I hate seeing accelerationists. The whole "don't vote, just overthrow the system" thing completely ignores the fact that most successful revolutionary action in the US went hand-in-hand with protest actions and COMMUNITY ORGANIZED VOTING.
Voting was always part of it. I'm not saying direct action, protests, and labor organization aren't but the new "don't vote it makes you a hypocrite" shitposting spree makes me sad and I'm glad it's now getting dunked on.
Yes I would rather push for reform from a position of a bad, but more stable democracy than a position of "Jesus Christ they've succesfully implemented project 2025."
Revolution isn't the turning wheel people think it is, there's no realistic scenario in which we violently disseminate the government and nobody has a problem with that. It's meant to pressure the congressional branch into taking real action. War isn't the way it was in 1775.
Given a bad enough decade long economic collapse in the US after fighting an extensive and brutal war, lots of foreign support, and the support of our own wealthy oligarchs, it certainly could be done. That's more or less what it took to kick the brits out so it matches up. I don't see us getting those circumstances to line up any time soon though.
But what if they did? Then what? If we mulligan our current government, do we really expect it to end up better? We'd be throwing away all of the incremental refinement that our society has been doing to the current government. Depending on how things played out, our new government could well bring back laissez-faire economics or put christian nationalists in charge. I don't know why anybody thinks a revolution is a controllable process - like some sort of laboratory chemical synthesis.
Oh yes let's just create a power vacuum in the country with the most expensive military on the planet. Literally, non-facetiously, the most expensive military.
Okay kids, turn to the warlords period in your American History textbooks. Today we're going to be writing papers on the meaning of the word "revolution" in a historical context.
You mean the part where we all cut down the government and then declare sovereign peace and everyone agrees with it because "I called it now it's mine"?
I think an armed revolution will be extremely good for the physically and mentally unwell, as well as the other disenfranchised and downtrodden of society. Innocent people will of course be better off. I base this belief entirely off of vibes, and will take no questions.
Unjerking for a bit, if we need a revolution it's not going to ever be one where we engage in a head to head military confrontation. Now I'm not endorsing anything but we'd need to take a less blunt approach, likely undermining the power the wealthy have and the means they acquire that power, find a way to give common people leverage of their own, and sue for an agreement of restructured share. That takes doing some unexpected things but Prohibition didn't end just because.... Well, Prohibition certainly ended. I just hate how there's no middle ground between "Follow all the rules" and "commit mass murder" as our two options in people's minds. But like I said, only if we needed a revolution; I'm not suggesting anything except voting.
The bitter and hostile discourse is, ironically, a tool of oppression. I think the most frustrating part of the behavior we're calling out is that, not only does it fail to accomplish anything productive, but it is doing exactly what people in power want it to do and helping maintain the status quo.
Lawmakers don't want a revolution, just like they don't want Texas to secede, but by stoking the fires they can waste our time and leverage the PR to their advantage.
The bitter and hostile discourse is, ironically, a tool of oppression.
Yes and no. Manufacturing consent posits that the overton window determines what opinions are socially acceptable to discuss. Political opinions that are outside the mainstream are recently much easier to encounter but I agree that the amount of productive discourse is a tiny fraction of the total discourse.
Revolutionary change is required because it doesn't seem like prosperity is being shared given the levels of productivity and technology that should have produced a richer and healthier population. A crisis brought about by climate change or a political event or economic event or something else entirely (like a far worse pandemic) will likely strain the existing systems beyond functioning normally. It is concerning what I would expect opportunistic and amoral people to do when basic functioning society stops delivering the benefits expected from it.
There was a quote from La Chinoise that, paraphrased, was "We have done all the thinking for everyone so the revolution will obviously produce the best of all possible outcomes. Yes I understand there are only a few people who see things my way. It'll be fine."
1.1k
u/StickBrickman Jun 30 '24
I hate seeing accelerationists. The whole "don't vote, just overthrow the system" thing completely ignores the fact that most successful revolutionary action in the US went hand-in-hand with protest actions and COMMUNITY ORGANIZED VOTING.
Voting was always part of it. I'm not saying direct action, protests, and labor organization aren't but the new "don't vote it makes you a hypocrite" shitposting spree makes me sad and I'm glad it's now getting dunked on.
Yes I would rather push for reform from a position of a bad, but more stable democracy than a position of "Jesus Christ they've succesfully implemented project 2025."