580
Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
188 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 85 points 1 year ago* (94 children)

As an anarchist who is opposed to accelerationionism, it's frustrating how many people see it as an ideology that wants the state to immediately collapse.

I've had multiple arguments with liberals who say I'm not a real anarchist because I want pragmatic short-term progressive solutions like Medicare for all.

So yeah, I'm not wanting to condemn people to death for my ideology. Got me! (Not you, PugJesus)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 94 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    I like to point people to Desert by Anonymous. It talks about how the plan should really be waiting for the State to recede as collapse progresses, and finding the spaces left behind where theres room for mutual aid based organization.

    I like that. It turns your attention to what's in front of you, rather than waiting for the mythical Revolution we'll likely never see.

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    There no polite way to put it, that's dumb, stupid, and very wrong take. Conservatives want to regress. We aren't in the Nixon times anymore where GOP will launch the EPA, nowadays conservatives are all about regression.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    At best you are relying on comically outdated and outmoded definitions/ideas. What part of the current GOP do you see as wanting gradual progress? None. They want to regress.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

    Do I and everyone else need to repeat it again? You are trying to rely on fucking hilariously outdated and outmoded ideas and definitions of Nixon and similar era.

    They don't want progress. You are wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I'd love for Mr. Definition to give a single example of a self-described conservative who isn't a reactionary, but I'm not going to pull his string again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Will uses this Madisonian framework as a basis for discussing a range of contemporary issues, including judicial review, America’s welfare state, the economy, and the nation’s role in international affairs. He acknowledges that progressives and their left-wing successors routed the Madisonian constitution over the course of the twentieth century, and he is dogged in cataloguing the damage they have done to the constitutional order in their century-long march through our institutions.

    He demonstrates in impressive detail—drawing upon statistics, expert testimony, and pithy observations from his late friend Daniel Patrick Moynihan—how the welfare state, and the overblown federal establishment that it has created, has undermined the virtues upon which a free and prosperous country must depend.

    You apparently have no idea what the definition of reactionary is.

    Now buzz off.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    JFC. Ok seeing your other comments let's parse this out between normal terms and what I'll call etymological terms.

    I'm using the normal usage of the terms. The modern conservative movement doesn't want gradual progress. They want to conserve the 1950s America, which at this point needs regression (see below for how you put that as reactionary). So normal terms you're wrong.

    Or more normal terms, the conservatives (yes I'm using that term) of the Nixon era did some things like the EPA. In which case you saying conservatives want gradual progress is comically outdated.

    Maybe you're trying what's best described as etymological use of the term. If you want to go to etymology, conservatives want to conserve. They don't want gradual progress. They want to conserve the King's power. Using these etymological terms yes you can say regressive means reactionary. But again using these etymological terms you can not say that conservatives want gradual progress, because conservatives want to conserve. You are wrong again.

    Take your pick of the three scenarios, you are either wrong, comically outdated, or wrong. This is seriously not worth continuing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I addressed what seems to be your attempted etymological use (non American). So now you're just sticking your head in the sand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    You actually never gave me the definition. I saw you gave it to other people. So wrong again.

    Like all of your definitions were “this is what this means in American politics”

    You keep grasping at that straw, but I did see your definition (that you gave to other people) and addressed it. But you keep trying to pin everything as "AMERICAN!" somehow.

    I really wonder if I should continue. I did start typing but it seems to be beating a dead horse. Have a great day!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    umm. no. direction of change is crucial lol. some of us want capitalism to wither away as well as the state withering away. that is not conservatism lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done.

    Why? How should I be able to? No one in feudal times could have predicted how things would be done in capitalism. Why should I be able to accurately predict how a free society would look like?

    Who decides what gets done and how is it decided.

    In my (limited) model? Federated councils. So the people have a say in decisions proportional to how much they are affected by them.

    How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will?

    How will these "smart people" be able to achieve such a following? Immediate hunter-gatherers have strategies against this kind of accumulation of power. For example by ridiculing people who are too full of themselves. Can't find the youtube video that explains this concept, right now. It was one in this series, though.

    Also: you do realize that liberal democracy has this exact problem of demagogues?

    The natural state of humanity is hierarchical

    Now where did you get that idea? Any sources for that? Also: naturalistic fallacy.

    I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.

    Maybe. Anarchists are quite in favour of these guardrails, though.

    I think you overemphasize competition in mankind. One foundational text of anarchism is "mutual aid" by Peter Kropotkin, which adds on to Darwin's theory by stating (and observing) that cooperation within one species is a vital factor in evolution.

    Edit: Found the video I meant

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Congratulations on having the absolute dumbest take I've seen on Lemmy!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It's embarrassing that you think this is a gotcha.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The only thing you're proving is that simple definitions are for simple minds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] [S] 24 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    What you described, gradual change , is the literal definition of a conservative. So that means you’re a conservative.

    "Harm reduction is conservatism" is where we're at.

    Fuck's sake.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Except harm reduction is a real and good thing. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Well that's just fucking wrong. I'm not going to give up on the meaning of words just because crazy people have.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
    • load more comments (6 replies)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    We already have a system where people who do not work benefit from those who do: it's called capitalism.

    You're worried that poor people might take advantage of the system when we have billionaires robbing the system blind; your priorities are all kinds of distorted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I’d much rather build systems that provide for people so we can all watch the old world crumble from a comfy chair with plenty of snacks.

    Who am I kidding, I don’t want a society; people are too troublesome.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand I am tired of the unnecessary suffering that is common in the richest country in the history of the Earth. A step in the right direction is better than nothing.

    Or is it? Every time we increase the social safety net, our righteous anger subsides. We stop boycotting, protesting, striking, organizing, etc, because faith in the system is restored. And then we delay the necessary work of dismantling this system that is based on greed and exploitation. Inevitably, the oligarchs bide their time and then strip away rights and economic opportunity as soon as we stop paying attention.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    "Things getting worse will make people swap to MY side!" has a terrible track record.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Sure, but this doesn't address the problem I'm noting above. We fought hard for worker's rights, so they granted them and then dismantled/neutered the unions. Public outcry forced the fracture of Standard Oil and now the monopolies are worse than ever. It's one step forward and two steps back.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Because you have to keep taking steps forward. The fight against greed and corruption will never end, the other side is going to keep swinging forever. We don't get to rest on past achievements, we constantly have to defend them and push for more.

    And the thing is, if you can't rally the people to vote for incremental change, revolution is a non-starter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    I agree with everything in the first paragraph. However, every time we fight against the oligarchs they learn better strategies to divide and conquer us. We are a much more isolated people than we were 50 or 100 years ago. Individualism and consumerism are ubiquitous while our sense of community is virtually non-existent. So people feel powerless to confront fascism because no one can do it alone. This isolation is arguably by design.

    And the thing is, if you can’t rally the people to vote for incremental change, revolution is a non-starter.

    Time will tell. But there are historical examples, in other countries, of the corruption and hypocrisy being flaunted so blatantly that the people rise up and demand sweeping systemic changes.

    In the U.S., we have forgotten our collective power. Our peaceful protests are ignored and even destruction of property is consider taboo. We haven't seen wide-spread violent dissent since the Civil Rights / Anti-Vietnam movements. Conditions were ripe then, but the government deployed a combination of modest concessions and state enacted violence: carrot and stick. The way this Trump term is going, they might not give us the carrot next time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Individualism and consumerism are ubiquitous while our sense of community is virtually non-existent.

    It's never been a better time to make it virtually existent. Look at us, here, now, puzzling out the best course of action. The information Age is the perfect opportunity to build robust social networks that transcend borders. But until we can cooperate and coordinate here in the most casual and forgiving circumstances, how are we going to coordinate collective power any other way?

    the corruption and hypocrisy being flaunted so blatantly that the people rise up and demand sweeping systemic changes.

    Accelerationism is a dangerous game of chicken with lots of collateral damage. I do not desire a pathway that rolls the dice on totalitarianism, even if you succeed countless of people will be chewed up by the acceleration. It's the ideology of the privileged, who are betting they won't be one of the ones chewed up.

    In the U.S., we have forgotten our collective power.

    We do still have the ballot box, we just have to use it in a coordinated way. We also have our workplace, which we can take steps to unionize and socialize. We should be arming ourselves, this administration actually changed my mind on the second amendment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I didn't say anything about maintaining the status quo, my statements were about Accelerationism. How many seconds is it going to take to coordinate the revolution? How many small changes can be made in the time it takes to reverse a century of anti-left propaganda, inspire a population to abandon the system they currently rely on, and coordinate the action necessary to replace it? More than a million, I'd say.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Is it not the ideology of the privileged to maintain the status quo?

    That doesn't seem to be what is happening. It is the richest, most powerful people who are fanning the flames of accelerationism in the form of owning or funding radical/divisive/violent propaganda like is seen on Fox News (and worse), or online on X or Facebook (and worse). Besides the divisive rhetoric intended to make people crave violence against their slightly different skin colored neighbor, climate change denialism could also be argued to be accelerationist as well.

    They all assume their power will let them come out on top -which has been mostly true historically. The World Wars both made a lot of rich people very rich, as did both the formation AND the collapse of the Soviet Union. Plenty of small-scale examples too of despots making people very rich.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I always like to (admittedly, pedantically) point out that if anarchism is defined purely etymologically, all it means is "without hierarchy".

    My personal interpretation is that it doesn't necessarily imply a lack of a state, democratic or representative government, or jurisprudence of established law; it only implies a lack of arbitrary and tiered authority or power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    People are telling you, but you are too far up your arse.

    Anything has got to be better than the status quo.

    Wow, I was really told, too bad I was too far up my own ass to see that a flawed and corrupt democracy was possibly better than a fucking fascist dictatorship. But Both Sides Bad, Both Sides Same, etc etc etc. Wouldn't want to have to deal with shitlibs like Bernie Sanders, now would we?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yes both sides are pro-genocide. Bernie Sanders is a zionist pro-genocide.

    Jill Stein wasn’t a pro-genocide candidate and nobody voted for her, americans wanted genocide in exchange to be treated as special.

    Stop cosplaying as socialist, you are not.

    Lord.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    This has nothing to do with anything that I said. Please try to stay on topic and keep your strawmen in your own fields.

    If you have to make up a bunch of bullshit about me to attack my position then you're not attacking my position.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I don't know of a name for it, but it's fairly common in anarchistic thought as far as I can tell.

    Mutual aid is really the bedrock principle in anarchism, so setting up structures for it where we can is important even if they are imperfect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (9 replies)