Accelerationist thought, at least in my case, is a product of massive frustration. We live in a society that seems unable to do anything but slowly decline, no matter what. That resists progress and positive change at all costs. I'm not saying positive change or revolution is impossible, but fuck if it doesn't very much feel like it a lot of the time. The logical consequence of that feeling is wanting to shorten the length of the current awfulness by as much as possible by forcing things to collapse in on themselves, and let some kind of change happen, just hopefully a good one.
I'm not saying it's a good argument or position, I agree changing things in a positive direction is a much better option, but I think it's hard to outright refute the legitimacy of its existence when we live in a world of such hopelessness.
Because in current society, change and 'building power' feel like hopeless goals. In a society that collapses in on itself, the outcomes are very unpredictable, they may or may not get worse, but the potential for change and building a hopeful future exists. I don't think it's wildly unreasonable to think we have no hope in the world as it is now, but an unknown, different one could (but certainly, might not) have more room for positive change.
Even if collapse is worse in all possible outcomes, it's still impossible to tell whether some outcomes might have more potential for positive change. e.g. a horrible slavery feudalist society might have more suffering, but it might, from that point, be easier to build a revolution to go a better path because a lot more treats are missing.
And I admire the optimism, but it's a mindset I struggle to share. If making meaningful change is absolutely impossible, then I ain't gonna waste my time and effort.
Accelerationist thought, at least in my case, is a product of massive frustration. We live in a society that seems unable to do anything but slowly decline, no matter what. That resists progress and positive change at all costs. I'm not saying positive change or revolution is impossible, but fuck if it doesn't very much feel like it a lot of the time. The logical consequence of that feeling is wanting to shorten the length of the current awfulness by as much as possible by forcing things to collapse in on themselves, and let some kind of change happen, just hopefully a good one.
I'm not saying it's a good argument or position, I agree changing things in a positive direction is a much better option, but I think it's hard to outright refute the legitimacy of its existence when we live in a world of such hopelessness.
deleted by creator
Because in current society, change and 'building power' feel like hopeless goals. In a society that collapses in on itself, the outcomes are very unpredictable, they may or may not get worse, but the potential for change and building a hopeful future exists. I don't think it's wildly unreasonable to think we have no hope in the world as it is now, but an unknown, different one could (but certainly, might not) have more room for positive change.
deleted by creator
Even if collapse is worse in all possible outcomes, it's still impossible to tell whether some outcomes might have more potential for positive change. e.g. a horrible slavery feudalist society might have more suffering, but it might, from that point, be easier to build a revolution to go a better path because a lot more treats are missing.
And I admire the optimism, but it's a mindset I struggle to share. If making meaningful change is absolutely impossible, then I ain't gonna waste my time and effort.
deleted by creator