- cross-posted to:
- smugideologyman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- thebadwebsite@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- smugideologyman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- thebadwebsite@lemmy.world
[green, speaking, looking smug]
Okay, hear me out, here’s the plan…
We go full apathy, basically we let capitalism fully spiral out into fascism. Once it’s done, people will rise up and the system will collapse under its own weight. From its ashes, with our help, a better society will rise. This is how we win.
[we now see that green is tied up in front of a bleak wall, along with a group of other people, being aimed at by a firing squad of characters in fascist uniforms]
[green, smiling] OK?
[blue, pissed] Dude…
You must log in or # to comment.
Governments that raise up against a totalitarian regime in anger rarely end up in a peaceful and prosperous place if they succeed, see France, Lybia, Rome, the Soviet Union/Russian Empire, China every time, Japan (under the shogunate), Egypt (Arab spring), Sudan, Somalia, Assyria (7th century BCE between 612 and 609 BCE), and so many more.
This but socialism
people will rise up
The line in the sand as to what’s acceptable has been redrawn so many times, if the people haven’t risen up by now, they never will. You’re stuck with the rancid orange colostomy bag until he either pops his clogs, or chooses to leave.
Oh, no. People will rise up eventually. It’s just a shame that most people turn out to be olympic athletes in mental gymnastics and delay the realization to the next generation(s).
Nope. Fascism is there to stay for the next decade regardless of what happens to Trump.
This is kinda mostly a strawman though, no serious political movement advocates for accelerationism, it’s just a strawman used against people further to the left than oneself.
There are a few weird fringe cults who are accelerationist like Posadists (who believe nuclear war or aliens will bring communism), but it’s not by any means a position that holds a good footing in any serious political project.
The strawman often takes claims like “there is not a big practical difference between these two political parties” and twists them into “I would rather have the worse party win”. Also takes descriptive statements like “people usually revolt when hungry” and attributes an intentionality to them, like “I wish more people would go hungry so that they starve more”, as if making an observation about the nature of protest and revolt implied supporting the conditions that create it.
A lot of the far right is accelerationist. They’ve been hoping for a “race war” for many decades. Then there is the newer Effective Accelerationism/Network State/Dark Enlightenment stuff that the ultra wealthy seem to be into.
Wow…a race war would not go well for the far right.
When I hear “far right”, I think of middle aged angry white guys. We already HAD that war! At least in the united states…it was in the 1800s, and it did not go well for those who supported racial discrimination.
And that’s underselling the whole thing quite a bit.
Didn’t exactly go horribly for them either. Reconstruction ended early and a lot of concessions were made on behalf of “the economy” and “unifying the nation”.
They should have let Sherman finish what he started.
Yes and no, the confederates lost the war but their whitewashing of history has quite a bit of staying power to the point that states like West Virginia and Ohio who had massively supported the Union in the Civil War are now more likely neo confederates and agree with the south take on “the war of northern aggression” which they started by attacking federal forces and raiding federal weapons depots while backing out of the federal government allowing it to pass a law they cite as the reason they backed out of it, rather than it being able to pass because they backed out. Also the war still left separate but equal and racial discrimination on the books and the last chattel slave in the US was freed during world war 2. So what the south (Pro-confederate states) and Americans who swallowed their propaganda learned was that fighting a war without seeding the ground everywhere first with their point of view and taking over things from the inside, like they did under Wilson, arguably the worst US president of the 20th century, and Trump just took that playbook and took it farther than the public was ready for but still pushed and those special interest groups that supported him had the choice to renounce him and be reviled by both major political wings of the US or back him to the hilt while he destroys the US from within, because if you can’t get everything you want at least you can make sure nobody else gets anything either.
That’s a good point. I grew up in rural Ohio a couple decades ago, and confederate flags were quite popular. In my youth, I remember going to one guy’s trailer to bring back some more beer, and every threshold in his trailer had a confederate flag. Many of the people in the little, almost all-white towns, were somewhat afraid of the somewhat bigger towns that had a decent black population. I still see similar things where I live now, where my older neighbors living outside of a major city, are somewhat afraid of the city. Curiously, I live in the actual south now, and don’t see confederate flags nearly as often than I did in rural Ohio.
Aren’t all the Plantir people (well people with money high up) epushing for an accelerationist movement with their stuff? I would think the billionaires are serious is all. Mean it sounds freaking stupid to me but I don’t have the bullhorn that the people who have all our private data does is all. However with the US they’re using project 2025 as a starting point before they buy up everything after it breaks. Least that’s what it appears, mean the VP is picked, groomed and supported by Theil. Just have to let them break enough then swoop in and mould a society they wanted. It’s not something 99.99% of what people would want from what I can tell.
Perhaps I’m missing some subtly which I will say I haven’t really looked into the definitions a lot but I don’t think with current forces is as much of a strawman as it may seem is all. Though I don’t think people on that side would want the same outcome as Mr Green is all.
I mean, the post says “capitalism bad” so I assumed that the green man is not from the right wing.
The right wing is not really collapsing the system IMO, they’re just taking off its mask and showing how it truly is and has been.
Yea, the right wing aren’t destroying the system as people seem to claim. They are just moving it into the next stage of its logical evolution.
Fascism is Capitalism in decay. We have already reached Late Stage Capitalism, and now the Imperial boomerang is coming home. We did this to ourselves by not dismantling it sooner. We tried in the early 1900s with the communist and anarchist worker movements that occurred but then McCarthyism and the 2nd Red Scare really fucked everything up.
Couldn’t agree more
idk, I feel like in particular the arguments I’ve had advocating for UBI with people arguing against it from a left wing perspective, those arguments often tend to be basically accelerationist (that it would be bad to improve things for people in a way that enables the continued existence of capitalism) or at least gesture at that. And as others have pointed out, the right is even more outwardly accelerationist.
I believe nuclear war will bring a better planet.
I mean, there will be no more humans alive, but thats what will make the planet better!
This isn’t even the stupidest point of accelerationism. That’s the assumption that your personal utopia will emerge from the ashes, instead of something much worse.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no path to “perfect” which doesn’t track through an infinite amount of “better” first.
I don’t think utopias are a bad idea in general, but if they somehow are only reachable by collapsing most of the current system before any groundwork can even be attempted… a form that can be developed in parallel and take over at some point makes much more sense.
Think about the transition and hopefully it doesn’t require nuclear war.
Reminds me of this meme:
Or this one:
Obviously, we shouldn’t need to detail “villains bad” in media, but with so many of them having “from the ashes” plans, I’d like to see more heroes deconstructing their approach like this.
Yeah the take plays against their point and into the hands of fascists. A common retort from “capitalists” goes “well why doesn’t your economic system compete on the free market? If it’s so good it will rise to the top.” You believing your ideology will defacto rise from a blank slate after society collapses lends credence to that argument. (Which is flawed in so many ways)
This isn’t even the stupidest point of accelerationism
Agreed, but like, there are no actual accelerationists, it’s mostly a strawman used to misrepresent people who are more radical. Sure, there may be a few random accelerationists around, but there’s no serious political movement anywhere with accelerationism in their policy because it is a very bad idea.
“no serious political movement” my dude, statesian republicans are maybe not explicit
statesians[edit woah oaky maybe too many drugs] accelerationists but like, i’m gonna lose teeth because of them.and don’t say they aren’t serious because just because they’re dipshits, they’re still a major political party and killing people. that’s pretty damn serious.
But statesian republicans don’t advocate for the end of capitalism and an implosion of the country. They’re disgusting, but they’re not accelerationists, they defend hard policy to defend the status quo.
This is exactly the problem. “Supporting policies that make things worse for the average person” is not the same thing as “accelerationism.” Some people are just wrong, or they have different motivations (like making them and their friends rich). If accelerationism just means making things worse, then everyone is an accelerationist to everyone who disagrees with them, it loses any real meaning.
There may be a handful of actual accelerationists in the party, but they’re mostly driven by material interests and a whole bunch of brainworms, not by some accelerationist strategy.
Literally Ernst Thälmann. He said to let the Nazis take power, and then the whole world will see how incompetent they are, and then his communist party will surely rise up! But there are no prizes for guessing what happened to him in the end!
The candidate the social democrats wanted won and he’s the guy who appointed Hitler chancellor! There was a three way race between “literally Hitler,” “guy who will put Hitler into a position of power” and “not Hitler” (Thälmann) and somehow libs are still mad that “not Hitler” was on the ballot.
The social democrats were the ones with the brilliant plan of punching left in favor of a “center”-right coalition, and they actually won and got what they wanted and wound up in the camps as a direct result of it!
No prizes for guessing what happens when you trust the bourgeois parties to be an ally against fascism.
Who the fuck is downvoting this?
deleted by creator
Doesn’t help that the social democrats had murdered the more moderate leaders of the communists (like Rosa Luxembourg) just a few years before that and funded the Freikorps with government funds. How is a small party (KPD) without access to government more accelerationist than the big party in government (SPD) actively funding Nazi death squads to murder communists already a decade before?
Also, the SPD leaders literally flipped its anti-militarist stance overnight when WW1 broke out. Again, who’s the accelerationist, the one protesting against that and being murdered by fascists or the party in government funding said fascists and supporting WW1?
Capitalists: take notes on what the Nazis did wrong and tiptoe around it
choked on a bone in a pie eating contest, which was weird because it was an apple pie?
Accelerationism isn’t just being apathetic, it’s actively making things worse. It’s voting for Trump because the DNC didn’t elect Bernie Sanders.
Lenin was much the same. He knew a revolution wouldn’t happen if things got better, so he did everything he could to make things as bad as humanly possible. When the provisional government came along, granted free speech rights and universal suffrage, Lenin was vehemently opposed to it, because you can’t have a communist revolution when stuff is going well. A stable government is not one you can overthrow.
How many actual Bernie supporters voted for Trump? Or are you just making up a strawman to blame the left for the Democrats being incapable of winning the elections to a sex criminal or at the very least banning a fascist from elections during their mandate?
Lenin was much the same. He knew a revolution wouldn’t happen if things got better, so he did everything he could to make things as bad as humanly possible
You are abso-fucking-lutely making that up. The Bolsheviks had support from workers and soldiers precisely because they advocated from the start on an unconditional retreat from WW1, which was leading to massive casualty numbers and famine. Pulling your country out of imperialist war (which they did immediately after Bolshevism won the revolution btw) is literally the opposite of accelerationism.
When the provisional government came along, granted free speech rights and universal suffrage, Lenin was vehemently opposed to it
If by “universal” you mean male suffrage, female suffrage was I actually first implemented in the former Russian empire by the communists. The Bolsheviks organized a coup against the provisional government to pull the RSFSR out of imperialist war, and the fact that a bunch of former political prisoners and exiles had the military support to do this and maintain a stable state (and win the upcoming civil war) proves that it was the correct choice. The unelected provisional government barely survived the fascist coups that sought to reinstate the Tsar and society was growing exhausted of famine and poverty due to the wartime conditions, if you support the provisional government you’re literally arguing for Russian nationalism and militarism, blows my mind that you’d be doing this on 2026.
Look up the dates for the independence of Finland or Estonia, and tell me whether they line up with the Provisional Government or with the October Revolution, then tell me again which government was more democratic, the one keeping them under their thumb or the one drafting a constitution granting the unilateral right to self-determination and secession.
How many actual Bernie supporters voted for Trump?
There has never been a centrist who cares.
so i was part of a group of friends in high school. we campaigned (at the high school, by wearing buttons and thinking up stupid slogans, not really getting involved in politics) for the green party because by our logic, we couldn’t convince democrats to vote republican because they were too smart for that. but we could trick them into voting green.
of my close friends group in high school, only half to 3/4 of us ever grew up. there’s one friend in particular i’m thinking of though, he was a “bernie bro” online until bernie lost. after the 2016 election he told us that he tried to commit voter fraud for the russian candidate. in a way that would get noticed and his first vote rejected, also a method that had been discussed online on forums associated with agent krasnov and promoted by agent krasnov himself, but my friend has always been a dipshit. i mean hell so have i. evidence, paragraph 1.
Well, yes, there are a few individuals doing it, that doesn’t affect my main question “how many are doing it? Is it significant?”
You have anecdotal “evidence” with a sample size of 1 and using it to make a sweeping, generalization statement.
i’m having a conversation, not making sweeping generalizations dude. get over yourself.
You are having a conversation in which you have made sweeping generalizations. Don’t be fucking stupid.
you don’t like that my experience with your group paints you badly, and so you insult me aiming to improve my opinion of your group. bravo doctor. impressive logic and reason. no wonder so many people have similar “anecdotal” evidence.
Sure, they do bud. Cause they totally aren’t just strawmen made up to support their arguments.
I never claimed to try and endear you to my group. I give zero shits how you feel about it.
Nice attempt at the psychoanalysis of a complete stranger through a single comment on the Internet by making wild assumptions about intention.
Your anecdotal experience is not proof of your bullshit strawman argument. You have no idea how logic works.
When the provisional government came along, granted free speech rights and universal suffrage
The provisional goverment was unelected and self-appointed, arrested people for arguing in favor of refusing to fight in WWI, and after months of protests said they would allow women to vote whenever they got around to having an election but women couldn’t vote until 20 and men 18.
Lenin wasn’t opposed to the provisional government when it came along because he was in Germany and didn’t know how mad a lot of people were at the random gang of Chuck Schumers from the Tsarist government who had declared themselves in charge, ignoring the Soviets that were already forming an elected government, and spent months stalling their version of an election so they could keep the incredibly unpopular WWI going.
Lenin started opposing the provisional government after 20k awol marines with machine guns showed up at his office saying they hated it, he said ok and then spent a couple months writing a book to explain why the angry guys with guns have a point.
If he was trying to be accelerationist he would have just hyped up the marines and let them shoot everybody instead of following the path of least resistance to a stable government that could last 6 months without a coup.
A stable government is not one you can overthrow.
Governments (nations) are in their nature not stable. Governments can be overthrown at any moment. It is a question of how many are willing to participate, which is not that many.
because you can’t have a communist revolution when stuff is going well
Not Lenin’s reasoning, nor is it as a statement true. Revolutions have happened exactly at points where things were looking up, take the transitions that have happened in history where monarchies were superseded by the liberal state. It is not a cyclical trend where, oh no, we have some sort of downtrend in productivity or some other sort of crisis and then the magical revolution comes to save the day. Revolutions happen because systems are forced to adopt organisational structures that satisfy (novel) needs, not because of shittiness.
Revolutions happen because systems are forced to adopt organisational structures that satisfy (novel) needs
It’s just that somehow those novel needs are always coincidentally “people can’t afford bread”
Just as a counterexample: revolutions have been spurred on by the need to stop military conflicts and territories not advancing quickly enough relative to other countries. What you always see are demands by a section of people that evolve into movements, like that of capitalists to transform the peasant class and employ it.
Revolutions are not one-sided phenomena. They are not merely riots in the street carried out by the most impoverished. Capitalists themselves are moving beyond the demands that defined their class two hundred years ago. In the United States they are moving away from competition as a pervasive principle to very intentional centralisation. There has been a push to abandon antitrust legislation. For the individual capitalists this is needed and a logical step, but it fuels their own demise long term when it becomes a societal trend. You only need a comparatively tiny spark from below release the potential energy accrued by capital.
What you have in mind are certain narratives on the French revolution. Conversely I can ask why countries that experience famine or affordability crises don’t experience revolutions.
I think you forgot the part where the provisional government wanted to keep drafting people to feed into the pointless meat grinder of WWI, which Lenin opposed rather strongly.
It’s voting for Trump
Accelerationism is when you vote. And the more you vote, the faster things get
I voted for Biden and things did indeed get worse. Now we see that Trump was voted in and they are getting worse. Soon we will vote in a new Congress and then a new President and things will continue to get worse.
Thankfully I stopped voting after Biden, so my bad luck 🍀 has peaked.
PSA to all the “voters” out there. I no longer worry about politics because I know that things can only get worse. 😎
Thankfully I stopped voting after Biden, so my bad luck 🍀 has peaked.
I mean, you joke. But folks really do seem to believe there’s a karmic curse on people who “vote wrong”. That’s the entire theory of Leopards Eating Faces, anyway.
That’s just cause & effect.
Are things going to keep getting worse? Probably.
Do you need to vote if that’s the case? Not really, but it’s an external locus of control. You feel you have power because you got to choose who made things worse.
Okay, but capitalism dystopia is not going to look like that. In real capitalism, that wall will be covered in advertisements and motivation posters.
Me and who 😳
get shot rearing an ad for Amazon™ Bezz-box® rented apartments on Mars.
No need to market to you when they simply extract your labour and rent and you buy the swill that is cheapest to you.
Marketing is more than just selling products, it is a form of social manipulation and conditioning in the constant bombardment of information. It keeps the people not only buying your products but conditioning them to think that they need your products in the first place.
Advertisers will never go obsolete. They are too good at advertising themselves.
After WW2 65 million people were dead and 50% of the boys and men in Germany were dead. Everyone loses with fascism
oh goodie. question that has absolutely no bearing on reality whatsoever: so in Austria and Germany there had to have been people who, before WW2, were crippled. I know war leaves people crippled but i’m curious as to the fate of those who were crippled before the war. No reason whatsoever ignore the cane and wheelchair and cabinet full of glue.
aw who am i kidding they’re gonna turn me into glue
Bad News Aktion T4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4
Fully agreed but why the particular focus on the offending nation? You could give similar statistics about, say, Belarus or Poland. To me it’s not morally the same when a Nazi German soldier is killed in combat to when a Belarusian civilian is starved to death in a Nazi concentration camp.
Because I’m stuck in the United States of Israel
So?
So the fate of the turd Reich is historically relevant to the current situation we face.
Oh, sorry, I get it now, thanks for explaining
Accelerationist here. I think it’s more of a coping mechanism. I basically support all protestors and people motivated to make change, regardless of which side they’re on.
I genuinely don’t get this stance - are you as okay with far right marches as pro-worker strikes and pickets?
Accelerationism is really dumb which is why it’s such a popular strawman.
Does someone have a different opinion? Well, it could be that different people have different ideas about how the world works as well as different priorities. But that’s all complicated and nuanced and forces you to contend with different perspectives. Instead, just assume that everyone has your perspective because it’s just inherently obvious to everyone, but some people are intentionally trying to make things worse because they’re stupid and evil.
Virtually no one is an actual accelerationist.
Yep very few actual believers but if you don’t support their “pragmatic” suggestions that throw billions under the bus they accuse you of this.
The real solution btw is just a better consensus mechanism in our electoral process in the form of STAR Voting.
It is quite literally that simple.
The lack of choice (as explained in Duverger’s Law) is what kills our politics and helps the media portray all political battles as us vs them and not “What shade out of a million shades of gray should this policy be?”.tl;dr - STAR Voting is quite literally a panacea for nearly all the extreme ills that plague our politics - even a large portion of “voting doesn’t matter so I won’t” apathy…because to vote “strategically” under STAR Voting is to just vote honestly and every vote matters. No revolution required - just a better electoral process. I’m happy to answer any questions.
No revolution required - just a better electoral process. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Why would the ruling capitalist class allow an electoral process that represents the working class against their own interests, if they haven’t allowed this anywhere at any time?
For the same reason they’re happy to burn the only habitable planet humans will ever have: they’re going to play with fire in search of optimal profit, even to their own eventual detriment.
People act like raw, naked, decayed capitalism is a totally stable system where all actors work perfectly together to rationally suppress the proletariat in perpetuity. But it’s not that. Capital has accumulated to the point of a handful of individuals butting heads over all of the earth’s resources.
There’s no longer a cabal of dozens of cartels coordinating in abstract lock step. There’s like 10 dudes that can meet in a room. Applying dialect-materialism to that is using Newtonian physics on a quantum scale.
Petty grudges and irrational emotions take control at that scale. A few of them get the idea that they can eat the others by leveraging the proletariat and all bets are off.
Will it certainly happen? Not necessarily. But more individuals have deposed through creative leveraging of legal mechanisms than those spontaneously pulled from their beds and shot. There’s no reason to not be prepared if the opportunity presents itself.
Someone do a version of the comic with this guy’s comment as the text of the first panel, please.
Hah! Well I took the comic to mean that the accelerationist gets exactly what he wanted and pays for it in the end when things go to hell.
Thing is if we implemented what I’m talking about (which is literally just a law about how we vote…we already have legislation that does this…we just amend it) there would be no upheaval.
The electorate would vote more honestly.
Campaigns would become more positive.
News media would become more policy focused.
There would be no firing squad - just a return to normal policy-focused (not party-focused) politics.
It would actually be quite boring.First time?
Sure, but only if you naively believe that electoralism is an acceptable system. Many, many anarchists would vehemently disagree with you though.
well this is going to make you happy. i just read this comic and was coming here to post it :3
It does, thanks, that’s pretty cool ! 🥰
