Thoughts on how we can create federated and interconnected ecovillages, create networks of semi nomadic housing, and use technology to help us make it happen.
Great read, and glad to hear you are taking the steps in your life. My wife and I have been learning and seeing how such places work in East Asia for the past decade. For sure, all the really good points you make, about communal support for building homes and procuring basic needs, are completely valid and can and do happen. This dance between reasonable capitalism and federated communal democracies is where many of us are, and it can work to bring us to some place better.
These sorts of communities are happening all over Japan, mainly because, for multiple reasons buildings there tend to lose value over time, not gain in value. When old homes "in need of love" are basically free, suddenly it opens up a wealth of possibility for a new way of living. Waiting for that "housing price ethic" to reach other places...
My wife and I are in Korea and slowly but surely looking for the place where we can become stewards of land, and build some semblance of a reasonable future with others.
At any rate, keep at it. Definitely on board to build the new federation ;-)
By the way, have you read "News from Nowhere" by William Morris? The book is 130 years old, and yet I am reminded of it when I read your newsletters. A lot of anarchist solar punk ethics happening in that book.
Thanks man! Same to you! I always love seeing your updates and keeping up with what you got going on. Whenever anyone asks me about aquaponics/hydroponics/chinampa style growing systems I always bring you up!
Super enjoyed this! But as a socialist feminist am always looking for futures that address things like what does a family look like in these scenarios and how social reproduction happens, caregiving and of course who does it? How is it valued? Thoughts?
These are great questions (and honestly could be an entire piece in it's own right).
1. what does a family look like in these scenarios and how social reproduction happens
Most of what I write about is inspired by various forms of anarchism, socialism, and various forms of leftist thought. In my opinion the family structure would also change along with the social and political changes that would happen.
Things like the nuclear family and all the social relations around it are largely a byproduct of patriarchal systems. To create radically egalitarian societies we have to also make familial systems more egalitarian as well. Through a lot of human history, we have seen groups of people treat families differently. In some societies children were raised communally, others thought families weren't absolutely blood related. But these approaches point to the social fabric of these cultures.
Using the queer community as an example, found family and non genetic families are a huge thing, and important for people to live good lives. Fitting the socialist feminist perspective - truly equal societies would have family groups that don't focus around patriarchal systems, and embraces ideas around found/shared family or non genetic family, a focus around autonomy of all people, and a rejection of "traditional" gender roles.
Caregiving has also been coded as feminine through a lot of cultures - but we all know that is false and based around patriarchal beliefs. A more equal future that rejects rigid gender roles and familial hierarchy - would also reject the idea that certain people should be relegated to care work. Ultimately care work is what makes the world work. And it's vastly undervalued for the impact that it has on humanity as a whole. Care work and caregiving would be the responsibility of all people! Not just of certain people based around their sex or gender identity. For everyone to be equal, we need to take equal stake in all parts of our lives and some of the most important parts of life are considered care work/caregiving.
We should also consider care work as a valuable part of labor, and use socialist frameworks to view care work as the form of labor it really is. That means not exploiting people of their care labor, not profiting off the care labor of others for the benefit of a few, and not using care labor as a method of social and political control. That might mean that people in a community would share the labor of all parts of life. You might not have to work a specific "job" or work role - but the community needs things done. You might have a part in helping to farm, spend some of your time helping to fix things around the community, spend time helping to cook communal meals and help keep things clean - but a large part of that would also be helping to do care work for everyone in the community - regardless of who you are or what you do. Following the tenant "to each according to their ability, to each according to their need" people can do whatever care work they can based on their ability. But everyone should have the responsibility to help. Guided by people who have experience and who know what the labor entails.
Just as a speculative tidbit - I'm imagining myself in an egalitarian community. We share resources and responsibilities between us all. I might focus on say - technological stuff within the community, but that's not all I would do. I would need to help people harvest food. Some days I might need to help build or repair housing, and some days I would need to babysit, or do educational classes, or help our elderly community members. Why? Because all of that labor is needed. And all of that labor would be valued. The care work should not be forced onto specific people because "that's just how things are" but shared, equally distributed. There might be a care work circle of people who have previous experience who help teach everyone in the community on how to do things. But we all are part of that circle and help to distribute the labor evenly. People see the value in that labor when they are a part of it, and when the social conditions around them don't say "only these people should do this" but says -we all should do this based on the equality of all people, ages, abilities, backgrounds, ethnicity, and gender. We all should have a part in it, because it's so valuable.
I really need to sit down and think about this more - because this is just off the cuff, but a really interesting topic!
I recently came across your blog through listening to your episodes with Joey Ayoub on The Fire These Times. I just wanted to say that I really enjoy reading your stuff and I'm learning a lot. It has been a source of hope and inspiration for me in this depressing world. I'm glad I found your blog. Thanks!
Have you read Cory Doctorow’s walkaway? I was just listening to your ep with Margaret Killjoy on LLTWID and the talk about the internet made me think of the walkaway web.
Hi Hydro! I enjoyed the article (as I always enjoy your articles) and see a lot of the same patterns of thinking that I see in the general space of peoples who subscribe to a Solarpunk(?) mentality. I think one of the biggest issues with the developing ontology here, however, is that it isn't taking into account the strategic realities of such a movement.
Historically, there have been other eco-villages (Aurora, Ithica, New Hope) that check every box on the above list, but they haven't resulted in a significant confluence of convergence or collective action. I would argue that the reason for this is that they are simply too small. Humans need a critical mass before they are able to achieve the internal networking cooperation that we see in cities - the heart of human creation. In the ancient era, this was usually around 45,000 - 100,000 people. That amount was enough to constitute a small civilization. Pops of around 2-10 million would be seen historically as a very powerful regional civilization.
Why do I call this strategic consideration? Because villages of 100 people or less are destined to go extinct. There isn't enough people to maintain a population of like-minded folk both in the short and long term. You need the collective power of many thousands of people collaborating together and participating in that community. Which means selecting an area of the world to dedicate to, to act as a center of connection and concentration. Which again means taking into account the strategic variable of "how do we protect ourselves".
No attempt at such collective organization has gone unnoticed and unassailed - Rojava, Zapista, others. Any who reach a critical mass is seen as a threat to the ontological integrity of the reigning economic paradigm and is attacked. A federation of micro villages isn't resilient enough to withstand that - they are too disparate, too small, too vulnerable. Depending on where you are in the world, you could be isolated from any potential assistance, or in the heart of imperial territory. The selection of a space to concentrate folks is so critically important for this reason.
There also has to be clear consideration for scalability of local resources and how you'll navigate long-term in a post environmental collapse environment. If, say, it is someplace in SEA or SA, how will people endure the 50+ C wet bulbs that will be perpetual? If its in the Global North, how will it survive attacks by capital? Because capital -will- attack it. They do not tolerate competition, especially ontological. Doubly so when they're in their end game state.
I'm pointing these things out because I see a lot of people taking individual action. They buy property, become land stewards, form local coops which are all good things in isolation. But the snowball effect of what they want to build from that will take decades of time that just isn't there anymore. These questions, these decisions need to be made by the community of people who aspire to follow this ontological perspective and that is why I point them out.
I want to stress: *I 100% support all the things you wrote about*. But I believe there are critical gaps that need filling.
I agree with everything here! Keep in mind without short of writing an entire book, there are some nuances I didn't write about in the original article. I actually updated it to add a bit more context that touch on some of your points, they were originally a little between the lines, but seeing your comment, I thought I should expand more on my through process behind things.
I really want to write something longer that goes into more detail but this article is more so a short intro into the ideas!
Yeah, totally fair xD I tend to go a bit too long on my own stuff without realizing it. I'm glad that feedback was helpful as well.
I'll keep my eyes open for the long form version! I'm always keen to take a gander at a solid theory :3
Btw, did you end up joining the Solarpunk discord by chance? I know you're more on twitter and less on the subreddit these days, but I was just curious.
Great read, and glad to hear you are taking the steps in your life. My wife and I have been learning and seeing how such places work in East Asia for the past decade. For sure, all the really good points you make, about communal support for building homes and procuring basic needs, are completely valid and can and do happen. This dance between reasonable capitalism and federated communal democracies is where many of us are, and it can work to bring us to some place better.
These sorts of communities are happening all over Japan, mainly because, for multiple reasons buildings there tend to lose value over time, not gain in value. When old homes "in need of love" are basically free, suddenly it opens up a wealth of possibility for a new way of living. Waiting for that "housing price ethic" to reach other places...
My wife and I are in Korea and slowly but surely looking for the place where we can become stewards of land, and build some semblance of a reasonable future with others.
At any rate, keep at it. Definitely on board to build the new federation ;-)
By the way, have you read "News from Nowhere" by William Morris? The book is 130 years old, and yet I am reminded of it when I read your newsletters. A lot of anarchist solar punk ethics happening in that book.
Don’t give up. If I can support you in any way, hit me up.
Thanks man! Same to you! I always love seeing your updates and keeping up with what you got going on. Whenever anyone asks me about aquaponics/hydroponics/chinampa style growing systems I always bring you up!
Yes! Let's build it! 🙌💚
Hell yeah! Excited to see what you got on the horizon as well. We are on the same page!
For those passing by check out Jacobs blog: https://www.bioharmony.info
Super enjoyed this! But as a socialist feminist am always looking for futures that address things like what does a family look like in these scenarios and how social reproduction happens, caregiving and of course who does it? How is it valued? Thoughts?
These are great questions (and honestly could be an entire piece in it's own right).
1. what does a family look like in these scenarios and how social reproduction happens
Most of what I write about is inspired by various forms of anarchism, socialism, and various forms of leftist thought. In my opinion the family structure would also change along with the social and political changes that would happen.
Things like the nuclear family and all the social relations around it are largely a byproduct of patriarchal systems. To create radically egalitarian societies we have to also make familial systems more egalitarian as well. Through a lot of human history, we have seen groups of people treat families differently. In some societies children were raised communally, others thought families weren't absolutely blood related. But these approaches point to the social fabric of these cultures.
Using the queer community as an example, found family and non genetic families are a huge thing, and important for people to live good lives. Fitting the socialist feminist perspective - truly equal societies would have family groups that don't focus around patriarchal systems, and embraces ideas around found/shared family or non genetic family, a focus around autonomy of all people, and a rejection of "traditional" gender roles.
Caregiving has also been coded as feminine through a lot of cultures - but we all know that is false and based around patriarchal beliefs. A more equal future that rejects rigid gender roles and familial hierarchy - would also reject the idea that certain people should be relegated to care work. Ultimately care work is what makes the world work. And it's vastly undervalued for the impact that it has on humanity as a whole. Care work and caregiving would be the responsibility of all people! Not just of certain people based around their sex or gender identity. For everyone to be equal, we need to take equal stake in all parts of our lives and some of the most important parts of life are considered care work/caregiving.
We should also consider care work as a valuable part of labor, and use socialist frameworks to view care work as the form of labor it really is. That means not exploiting people of their care labor, not profiting off the care labor of others for the benefit of a few, and not using care labor as a method of social and political control. That might mean that people in a community would share the labor of all parts of life. You might not have to work a specific "job" or work role - but the community needs things done. You might have a part in helping to farm, spend some of your time helping to fix things around the community, spend time helping to cook communal meals and help keep things clean - but a large part of that would also be helping to do care work for everyone in the community - regardless of who you are or what you do. Following the tenant "to each according to their ability, to each according to their need" people can do whatever care work they can based on their ability. But everyone should have the responsibility to help. Guided by people who have experience and who know what the labor entails.
Just as a speculative tidbit - I'm imagining myself in an egalitarian community. We share resources and responsibilities between us all. I might focus on say - technological stuff within the community, but that's not all I would do. I would need to help people harvest food. Some days I might need to help build or repair housing, and some days I would need to babysit, or do educational classes, or help our elderly community members. Why? Because all of that labor is needed. And all of that labor would be valued. The care work should not be forced onto specific people because "that's just how things are" but shared, equally distributed. There might be a care work circle of people who have previous experience who help teach everyone in the community on how to do things. But we all are part of that circle and help to distribute the labor evenly. People see the value in that labor when they are a part of it, and when the social conditions around them don't say "only these people should do this" but says -we all should do this based on the equality of all people, ages, abilities, backgrounds, ethnicity, and gender. We all should have a part in it, because it's so valuable.
I really need to sit down and think about this more - because this is just off the cuff, but a really interesting topic!
Hi Andre,
I recently came across your blog through listening to your episodes with Joey Ayoub on The Fire These Times. I just wanted to say that I really enjoy reading your stuff and I'm learning a lot. It has been a source of hope and inspiration for me in this depressing world. I'm glad I found your blog. Thanks!
Wow, this is the biggest compliment I could receive. Thank you! Thanks for reading and supporting my work, I really appreciate it! :)
Have you read Cory Doctorow’s walkaway? I was just listening to your ep with Margaret Killjoy on LLTWID and the talk about the internet made me think of the walkaway web.
I have! And I love the book, it was for sure cool to see a similar idea played out in a story to see it unfold and see how people interacted with it!
Also thanks for listening to that podcast episode and checking my stuff out I really appreciate it!
Hi Hydro! I enjoyed the article (as I always enjoy your articles) and see a lot of the same patterns of thinking that I see in the general space of peoples who subscribe to a Solarpunk(?) mentality. I think one of the biggest issues with the developing ontology here, however, is that it isn't taking into account the strategic realities of such a movement.
Historically, there have been other eco-villages (Aurora, Ithica, New Hope) that check every box on the above list, but they haven't resulted in a significant confluence of convergence or collective action. I would argue that the reason for this is that they are simply too small. Humans need a critical mass before they are able to achieve the internal networking cooperation that we see in cities - the heart of human creation. In the ancient era, this was usually around 45,000 - 100,000 people. That amount was enough to constitute a small civilization. Pops of around 2-10 million would be seen historically as a very powerful regional civilization.
Why do I call this strategic consideration? Because villages of 100 people or less are destined to go extinct. There isn't enough people to maintain a population of like-minded folk both in the short and long term. You need the collective power of many thousands of people collaborating together and participating in that community. Which means selecting an area of the world to dedicate to, to act as a center of connection and concentration. Which again means taking into account the strategic variable of "how do we protect ourselves".
No attempt at such collective organization has gone unnoticed and unassailed - Rojava, Zapista, others. Any who reach a critical mass is seen as a threat to the ontological integrity of the reigning economic paradigm and is attacked. A federation of micro villages isn't resilient enough to withstand that - they are too disparate, too small, too vulnerable. Depending on where you are in the world, you could be isolated from any potential assistance, or in the heart of imperial territory. The selection of a space to concentrate folks is so critically important for this reason.
There also has to be clear consideration for scalability of local resources and how you'll navigate long-term in a post environmental collapse environment. If, say, it is someplace in SEA or SA, how will people endure the 50+ C wet bulbs that will be perpetual? If its in the Global North, how will it survive attacks by capital? Because capital -will- attack it. They do not tolerate competition, especially ontological. Doubly so when they're in their end game state.
I'm pointing these things out because I see a lot of people taking individual action. They buy property, become land stewards, form local coops which are all good things in isolation. But the snowball effect of what they want to build from that will take decades of time that just isn't there anymore. These questions, these decisions need to be made by the community of people who aspire to follow this ontological perspective and that is why I point them out.
I want to stress: *I 100% support all the things you wrote about*. But I believe there are critical gaps that need filling.
I agree with everything here! Keep in mind without short of writing an entire book, there are some nuances I didn't write about in the original article. I actually updated it to add a bit more context that touch on some of your points, they were originally a little between the lines, but seeing your comment, I thought I should expand more on my through process behind things.
I really want to write something longer that goes into more detail but this article is more so a short intro into the ideas!
Yeah, totally fair xD I tend to go a bit too long on my own stuff without realizing it. I'm glad that feedback was helpful as well.
I'll keep my eyes open for the long form version! I'm always keen to take a gander at a solid theory :3
Btw, did you end up joining the Solarpunk discord by chance? I know you're more on twitter and less on the subreddit these days, but I was just curious.