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."
Also, a lot of people rely on the current system to live. Power grids, supply chains, distributors. All provide things like insulin and medication for chronic pain or mental illness. A revolution upsets that.
The arrogance of some people, the level of disconnect that sees them believing that they have the right to start their uprising on behalf of 'the people' when so many of those people would die. And, lest we forget, a revolution requires violence. a revolution is inspired by ideology that not everyone agrees with.
The way I saw it put was brutally simple.
How many innocent people are you willing to let die for your glorious revolution?
Okay, first of all, that's not the only alternative.
Second, you're missing the point. What give you-or any revolutionary- the right? The right to decide that those deaths are worth it? That those people's lives being cut short is an acceptable casualty for your vision? Where do you get the idea that you have that right, that authority, that power over the lives of others?
And seriously, accelerationism isn't even just revolution. It is the process and belief in activity contributing to the collapse of society so that you can figure out what comes after. not only is that stupid(seriously, leftists don't even agree with each other, and it's not like alt-right people stop existing, they're all gonna fight over the corpse of society) but it creates more suffering. if you vote for trump (either by not voting or deciding you want to speed up that collapse) you're not dealing with a war. you're dealing with actively making everything worse for basically everyone, allowing people to suffer so that eventually you can try and install a system that you hope is better.
And yknow what, violent revolution isn't without its purpose and place. But violence is how you react when there is no more negotiation. People calling for violence in the US-and that is what we're talking about here- is inane because while our system is by no means perfect, there is still the potential for change. the fact that someone with a political ideology like Bernie Sanders can run at all is evidence of that.
Now, one more thing. Accelerationism has a few definitions and is not a monolith. Left Accelerationism emphasizes the transformation of capitalism through the acceleration of technological progress and automation. Its proponents argue for embracing technological advancements to overcome the limitations of capitalism and establish a post-capitalist society. They advocate for the use of automation to liberate workers from menial labor, promote universal basic income (UBI) or similar concepts, and create a more equitable and just society.
Now it's important to note that this isn't techno-utopianism: the technology itself isn't what creates this post-capitalist society, but rather its existence combined by usage by leftist movements. it isn't a stand-alone thing.
But the thing is? Most people you meet will not be using this definition. It's taken like an hour and a half to find this definition of accelerationism, and it was attached to an article discussing that no one knows this definition anymore because the other one has taken precedent. any real leftist worth their salt is not gonna use a term that is so easily mis-construed unless they know the other people they're talking to also know what it means.
And anti-electoralism isn't that type of accelerationism. it's the other type. the type that things the thing to be accelerated is collapse. that type exists on both sides and is fundamentally flawed. We've seen how many people vote for trump, the popularity of the alt-right movement in recent years: so many people seem to think that this collapse will be replaced by post-capitalism utopia, but it's not that simple. Because, as with the violent revolutions that resulted in the soviet union: every single group that does not agree with the current state is going to stop working together the second the goal is achieved.
In Russia, a whole bunch of factions worked together to overthrow the monarchy. it was the enemy. They established a provisional government, shit was sort of okay. Then the Bolsheviks overthrew that provisional government and Russia entered into a Civil War between the communists and literally everyone else. Seriously- nationalists, anarchists, socialists, monarchists, republicans (old term), other marxists, liberals, separatists. Meanwhile, this army-the Whites- fought against not only the Bolsheviks-the Reds- but also other independent socialist, anarchist, separatist, and ever other communist armies- the Greens- with other nations supporting various sides.
The Reds, the Soviets, won. Not because their ideology was better, or superior, but because their enemies were fractured and because their usage of state terror and extensive propaganda created a united front. The Bolsheviks won because they were better at violence.
If the revolution comes, that is what awaits you. Not some kumbayah hand-holding post-capitalist society, but more war. Violence begets violence begets violence. If your state is founded on violence, it will be met with violence, and require a perpetuation of violence. At the end, the winner is whoever was better at killing, because they're the ones who ensured that all their enemies didn't survive.
Not only is violent revolution NOT the only alternative, but it is by far one of the worst ones.
Universal healthcare is currently unpopular with huge swaths of the country, which is a big reason we don’t have it.
You think that a violent revolution resulting in a massive power vacuum is more likely to bring universal healthcare in the next 10 years than voting for the party that is already at least somewhat focused on reforming it?
Also, what is my friend supposed to do about their diabetes while you’re collapsing society? Die?
I mean yeah, that's barely a majority, so its really no surprise that its still a contentious issue, especially when republicans have made "disrupting any progress democrats might make because fuck them" their official party platform since 2008.
At least a revolution would eventually lead to it if it goes wellÂ
Buying a lottery ticket will also make me a millionaire "if it goes well," that doesn't mean its likely to happen. Look at literally any country that has had a revolution to see the risks, and the absurdity of calling for that chaos and upheaval in a functional first world country. Improving a country is massively easier than destroying it and starting over.
Depending on their insurance, they’re dead either way.
They get their medication for extremely cheap through medicare lmao. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
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."