The accelerationists are always correct except for the fact that advocating for worse conditions is abhorrent and disconnects you from the people whose conditions you just helped make worse instead of better. They will always be correct but it will always be a strategy that should not be undertaken because it will only harm the movement.
I've been grappling with whether I'm an accelerationist or just a pessimist. Because I don't want bad things to happen, I just keep correctly predicting them and looking for silver linings.
What if you're not advocating for them in a material way, because you lack any real input into your socio-economic future? What if you're just trying to claim you can see a silver lining in the face of an incoming storm?
And what if the folks in government and media and business who denounce "accelerationism" are the ones prosecuting the policy, while blaming anyone who looks at the catastrophic results and says "Maybe this will turn out for the best in the end" are secret foreign influenced enemies of the state?
Silver lining is fine, doing things like advocating to vote for the worst possible option is not, or worse still are the accelerationists taking part in and actively pushing the far right further because they believe worsening the conditions is good.
doing things like advocating to vote for the worst possible option is not
Unless you're suggesting Joe Rogan or RFK Jr or Aaron Sorkin or Lin Manuel Miranda are accelerationists, I just don't think we're talking about a meaningful input into election results.
the accelerationists taking part in and actively pushing the far right further
I don't think this kind of person exists in a meaningful way. Actual corporate fascists are pushing conservatives rightward.
I don't think we have the numbers to meaningfully affect the vote whether we're advocating for accelerationism or not. The world seems to have chosen to make the lives of people worse, and many of us are just coping and hoping that the worsening conditions - which were coming regardless - will lead to a better outcome in the end.
The accelerationists are always correct except for the fact that advocating for worse conditions is abhorrent and disconnects you from the people whose conditions you just helped make worse instead of better. They will always be correct but it will always be a strategy that should not be undertaken because it will only harm the movement.
I've been grappling with whether I'm an accelerationist or just a pessimist. Because I don't want bad things to happen, I just keep correctly predicting them and looking for silver linings.
What if you're not advocating for them in a material way, because you lack any real input into your socio-economic future? What if you're just trying to claim you can see a silver lining in the face of an incoming storm?
And what if the folks in government and media and business who denounce "accelerationism" are the ones prosecuting the policy, while blaming anyone who looks at the catastrophic results and says "Maybe this will turn out for the best in the end" are secret foreign influenced enemies of the state?
Silver lining is fine, doing things like advocating to vote for the worst possible option is not, or worse still are the accelerationists taking part in and actively pushing the far right further because they believe worsening the conditions is good.
Unless you're suggesting Joe Rogan or RFK Jr or Aaron Sorkin or Lin Manuel Miranda are accelerationists, I just don't think we're talking about a meaningful input into election results.
I don't think this kind of person exists in a meaningful way. Actual corporate fascists are pushing conservatives rightward.
I don't think we have the numbers to meaningfully affect the vote whether we're advocating for accelerationism or not. The world seems to have chosen to make the lives of people worse, and many of us are just coping and hoping that the worsening conditions - which were coming regardless - will lead to a better outcome in the end.