So, no matter what, we are just inevitably fucked regardless of what we do, so let’s just hammer on the gas harder to let fascism win and destroy everything and get it over with? Do you not see how that is just authoritarian absolutism?
What kind of rollover defeatist cuck shit is this? Your stance is theologically conservative accelerationism, point blank.
Parties are coalitions that change over time. The neoliberal wing of the Democratic party has been ascendant since the Clinton years. But they are declining now. And the sole reason is that their brand is proving incapable of actually winning elections. If a party keeps winning, the people running the party maintain credibility and business as usual just keeps trucking along. Parties can only undergo fundamental change after losing a few cycles. It took the 3 losses of the Reagan and Bush Sr. years before something like Clinton’s triangulation strategy had any hope of winning support among the Democratic party.
An accelerationist wants capital accumulated in the hands of capitalists as quickly as possible, so as to ensure the contradictions of capitalism to occur as quickly as possible. Therefore an accelerationist would vote for whichever they considered to be the most competent capitalist - in most eyes, that would be Kamala.
Accelerationism is not just “when you want a thing to happen faster”.
Weird non-sequitor. Youre talking about accelerationism, I explain what it is and what an accelerationist would probably do. I’m sorry your lacking understanding of marxist sub-cultures lead to you… asking about it and being told what it is?
Anyway, speaking of blame…Seems like that’s you? You blame voters for not voting for democrat, rather than blame the party for running an unviable candidate.
It’s literally telling the Democrats to run, not walk, in the OTHER DIRECTION. If you don’t communicate that, then, they accelerate in the wrong direction. Essentially voting for them no matter what their policy is the accelerationism.
Because the goal is not to make the situation worse with the hope of later making the situation better. The goal is to hold people accountable for supporting genocide. The point is that we shouldn’t be afraid of a short-term loss, because that can lead to superior long-term improvement. We shouldn’t let the fear of a short-term loss prevent us from making the morally right decision today.
Accelerationism would be deliberately seeking to collapse the current Democratic party. For example, by convincing a bunch of Democrats to stay home, not out of any real response to their actions, but simply because Democrats losing could shake up the political structure.
The key difference is that one is simply not allowing the fear of being labeled “accelerationist” to prevent us from the right decision, while the latter is actually accelerationism.
Accelerationism is meant to have a very specific meaning. Unfortunately, it gets used as a cudgel to argue that every short-term win must be obtained at any cost, even at the cost of superior long-term success.
Doing the exact same thing accelerationists advocate for sure seems like accelerationism to me. Saying you’re doing it for different reasons just feels like delusional self-righteous accelerationism.
So, no matter what, we are just inevitably fucked regardless of what we do, so let’s just hammer on the gas harder to let fascism win and destroy everything and get it over with? Do you not see how that is just authoritarian absolutism?
What kind of rollover defeatist cuck shit is this? Your stance is theologically conservative accelerationism, point blank.
That’s a bad faith interpretation.
Parties are coalitions that change over time. The neoliberal wing of the Democratic party has been ascendant since the Clinton years. But they are declining now. And the sole reason is that their brand is proving incapable of actually winning elections. If a party keeps winning, the people running the party maintain credibility and business as usual just keeps trucking along. Parties can only undergo fundamental change after losing a few cycles. It took the 3 losses of the Reagan and Bush Sr. years before something like Clinton’s triangulation strategy had any hope of winning support among the Democratic party.
I’m still struggling to not read that as accelerationism. How is that not accelerationism?
An accelerationist wants capital accumulated in the hands of capitalists as quickly as possible, so as to ensure the contradictions of capitalism to occur as quickly as possible. Therefore an accelerationist would vote for whichever they considered to be the most competent capitalist - in most eyes, that would be Kamala.
Accelerationism is not just “when you want a thing to happen faster”.
Wow, you guys will blame anybody but the people actually in power. What the fuck?
Weird non-sequitor. Youre talking about accelerationism, I explain what it is and what an accelerationist would probably do. I’m sorry your lacking understanding of marxist sub-cultures lead to you… asking about it and being told what it is?
Anyway, speaking of blame…Seems like that’s you? You blame voters for not voting for democrat, rather than blame the party for running an unviable candidate.
It’s literally telling the Democrats to run, not walk, in the OTHER DIRECTION. If you don’t communicate that, then, they accelerate in the wrong direction. Essentially voting for them no matter what their policy is the accelerationism.
Yeah, because the conservatives definitely took their time tearing everything apart, it’s a good thing we got ahead of that by doing fuck all.
You’re so right, lets keep doing the thing that put the conservatives in power.
Because the goal is not to make the situation worse with the hope of later making the situation better. The goal is to hold people accountable for supporting genocide. The point is that we shouldn’t be afraid of a short-term loss, because that can lead to superior long-term improvement. We shouldn’t let the fear of a short-term loss prevent us from making the morally right decision today.
Accelerationism would be deliberately seeking to collapse the current Democratic party. For example, by convincing a bunch of Democrats to stay home, not out of any real response to their actions, but simply because Democrats losing could shake up the political structure.
The key difference is that one is simply not allowing the fear of being labeled “accelerationist” to prevent us from the right decision, while the latter is actually accelerationism.
Accelerationism is meant to have a very specific meaning. Unfortunately, it gets used as a cudgel to argue that every short-term win must be obtained at any cost, even at the cost of superior long-term success.
Doing the exact same thing accelerationists advocate for sure seems like accelerationism to me. Saying you’re doing it for different reasons just feels like delusional self-righteous accelerationism.
Oh, this is why you got mad, because it ruined your poor attempt at a dunk. Pathetic.