[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…
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?
It’s not that I treat them equally, but I’m happy to see people fighting for change, if that makes sense
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.
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.
How many actual Bernie supporters voted for Trump?
There has never been a centrist who cares.
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 governments 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 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.
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.
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.
What accerationists don’t realise is that the average liberal already knows the US is fascist and evil billionaires control everything. That average liberal wants change. But they aren’t doing anything, because they’re thinking “surely when it gets REALLY bad, people will rise up”. Just like the accelerationists. Accelerationists and liberals are the same group.
I think they’re thinking “shit I can barely survive and have two jobs and I don’t want my kids to starve and I’m taking care of my elderly parents. I can’t go riot or my whole family will suffer.”
That too. Making things worse doesn’t help the revolution. Making things better helps it. Now that Trump’s in charge, it’s only gotten harder to use direct action and civil disobedience.
No. Many far left groups we’re literally saying the same shit in the comic.
That makes them liberals. My purity test for leftism is whether you’re actually putting in effort to make the world a better place. Millions fail!
It’s amazing how many things are called liberalism, centrism, or leftism on the fediverse. It reminds me of the way socialism and communism are spoke about in far right groups.
Definitions change to meet the needs of their point. Too many people need a better education and a history lesson.
average liberal already knows the US is fascist
No. They always think the current moment is the exception and everything way very respectable and dignified historically.
That’s why you’ve got liberals venerating Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, having completely whitewashed the horror of those presidencial eras from their minds.
I don’t think you can find a liberal who thinks the Reagan or Bush presidencies were anything but bad.
By comparison they were great, at least.
I don’t think people get that this difference makes a difference. As a millennial going through college during the GW Bush years, there was at least a Republican party that cared about America, cared about non political government institutions and the service those members participate in, etc. Since the tea party that shit changed. And I don’t think it’s hard to believe Mitt Romney actually cares about this country and means what he says on this thing. I feel disgusted defending Romney, but I kind of miss it when it was guys like Romney were the political opponents in power and not these MAGA folks hellbent on destroying democracy and politicizing the institutions critical to America.
I just found 96 liberals who fit that description.
Saying “hey they might have cared a bit about institutions compared to maga” is not venerating.
venerate /vĕn′ə-rāt″/
To regard with deep respect or reverence. synonym: revere. Similar: revere
Not the same meaning at all. Not even close.
So no you didn’t find 96 people that fit that description.
When you mingle meanings like that, I’m just gonna leave it at that.
“Venerate” may be an exaggeration, but the rest of it, thinking everything was “respectable and dignified” and “completely whitewashing the horrors from their minds” fits that to a T.
You found 96 people who upvoted the comment saying Trump is worse than bush was and that Mitt Romney would be better than Trump is.
There’s nothing there saying Bush or Reagan were good.
a Republican party that cared about America
I feel disgusted defending Romney, but I kind of miss it when it was guys like Romney were the political opponents in power and not these MAGA folks hellbent on destroying democracy and politicizing the institutions critical to America.
Feel disgusted defending is still defending.
“Did we ever think we would see the day when we would say, ‘Please bring back George W. Bush’?” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said during an interview with Evan Smith last week. “We really did work together.”
I’d rather get shot in the arm instead of the head but that doesn’t mean I think getting shot in the arm is good.
That is pure nonsense.
You aren’t going to find liberals venerating Reagan, Bush, and Clinton because those people only exist in your mind. They don’t exist in reality.
You aren’t going to find liberals venerating Reagan, Bush, and Clinton
How Democrats Came to Feel Nostalgic for George W. Bush
“Did we ever think we would see the day when we would say, ‘Please bring back George W. Bush’?” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said during an interview with Evan Smith last week. “We really did work together.”
Former Democratic Representative Katie Hill tweeted, “In a million years I never thought I’d be crying watching this, thinking how much better we’d all feel if Bush were president today. Wtf.”
Saying “we worked together” isn’t venerating JFC.
venerate /vĕn′ə-rāt″/
To regard with deep respect or reverence. synonym: revere. Similar: revere
Not even close to the same thing.
- That isn’t the same thing.
- Democrat does not equal liberal.
Do you have anything intellectually HONEST to add to the conversation, or are you done with this sophomoric attempt at propaganda?
Democrat does not equal liberal.
Oh, you scratched yours, didn’t you?
Nobody where I live has any respect left for the USA, except for fascists. Peter Dutton tried following the American model and he lost his seat. We hate your country.
Australia is American Plus.
Your county is doing everything the US does on steroids. It’s just too small for anyone outside the South Pacific to notice.
Albanese and Trump signed a minerals deal just last October, ffs.
As a Millennial this is basically how I feel about Gen Z. Why are they so apathetic regarding everything? If anyone gets passionate about anything because they want something done about the rise of fascism, you get labeled as “crashing out”! It’s annoying as fuck!
My friends just say I’m crazy and I’m on the dark web for using Lemmy and telling them how bad google and fb are 😆 they dont believe anything I tell them.
As a millennial who remembers massive climate change and anti Iraq war protests I get it.
As a millennial, you should understand that there’s no coherent volition behind surplus objects like Gen Z. Do you remember how the US just added every muslim to the list of terrorists or how suddenly all single mothers in the UK became a parasite?
Why are you generalizing a whole generation?
Advertising stupidity, the only reason anyone ever has.
Trump was elected under millennials, not Z. Americans in general are apathetic - it’s a culture issue, not a generational one.
I see that difference extremely clearly now that I live in Finland.
“The youngest voters and those entering middle age tacked hard to the right. Gen X — which slightly favored president-elect Donald Trump with a one-point margin in 2020 — shifted 9 points toward Trump this cycle. Gen Z favored Vice President Kamala Harris by 11 points, compared to 24 points for President Joe Biden.
…
Gen Z’s big shift to the right wasn’t entirely unexpected. Teens were twice as likely to identify as more conservative than their parents compared to millennials 20 years ago, per a Gallup and Walton Family Foundation study conducted last fall.”
-Business Insider
Trump was elected under millennials *the first time.
And the second under both.
Not to mention, even your own thing shows they were still more “left” leaning (as left as you can get with establishment democrats at least) overall. But then again, you post from an unheard of source that then quotes the right wing business insider, so I’m not surprised you didn’t catch that their conclusion doesn’t make sense (Biden was the candidate up until literally a few months before the election, when it quickly swapped to Harris. 11 points in that context is quite high all things considered).
Stop crashing out… :)
No but I think its because of never ending negative things happening. People stop to care because they cant affect it.
There’s also climate accelerationism, which is least logically sound. If humans wipe themselves out, then the problem will be solved.
I’m fine with the logic of a species going extinct because they destroyed their own ecosystem, but intentionally accelerating that process is what I can only describe as evil. It’s doing massive harm for no benefit. It won’t save the planet’s current inhabitants from further damage; the real motivation is genocide against humans.
There’s also climate accelerationism
Trump has done more to curb emissions with the closing of Hormuz than the last five presidents combined.
Yea, sure, by instigating the bombing of oil fields and refineries, instantly burning hundreds of millions of barrels of oil into the atmosphere. Definitely reducing emissions…
Also, petrochemicals are a requirement for any sort of transition to alternatives. Humanity has been binging for nearly two centuries on free energy through hard oil dependence.
If we don’t tirate off of that the shock will (functionally) kill us. The thought that halting that consumption will solve everything is like an extreme alcoholic thinking quitting cold turkey will work.
That’s iike living in a house that is falling apart and saying if I just let it fall apart completely then I won’t need to fix the house
That’s a pretty over simplistic analogy. We didn’t build the ecosystem, and we are not going to be rebuilding anything if it collapses. Whatever is left will survive and adapt, and maybe some species smarter than us will evolve in a few hundred million years that will actually learn how to properly live in their environment without destroying it. Or if some humans do survive, they will be able to rebuild society based on an understanding of ecological limits.
There’s pretty much no evidence we will wipe ourselves “out” through climate change.
Really really fuck ourselves over? Sure. But it’s not going to kill literally everyone.
We have to figure out how to live together with the planet one way or another, and one day.
That’s even more of a case for it then. If the truth about climate destabilization is undeniable and happening in front of our eyes, maybe we will finally do something about it. Humans seem to not really give a shit about things until it directly affects their daily lives.
Potentially at the expense of all non-microbial life.
I don’t think that’s on the cards. Non-microbial life has survived 70% of the planet’s forests going up in flames as a consequence of a massive asteroid impact, and the ensuing years or possibly decade+ of planet-wide ash and dust clouds blocking out the sun. And that was just the latest mass extinction event.
You’re giving humanity far too much credit by assuming we’d be capable of anything comparable right now.
True, but that is part of the natural order. At the end of the day, humans are just another parasitic and unchecked species that is probably going to learn about their own environmental limits the hard way.
Even parasites are important to the environment. Also, if you wanna be dragged down to hell, don’t pull us with you.
Not every species is perfectly adapted to the environment forever. Multiple mass extinctions due to ecological destabilization have proven that.
humans are just another parasitic and unchecked species that is probably going to learn about their own environmental limits the hard way.
Humans are the exception precisely because they can see the axe falling and move out of the way.
Outside of the fossil fuel dominated US/Saudi sphere, we’ve seen an enormous collaborated effort to curb greenhouse gases. Not everyone is ignoring the risks and consequences.
What we have the capitalist West is a conscious choice between short term profit and long term survival.
Yes, some have taken steps to move away from fossil fuels, but not all, and most scientists agree it is too late without negative emissions. I agree that it is largely driven by capitalism, and that in and of itself is a root cause of many problems with our species and should be done away with, but if it takes the entire world falling apart to make the realities undeniably apparent, then so be it. I’m not saying I want it to happen, just that that may be the only thing that can make the conditions for real lasting change.
most scientists agree it is too late
I mean, “too late” for what is always the question. Folks keep insisting The Apocalypse is next month. And then it doesn’t come, and we get a wave of “I guess nothing actually ever happens” during a new record heat wave.
if it takes the entire world falling apart to make the realities undeniably apparent, then so be it
The world is a big place. It’s not clear what “falling apart” is even supposed to look like.
I’m seeing people predicting a 4% drop in population because of a particularly harsh El Nino this year. I’ve been hearing about a looming economic crash that’s at least ten years overdue.
At the scope of a human life, all of this is still very gradual change. You’re going to be living in the middle of it and not realize how much has changed because you never knew subzero weather in St. Louis or glaciers in Montana were normal.
The talk is of some kind of sharp sudden drop, and not the further churn of a 30,000 year old global extinction event.
I mean if you hate yourself that much there’s other options than trying to take us out with you
I’m not trying to do anything, but if humans drive themselves to extinction, it is what it is. The planet will go on, new intelligent life will develop eventually, hopefully, if not here than some other planet. But maybe we will come close to the brink of extinction and then finally wake up, perhaps that is what it will take.
The problem is capitalism. Don’t make it about humans as a species when there are countless counter examples we can learn from
The problem is capitalism.
The Soviets were shit on environmentalism for a long time. We didn’t see a serious environmental movement in China until the early 2000s. We’ve never really seen one in the USSR, prior to its collapse.
The alternative to Capitalism is not necessarily whatever the fuck the Soviets’ idea of Communism was.
“Capitalism caused all these ecological problems”
“Okay what about the same problems occurring outside of a capitalist framework”
“Those don’t count”
Shrug
You’ve got to move beyond the ideological and address the material. Ecological harm isn’t predicated on privatized profit.
“I’m sick, my covid test is positive. I’m staying at home.”
“Actually, noro virus has similar symptoms. The problem isn’t covid.”
Shrug
True. That’s not what I had in mind when I talked about alternatives.
It’s not about humans as a species. Capitalism is definitely a driving factor, but this is far from the first time a species has developed maladaptive tendencies that led to ecological destabilization. I am not saying it’s good, but it is not a uniquely human phenomenon by any means.
True, just look at what they are finding out about ancient South American society in the Amazon. Apparently, at one point humans nearly wiped out most of the Amazon rainforest to have gigantic, almost New York sized metropolitan cities.
The problem is about greed and corruption. Communism doesn’t fix that.
The problem is about greed and corruption.
And a culture that reinforces it.
Communism doesn’t fix that.
If you are talking about Bolshevism, I agree.
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.
No replace Capitalism with Communism and it works 100% as well. Has happened, even!
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?
This but socialism
Almost nobody is arguing this maybe i should give you the benefit of the doubt but I just can’t people hating your “nicer” imperialist genocidal capitalists don’t believe this.
Please use punctuation.
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!
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?
choked on a bone in a pie eating contest, which was weird because it was an apple pie?
Capitalists: take notes on what the Nazis did wrong and tiptoe around it
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 bourgeoisie parties to be an ally against fascism.
Who the fuck is downvoting this?
Wrong guy. Thallman gave a speech in Hamburg in May 1932 about the launch of the Antifa organization criticizing anybody thinking they can benefit from Hitler taking power and warning you can’t play with fascism. Then a book in the 1970s picked out where he’s quoting the idea he’s against and only quoted the quote trying to manufacture this convenient ironic twist where actually communists deserved to die in death camps.
The head of the SPD social democratic party paramilitary wing Reichsbanner gave a speech in February 1933 (right after Hitler took power, right before the Reichstag fire) and did actually say “after Hitler our turn” arguing it was good to let Hitler expand the military because the SPD would get a cool new army when they won the next election.
Every stupid fucking Marxists Leninist piece of shit and dumb-fuck psuedo-Palestine activist garbage fuckwitt who boycotted voting Kamala actively aided Trump, and thus chose the vastly more pro-genocide option
Yes how dare folks not go out an vote for a candidate that would have Genocide 50% of the time. Don’t people know that is smaller than the candidate the genocides 100% of the time
I’m sure the people of Iran, and the Hispanic folks being sent to concentration camps, or anyone who relied on US aid programs are grateful for your extreme shortsightedness and inability to do very basic situational analysis that you couldn’t see the blood puddle under Kamala was smaller than under Trump.
I’m sure they’ll get on their hands and knees to praise you before their little girls’ school is bombed or the ICE agents put their gun in their mouths and pull the trigger.
You’re such a brave warrior/activists and your actions are so amazingly effective at saving lives. /s
Than it’s a good thing I am not arguing some moral superiority. The argument is regardless which candidate won blood of the innocent every day still getting spilled by the machine. It supposedly being smaller doesn’t make it better
Less death and destruction is always a better option. Its a simple matter of the Trolley problem, and if you can’t figure that one out, you got major issues.
I haven’t even jumped into the fact that getting actual progressive and anti-genocide politicians in office went from difficult to nearly impossible because millions of pathetic psuedo-leftists decided they’d rather collapse the US from flawed democracy to fascist shithole with nukes.
And with this trolley problem it is either one track with 100 bodies or a track thatids 99.
I rather spend my time getting all 199 bodies off the tracks thank you very much
I’d rather bury my head in the sand and allow everyone to die due to my inaction because I believe I can break reality itself to change it to how I wish it was. I do t like how reality is so I’m gonna pretend it isn’t the way it is.
FTFY
Except they don’t believe this at all and maybe we should fight so there is no pro genocide option instead of one you assign lesser pro genocide.
Except they don’t believe this at all
I know, they don’t believe in objective reality.
and maybe we should fight so there is no pro genocide option instead of one you assign lesser pro genocide.
- I never assigned Kamala as the lesser of two evils nor the less damaging and less genocidal. That was/is simple reality, and more genocide and atrocities are now happening in part due to these people’s inaction. The blood is partially on their hands too
- You’re entirely missing the point. The choice was either voting Kamala or aiding Trump with inaction, thus causing far more death and suffering. There wasn’t an alternative. If there was, I would have also chosen it. We aren’t free from reality just because its grim and horrible.
- We can fight against genocide while also not surrendering to fascism. Hence the point of the comic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
they’re more advocating for destruction of everything because some of them believe they have to destroy the world before their god will return
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.
Reminds me of this meme:
Or this one:
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)
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.
