Thanks for speaking on our behalf, but I think most accelerationists know a societal collapse has consequences. We’re just OK with suffering for 50 years so that future generations can prosper
In Europe, feudalism lasted 600 years last time, and only ended because a plague loosened up the nobility’s power over peasants. Vestiges of that old system endured in some parts of Europe for another 200 years after that, too.
In some neofeudalist future, where the lords and nobles have access to incredibly invasive technology for monitoring the thoughts and actions of all people, for controlling even more links in the chain of the production of food or tools or weapons, that power structure may turn out to be even more entrenched than the last time around. It’s not far fetched to say that the next time strictly inherited class comes around, it becomes a permanent feature of all societies that follow.
To add, the Junkers in Germany were the party of the old aristocrats. The last Junker to do anything of note was Von Hindenburg, who gave Hitler the chancellorship. Been completely irrelevant on both ends of Germany ever since.
You presented no signs of deep. You’re relying on logical fallacies like Survivorship bias, where you assume society will re-emerge. There is no logical reason that would force societal collapse to follow previous patterns.
You’re okay with 50 years of widespread suffering to maybe have any society. But not okay with paying increased monthly taxes to guarantee a stable society.
FYI, there are accelerationists on both sides. The ones on the left are just unwitting allies of those on the right because their ideology is founded upon the belief that, contrary to all historical data, pushing society to a more miserable place will magically result in widespread class consciousness and a workers’ revolution.
This is something that has never happened in any major way in recorded human history and never because of intentional suffering. Generally, the historical results have been genocide and/or centuries of oppression.
I’ve noticed that many of these cruel and reactionary ideologies are not based in any historical data nor science. This is used to be called hysteria.
They still haven’t answered either; so I can only assume they did not realize the contradiction between accelerationism and paying more taxes. Sad times we live in.
We’re just OK with suffering for 50 years so that future generations can prosper
Correction: You’re OK with inflicting widespread suffering and death, especially on the most vulnerable, for the faith-based belief that, contrary to historical evidence, it will result in a society more aligned with your ideological utopia.
Because you think you’ll ’endure the pain’ and then get to ‘build a better system’.
But better odds are you’ll just die early on, and the system you dream of will never come to pass. You have gambling brain. ‘We’ll totally win next time! Just got to start over one more time!’
What are the core tenants of Anarcho-Communism from your perspective? From my understanding, it doesn’t seem like a system that addresses human greed properly.
I agree that capitalism discourages empathy, but there still are empathetic people. Just like even if somehow you managed to get hundreds of millions of people on the same page without a central authority to disseminate that culture, there’d still be malicious people that would do whatever it takes to gain wealth and power.
People like Hitler do not get discouraged in their lust for power.
It reminds me too much of these moments in RTS games, or Sim City, that time you got hit hard and you have to rebuild, but don’t have resources to build, but to get more resources you need to build infrastructure. It can take so long to get out of that rut, and that’s of you don’t get hit by another calamity.
Sometimes I think any policy maker should play a game of old school Sim City 2000 and we can all see how they do before we vote for them.
The problem is realism. Sim City would teach you that a village of 150 people will absolutely grow into a thriving city because that’s the simple premise of the game - it’s a citybuilder - but that’s not how real life works. They could play increasingly more complex simulation games like Democracy 3, and it would still fail to be a realistic look at the complexities of modern society.
I’d also argue the opposite lesson is usually learned from games, because most gamers don’t play on “hardcore” mode - and those that do play hardcore can still always reroll or /ff to start another game or even just touch grass and stop playing the game. Playing God doesn’t reinforce empathy.
Good policy needs to balance a clinical approach against empathetic concerns. My advice to policy makers would be reading books like “Cities and the Wealth of Nations” by Jane Jacobs and learning from modern experts and non-profit advocates like Strong Towns. They should be looking to peers for success stories to emulate and for failures to avoid.
Everyone is so used to consuming news not necessarily as entertainment but as background hum or as ammunition to confirm their ideology or dispel another. This isn’t wrong per se, but I think the consequence of constant barrage of war, disaster, tragedy, corporate abuse, political abuse at home and abroad desensitizes people to the possibility that these things can happen to them tomorrow right outside their front door.
They’re so used to the idea that theoretically the government has always been able to do whatever it wants to you they don’t realize how viscerally real it is that now they can do it without making excuses or cover ups, or under any pretense, and not only will no one do anything but millions will support the regime while you’re black bagged without due process. Authoritarian violence in America was always bad, but at least there had to be an excuse, a judicial system set up to defend cops who lie and say they felt threatened. Soon they will be brazen enough to snatch you up without pretense of a crime, without anyone knowing and without needing to explain themselves
They don’t realize how viscerally bad it will be for them when war breaks out no matter which side of that war they are on. Accelerationists are fucking clowns and they are not prepared for the world they’ve been jerking off to.
Authoritarian violence in America was always bad, but at least there had to be an excuse, a judicial system set up to defend cops who lie and say they felt threatened.
Hah! No, it’s always been like that. Particularly against minorities.
Right, and they are tried in an unfair judicial system and sent to American prison. This is bad, but not sending people to El Salvador without trial to die levels of bad. These things aren’t equal and to imply it is is disingenuous
Everyone who thinks this seems to forget that they have to live through the collapse of civilization. It’s not gonna be pleasant.
Accelerationists aren’t exactly deep thinkers who understand entropy.
Thanks for speaking on our behalf, but I think most accelerationists know a societal collapse has consequences. We’re just OK with suffering for 50 years so that future generations can prosper
In Europe, feudalism lasted 600 years last time, and only ended because a plague loosened up the nobility’s power over peasants. Vestiges of that old system endured in some parts of Europe for another 200 years after that, too.
In some neofeudalist future, where the lords and nobles have access to incredibly invasive technology for monitoring the thoughts and actions of all people, for controlling even more links in the chain of the production of food or tools or weapons, that power structure may turn out to be even more entrenched than the last time around. It’s not far fetched to say that the next time strictly inherited class comes around, it becomes a permanent feature of all societies that follow.
To add, the Junkers in Germany were the party of the old aristocrats. The last Junker to do anything of note was Von Hindenburg, who gave Hitler the chancellorship. Been completely irrelevant on both ends of Germany ever since.
In the same vein, I appreciate your making that decision on behalf of me, my wife, and kids.
You presented no signs of deep. You’re relying on logical fallacies like Survivorship bias, where you assume society will re-emerge. There is no logical reason that would force societal collapse to follow previous patterns.
Always atart with yourself first.
You’re okay with 50 years of widespread suffering to maybe have any society. But not okay with paying increased monthly taxes to guarantee a stable society.
The Greek were right, democracy doesn’t work.
Democracy only works with an informed electorate.
Democracy does work, but it needs to be maintained.
Who said I’m against increased taxes, wut
Ofc liberals can win any argument when they get to make up what the opposing side thinks
Taxes need a functioning society so a government can function to collect them.
You’re okay with more taxes, but you’re an accelerationist…
What does accelerationism mean to you? And what benefits do you believe society gains from this?
P.S. For the sake of transparency, I’m not liberal; but you can call me whatever you like.
I’ve said this before to one of these types and then they started calling me a nazi. They’re unhinged evil morons.
FYI, there are accelerationists on both sides. The ones on the left are just unwitting allies of those on the right because their ideology is founded upon the belief that, contrary to all historical data, pushing society to a more miserable place will magically result in widespread class consciousness and a workers’ revolution.
This is something that has never happened in any major way in recorded human history and never because of intentional suffering. Generally, the historical results have been genocide and/or centuries of oppression.
I’ve noticed that many of these cruel and reactionary ideologies are not based in any historical data nor science. This is used to be called hysteria.
They still haven’t answered either; so I can only assume they did not realize the contradiction between accelerationism and paying more taxes. Sad times we live in.
Correction: You’re OK with inflicting widespread suffering and death, especially on the most vulnerable, for the faith-based belief that, contrary to historical evidence, it will result in a society more aligned with your ideological utopia.
Ahh, the ‘hooray for me and to hell with everyone else!’ mentality. Always the sign of a stable, sensible person.
Why did you think there’s a “hooray for me” here?
Because you think you’ll ’endure the pain’ and then get to ‘build a better system’.
But better odds are you’ll just die early on, and the system you dream of will never come to pass. You have gambling brain. ‘We’ll totally win next time! Just got to start over one more time!’
It’s just so stupid.
Nah, you’re just a fucking idiot.
People don’t understand that a power vacuum attracts the power hungry that will do whatever it takes to get it.
No spoilers, I know, but have you watched the news recently?
No, I know. Like I said, it’s not going to be pleasant.
It’s already not pleasant, but it’s going to not be, too.
So let’s make the best out of it, don’t you think?
How?
Hugs?
Building mutual aid networks for the anarcho communist revolution of cause
What are the core tenants of Anarcho-Communism from your perspective? From my understanding, it doesn’t seem like a system that addresses human greed properly.
It does by actively discouraging it just like capitalism discourages empathy
I agree that capitalism discourages empathy, but there still are empathetic people. Just like even if somehow you managed to get hundreds of millions of people on the same page without a central authority to disseminate that culture, there’d still be malicious people that would do whatever it takes to gain wealth and power.
People like Hitler do not get discouraged in their lust for power.
It reminds me too much of these moments in RTS games, or Sim City, that time you got hit hard and you have to rebuild, but don’t have resources to build, but to get more resources you need to build infrastructure. It can take so long to get out of that rut, and that’s of you don’t get hit by another calamity.
Sometimes I think any policy maker should play a game of old school Sim City 2000 and we can all see how they do before we vote for them.
The problem is realism. Sim City would teach you that a village of 150 people will absolutely grow into a thriving city because that’s the simple premise of the game - it’s a citybuilder - but that’s not how real life works. They could play increasingly more complex simulation games like Democracy 3, and it would still fail to be a realistic look at the complexities of modern society.
I’d also argue the opposite lesson is usually learned from games, because most gamers don’t play on “hardcore” mode - and those that do play hardcore can still always reroll or /ff to start another game or even just touch grass and stop playing the game. Playing God doesn’t reinforce empathy.
Good policy needs to balance a clinical approach against empathetic concerns. My advice to policy makers would be reading books like “Cities and the Wealth of Nations” by Jane Jacobs and learning from modern experts and non-profit advocates like Strong Towns. They should be looking to peers for success stories to emulate and for failures to avoid.
Yeah, Sim City is not that realistic, but what some politicians belt out is so wrong they wouldn´t even get them out of a city builder start area.
Everyone is so used to consuming news not necessarily as entertainment but as background hum or as ammunition to confirm their ideology or dispel another. This isn’t wrong per se, but I think the consequence of constant barrage of war, disaster, tragedy, corporate abuse, political abuse at home and abroad desensitizes people to the possibility that these things can happen to them tomorrow right outside their front door.
They’re so used to the idea that theoretically the government has always been able to do whatever it wants to you they don’t realize how viscerally real it is that now they can do it without making excuses or cover ups, or under any pretense, and not only will no one do anything but millions will support the regime while you’re black bagged without due process. Authoritarian violence in America was always bad, but at least there had to be an excuse, a judicial system set up to defend cops who lie and say they felt threatened. Soon they will be brazen enough to snatch you up without pretense of a crime, without anyone knowing and without needing to explain themselves
They don’t realize how viscerally bad it will be for them when war breaks out no matter which side of that war they are on. Accelerationists are fucking clowns and they are not prepared for the world they’ve been jerking off to.
Hah! No, it’s always been like that. Particularly against minorities.
Right, and they are tried in an unfair judicial system and sent to American prison. This is bad, but not sending people to El Salvador without trial to die levels of bad. These things aren’t equal and to imply it is is disingenuous