opinion is as I stated it, solarpunk is devoid of a strong ideological backing and needs one to be a truly useful tool, otherwise its use is highly dependent on whoever is wielding it. Same issue that cottagecore ran into. It isn't inherently bad, nor is it actually a good thing as it stands.
When the aesthetic takes the place of the movement, it turns from useful tool into an obstacle to overcome. That's why there needs to be a strong theoretical background using it as agitprop, and not just existing as something to be freely twisted to suit anyone's narrative.
I don't have to agree 100% with the post to comment on an adjacent interpretation. I think, for example, companies using it for selling products like dairy that go directly against green ecology is a great example of just how easy it is to manipulate.
Solarpunk itself isn't a problem, really. The issue is that it, as an aesthetic-focused movement, easily falls into utopianism. Ie, thinking of a perfect society, and trying to directly create it. This is counterposed to scientific socialism, analyzing the trends and trajectories of existing systems to figure out how to best steer development towards a better future. Utopianism is an utter failure, historically, while scientific socialism has resulted in many lasting socialist societies with great achievements for the working class.
Solarpunk cannot stand on its own. It can be a great supplement to solid leftist theory and practice, but without that it becomes daydreaming and utopianism. Imagining a better world does little to implement it, and without that theoretical backing, it can actually be taken advantage of by reactionary movements like ecofascism, just like cottagecore got taken over by tradwife fetishism.
I don't really blame many of the Marxists here for being short on patience, much of the arguments we have are the same exact arguments we've had day after day. I do think patience tends to be more useful in dialogue, but I also can't expect everyone else to uphold that.
First off, I apologize if I came off as hostile. That's not really my intent, I try to correct misconceptions and misunderstandings surrounding Marxism and Marxism-Leninism when I see them.
Overall, the Marxist view on markets is that at lower stages of development, they can serve a progressive role, but at higher stages they impede progress and even turn into imperialism, as we see in Europe and the US, ie the global north. Capitalism is best described as a system by which private property is the principle aspect of an economy, ie the large firms and key industries are privately owned. In such a condition, this means private property also has control of the state, so markets will largely play a reactionary role in exploiting and oppressing the masses. Socialism can make use of limited markets while retaining state control of the large firms and key industries to get the good growth of markets in lower development while taking advantage of the numerous benefits of central planning at higher stages in development.
Capitalism itself leads to inequality and fascism. There isn't a way to escape this, there is no such thing as a static capitalism. It either forces imperialism outwardly, is stuck at simple reproduction in imperialized countries (rather than reproduction on an expanded scale), or turns to fascism, if it doesn't have a socialist revolution.
As for the PRC, they are firmly Marxist-Leninist, specifically Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought, which is largely a synthesis of ML-Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, itself an addendum to MZT. Their system is firmly socialist, their use of markets and private property is in a controlled manner that can only be controlled as such in a primarily planned economy. Without understanding this, you won't be able to see why the PRC is on the rise and is so stable, while Social Democracies in Europe are on the decline.
You're welcome for the links. If you want a standard reading list for Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory one you can check out if you ever get the interest. You'll be able to better understand the USSR, it's strengths and weaknesses, and why the PRC is currently succeeding.
It's all about rate of change, not absolute values. Nothing is static, and the tides move in favor of radicalization as the conditions for radicalization expand.
On the contrary, the decay in material conditions has led to increasing radicalization. One only need to look at the unified support for Luigi Mangione to see that people are increasingly jaded with the system.
Settler-colonialism is absolutely still a massive issue. It isn't a thing of the past.
The patriarchial structure of society still oppresses men and women everywhere.
You're erasing very real issues, strawmanning what people believe, and plugging your ears. This is the "I don't see color" problem, that's you ignoring systemic problems, not getting rid of them!
What your tactic would result in is a large portion of women, ethnic minorities, and queer folk being further alienated just to potentially win more white men, but that wouldn't happen either. Focus on liberation along all lines, economic, social, and more, and allow these coalitions to strengthen our position. You're furthering division by shutting down the voices of oppressed peoples, strawmanning what they say, just because its uncomfortable for you to hear.
I have an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list if you want a more structured course, and you find State and Revolution to be too advanced for starting out! But S&R is a banger text, it's included in the course.
Not who you asked, but I'll respond too, as another Marxist-Leninist.
Absolutely. The underlying analysis of capitalism and its evolution into imperialism rings true today, just at a more heightened stage. Central planning continues to be more effective at higher stages of development than market forces, and capitalism continues to centralize and pave the way for this. The working class's strongest weapon, its mass, is still best utilized in unity of direction and action.
The world wars were caused by capitalist imperialism, not socialism. Plus, one thing that's nice, is that the US has hollowed out its own production, it can't support a sustained war. It's a paper tiger, and a unified working class is a force so strong the state can't simply win by bombing us.
Really, Euromaidan was sparked by Yanukovych pivoting away from the more predatory IMF loan offer to the less predatory Russian loan offer. Indeed, the loan from Russia had better terms, the IMF loan would have forced Ukraine to slash their healthcare and education budgets, and stop subsidies in natural gas (which kept energy prices low) as part of the loan terms.
I'm not trying to be mean here, but I really don't care about anecdotes. When I say that the Soviet economy was strong and maintained some of the highest rates of growth in the world all while having a lower disparity, it's because I've done the reading and research to see that. A quick article like *Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowans, or a full book like Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union by Albert Syzmanski or Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti all do a far better job than anecdotes at seeing what conditions were actually like systemically.
From the moment in 1928 that the Soviet economy became publicly owned and planned, to the point in 1989 that the economy was pushed in a free market direction, Soviet GDP per capita growth exceeded that of all other countries but Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. GDP per person grew by a factor of 5.2, compared to 4.0 for Western Europe and 3.3 for the Western European offshoots (the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) (Allen, 2003). In other words, over the period in which its publicly owned, planned economy was in place, the USSR‘s record in raising incomes was better than that of the major industrialized capitalist countries. The Soviet Union’s robust growth over this period is all the more impressive considering that the period includes the war years when a major assault by Nazi Germany left a trail of utter destruction in its wake. The German invaders destroyed over 1,500 cities and towns, along with 70,000 villages, 31,000 factories, and nearly 100 million head of livestock (Leffler, 1994). Growth was highest to 1970, at which point expansion of the Soviet economy began to slow. However, even during this so-called (and misnamed) post-1970 period of stagnation, GDP per capita grew 27 percent (Allen, 2003).
I'm also not saying the Soviet Union was perfect. There indeed were issues with black markets, misplanning, etc, but they didn't outweigh the dramatic benefits the system provided. It's no wonder that the majority of people who lived through the Soviet system wish it had remained. With the reintroduction of capitalism in the 90s, an estimated 7 million people died due to a loss in safety nets and a dramatic increase in poverty around the world.
The achievements of the USSR and its failings need to be contextualized in the fact that, unlike western countries, the USSR was a developing country. With it, however, came around the developed world a mass expansion in safety nets in order to provide what the USSR was already providing for its people. With the fall of the USSR, wealth disparity around the world began to climb more rapidly than ever:
As for the PRC, "Socialist Market Economy" is the official term for its economy. The fact that you admit to never hearing that term before means you haven't actually done much research into it. State Capitalism refers to countries where private ownership is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries, but with strong state influence, like Bismark's Germany, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. In the PRC, it's public property that governs the large firms and key industries.
The system overall is called Socialism With Chinese Characteristics, or SWCC. Here's a study guide for it, in more depth. The key takeaway is that private property and markets existed in Mao's era, in the USSR, etc, the modern PRC isn't very different from those in terms of where the balance of power lies. Trying to plan all of the small, underdeveloped industry can often slow growth, while planning and controlling the large firms and key industries is not only more effective economically, also retains proletarian control over the economy. As the small and medium firms are developed through market forces, they can be better intrgrated into central planning and have their property gradually sublimated. It's Marxism-Leninism applied to the conditions of modern China, also called Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought. So yes, China is absolutely socialist.
No worries, and have fun with it! Feel free to ask any questions or give feedback for it if you want to. It's also an intro list, there's a ton you can read beyond it once you finish, but you should be able to figure out what you want to read when you finish it.
Oh don't worry, I read it. Pro-western outlets like Kyiv Post reported that story, while at the same time failing to produce evidence that the referendums were unpopular after all.
The Donbass region is largely pro-Russian, and is ethnically Russian.
The Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics have been fighting Kyiv for a decade
Kyiv has been shelling Donetsk and Luhansk for a decade.
All of these are not only widely reported in non-western media, but also acknowledged by western media as well. It's something the west and non-west can agree on, which means you rejecting it is akin to conspiracy theory.
This hits the nail on the head. Settlers fear, above all, being treated anywhere near as badly as we've treated indigenous peoples, when they have been infinitely kinder. The last shall be first, that doesn't mean they will kill of us or deport all of us, but it means the decisions will be driven by indigenous people first and foremost.
It's telling of the settler mindset that they immediately assume decolonization entails being treated almost as horribly as settlers have treated indigenous peoples.
![Cowbee [he/they]](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c18ce632-5fb5-4888-8226-3dc55a07acc4.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
I definitely think it can be combined with socialist realism, and serve as good art for a coherent socialist party to use as agitprop. Clearly the ideas resonate, and fascists will just use it freely if we don't.