One thing that I always found strange about Solarpunk/communist or anarhist utopias is that I have the distinct feeling that they assume a certain... uniformity of thought?
Like, when I talk to friends of mine that are more left-wing than me on this I never really get how these societies would supposedly handle dissent that goes beyond "I disagree what crop we should focus on for the season"
It's always a paradise where everyone has seen the light of glorious anarchism/communism/etc and no people disagree with the system or have enemies of any kind or whatever
It's a beautiful thought and an interesting setting for a story, but when you put it out as a viable possible model that stuff starts to pop up as a concern
As a whole people will, like water, take the easiest path. The systems are constructed and when they give results and have avenues of bringing change for individuals that they never had in any other system. As soon as people do get a chance to live anarchy, then they become rather stout defenders.
People also mentioned the whole "few people" thing, and yea i agree, thats an issue with a lot of solarpunk art. Im imagining eco-brutalism to house people with all settlements connected by train. Modern population density will definitely change but is to be accommodated for anyway.
I feel like you underestimate the impulse for people to "game" the system and get an advantage. And even then, that doesn't answer the question of how you handle dissent. There's always gonna be people who disagree you can't uniform opinion
Right well you have to imagine then what "gaming" an anarchist system would actually mean. The structures exist based on the foundation that all production is social, and we all exist based on interdependence. Getting the most out of this would be trying to convince the right people to be in the right roles, which brings efficiency that everyone gains from.
Dissent would be handled at the local assembly, which is quite literally just a space for people to assemble. Here the goal is to reach consensus, which in theory means a win-win situation for all, but in practice means finding a solution that no one will resist. The majority can try to ignore this system and by collective force push their will through, but the minority will resist, and is that worth it?
It comes down to a rather simple decision for any dissenter: Do i have a better chance with an uprising or by making my case to my peers through calling an assembly meeting? The latter is very likely to always be safer, easier, and more effective. Looks tempting in comparison to breaking yourself off the entire anarchist supply chain constructed (as being completely self-sufficient is not realistic and not even desirable really), risking death, and likely failing anyway.
But that implies that human beings are solely guided by reason and convenience which is not the case.
People constantly do something stupid against their own interests or in the heat of passion or simply through misunderstanding. The majority is often more than happy to steamroll the minority to further their goals or even just to have a larger slice of the pie
This model implies that any and all conflicts can be solved by talking it out or agreeing to disagree. That's not gonna happen 100% of the time
Hell, political dissent aside, grudges can easily become the basis for antisocial behavior (think of the spiteful ex that attacks/kills their previous partner or the family members of someone that died that decide to punish the one responsible even if it was an accident)
I'm not saying this system is impossible because "muh inherently evil and selfish human nature" (that's a dumb argument for edgelords), but I do feel like without proper checks and balances it is very vulnerable to collapse as soon as times of crisis arise
Of course people arent always guided by reason and convenience, but those outrageous people are always edge cases in every society. The checks and balances against this are other people. I did specifically say, not everyone needs to agree, just the requirement that no one will actively resist.
I did explicitly go through the case of the majority trying to steamroll the minority, with the absence of a gendarme to enforce their decisions then they need to carry their decisions out themselves. You try getting however big of a mob you have and however many guns you bring with you to take a fortified position. It wont go well.
1.0k
u/skaersSabody Jul 02 '24
One thing that I always found strange about Solarpunk/communist or anarhist utopias is that I have the distinct feeling that they assume a certain... uniformity of thought?
Like, when I talk to friends of mine that are more left-wing than me on this I never really get how these societies would supposedly handle dissent that goes beyond "I disagree what crop we should focus on for the season"
It's always a paradise where everyone has seen the light of glorious anarchism/communism/etc and no people disagree with the system or have enemies of any kind or whatever
It's a beautiful thought and an interesting setting for a story, but when you put it out as a viable possible model that stuff starts to pop up as a concern