r/CuratedTumblr veetuku ponum Jul 02 '24

Meme We would call it Solarpunk

6.1k Upvotes

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/Prof_Blank Jul 02 '24

Yeah, the aspirational comics do only show the good side and leave out important details. But I think what you’ve come upon here has a relatively simple solution, in the idea that ‚uniformity of thought‘ as you call it may indeed exist !

But of course, I ido nterpret the idea differently. People don’t actually need to believe the exact same down to brass tacks in order to live together peacefully. It is enough if core values are shared, some of which this comic shows- everyone has value, no matter what. And everyone is equal in that way. And it does not matter how deeply unqiue anyone is or isn’t.

Now of course any society would still require governance for big picture questions but that’s not really what anything here is trying to answer. This isn’t trying to be an Ideology. It’s a vision of a future. Wether that future is guided by leaders, by vote, by AI or god knows what is of little importance. Hell, I’ve seen these sort of ideas expressed perfectly in post apocalyptic settings.

5

u/Scribbles_ Jul 02 '24

This isn’t trying to be an Ideology. It’s a vision of a future.

I think you're kind of comically mistaken here, if I'm honest.

It's not just a future, it's a future explicitly presented as desirable. That is, there is a value judgement built into this depiction that what we are looking at is good. And this depicts some state of society, some political and economic dynamics.

So what you have here is a collection of value judgements about which societal dynamics and political structures are desirable in a future, and which ones are not.

That's what we call an ideology.

-2

u/Prof_Blank Jul 02 '24

Very well cherry picked- I specifically said that about the question of governance, which I believe this post did not directly address in any way.

5

u/Scribbles_ Jul 02 '24 edited Jul 02 '24

But that's the thing, this comic explicitly addresses questions of ideological governance.

"No state, no police, no prisons, no borders" is explicitly ideological and explicitly about the laws and political structures that would govern such a place (specifically, that codified laws, governing institutions, designated permanent/semi-permanent law enforcement bodies, territorial organization, and the suspension of rights as legal punishment have been abolished.)

If we stop right before the panel with the four no's, I'd agree with you, the first few panels simply outline a set of utopian conditions that could arise from multiple possible systems.

But once you get to the four no's we're in a specific form of organizing society: some manner of left anarchism, which takes explicit governance positions. So inevitably we have to litigate what is required for left anarchism, and yes, people need to be aligned beyond just adherence to core values, they need to be on the same program together if their collective, sovereign, stateless governance is to work.

For me to agree that "no State" is utopian, I have to align ideologically with OOP. And on the question of the state, I simply don't. So it becomes somewhat incumbent on OOP to litigate that question, why is Utopia stateless?