People who are poor and must expend all they have just getting by dont have the time or energy to join the revolution. If people have one less bill to worry about, they have more time for the revolution. It also means the capitalist system has less leverage to dangle over everyone’s head, because the access to electricity will be in their control
The proliferation of solar, under capitalism, is still bound by capitalist commodification and exploitation. Solar panels for independent use are prohibitively expensive for the average proletarian, even if they ultimately save in the long run. It’s certainly good for fighting climate change, but isn’t going to be used for the proletariat’s benefit any more than any other technological marvel has been. The working day is still prolonged enough to keep the proletariat out of organizing.
However, this isn’t the path to revolution. Not everyone needs to devote time and energy to revolutionary activity, only the major organizers need to. Lady Izdihar made a diagram of Lenin’s theory of revolution:
The organizers can incorporate solar as a cost saving measure for infrastructure they set up, sure, I think thay’s a good idea. I don’t think it will free up the vast majority of people, though. It’s the party’s job to gain the trust and support of the masses, and the masses’ job to be organized and carry out the revolution. This link needs to be there.
So you’re saying that eliminating peoples utility bills, giving them more resources and hope, wont help the revolution and we should disregard renewable energy? That little steps towards a better more equitable world should not be advertised?
No, that’s not what I said at all, and the fact that you interpreted what I said that way is frustrating.
So you’re saying that eliminating peoples utility bills
Solar isn’t going to eliminate people’s utility bills any more than nuclear did, nor wind nor hydroelectric. Within the boundaries of capitalism, renewables are still privatized. Solar panels for individual home use are prohibitively expensive for the majority of the working classes everywhere, including the imperial core. If we could eliminate utility bills that would be nice, but that can’t happen at scale without socialism.
giving them more resources and hope
Wages are set to cost of replacement of labor, not productivity. Organizing is more effective for winning material gains, as this is what raises the floor, not automation or improvements in productivity. Capitalists will pay as little as they can and suck up as much as they can without organized resistance, even if everyone had solar panels in capitalism.
wont help the revolution and we should disregard renewable energy
Way to jump the shark. I said we need renewables, but the idea that they will meaningfully impact revolution, outside of maybe revolutionary parties using them, is what I’m questioning. Renewables are the future, capitalist or socialist, and pursuing them in capitalism is still worthwhile, just not revolutionary.
That little steps towards a better more equitable world should not be advertised?
No, I just disagree that these steps are feasible for the broad majority of the working classes within the boundaries of capitalism, and are a privledge for better paid workers and above. Little steps are great, but we need to contextualize them with the primary task: organizing.
People who are poor and must expend all they have just getting by dont have the time or energy to join the revolution. If people have one less bill to worry about, they have more time for the revolution. It also means the capitalist system has less leverage to dangle over everyone’s head, because the access to electricity will be in their control
The proliferation of solar, under capitalism, is still bound by capitalist commodification and exploitation. Solar panels for independent use are prohibitively expensive for the average proletarian, even if they ultimately save in the long run. It’s certainly good for fighting climate change, but isn’t going to be used for the proletariat’s benefit any more than any other technological marvel has been. The working day is still prolonged enough to keep the proletariat out of organizing.
However, this isn’t the path to revolution. Not everyone needs to devote time and energy to revolutionary activity, only the major organizers need to. Lady Izdihar made a diagram of Lenin’s theory of revolution:
The organizers can incorporate solar as a cost saving measure for infrastructure they set up, sure, I think thay’s a good idea. I don’t think it will free up the vast majority of people, though. It’s the party’s job to gain the trust and support of the masses, and the masses’ job to be organized and carry out the revolution. This link needs to be there.
So you’re saying that eliminating peoples utility bills, giving them more resources and hope, wont help the revolution and we should disregard renewable energy? That little steps towards a better more equitable world should not be advertised?
No, that’s not what I said at all, and the fact that you interpreted what I said that way is frustrating.
Solar isn’t going to eliminate people’s utility bills any more than nuclear did, nor wind nor hydroelectric. Within the boundaries of capitalism, renewables are still privatized. Solar panels for individual home use are prohibitively expensive for the majority of the working classes everywhere, including the imperial core. If we could eliminate utility bills that would be nice, but that can’t happen at scale without socialism.
Wages are set to cost of replacement of labor, not productivity. Organizing is more effective for winning material gains, as this is what raises the floor, not automation or improvements in productivity. Capitalists will pay as little as they can and suck up as much as they can without organized resistance, even if everyone had solar panels in capitalism.
Way to jump the shark. I said we need renewables, but the idea that they will meaningfully impact revolution, outside of maybe revolutionary parties using them, is what I’m questioning. Renewables are the future, capitalist or socialist, and pursuing them in capitalism is still worthwhile, just not revolutionary.
No, I just disagree that these steps are feasible for the broad majority of the working classes within the boundaries of capitalism, and are a privledge for better paid workers and above. Little steps are great, but we need to contextualize them with the primary task: organizing.