Honestly, hell if I know who would have been more accelerationist (I'd have bet on it being Kamala). Whomever wins things would get worse for the empire either way (not saying it shouldn't be fought or promoting defeatism- but the contradictions will continue to grow), but Kamala strikes me as the more neocon/hawkish of the two, with much more political baggage tagging along that is even worse, and as a more palatable (low bar) face with which the empire could absolutely wreak havoc on the rest of the world and even domestically on its own people with better PR/a more unified western imperialist order, etc.
But doesn't that mean Trump is accelerationist, then? Because he would make it all crash and burn quicker? I think I don't quite get what accelerationism is, since I thought it wasn't about the magnitude of destruction, but the speed at which we arrived at it.
They're all accelerationist, TBF. Not a single one seeks to change the issues inherent in the system, hell, they all make their living off of exacerbating it.
Trump being a perfect example of a vile human being, incredibly alienating to the rest of the western lackeys, and seeming to have a bit more self-preservation and less interest in plunging the world into WW3 goes a long way in being "less accelerationist," that said (IMO). Not that anyone should support either.
Trump being a perfect example of a vile human being, incredibly alienating to the rest of the western lackeys, and seeming to have a bit more self-preservation and less interest in plunging the world into WW3 goes a long way in being "less accelerationist,"
Yeah I think this is the bit I don't get, because I read that as being "more accelerationist". I know it's a lot to ask, but would you mind explaining what you understand accelerationism to be or point me in the direction of some good reading?
Honestly, hell if I know who would have been more accelerationist (I'd have bet on it being Kamala). Whomever wins things would get worse for the empire either way (not saying it shouldn't be fought or promoting defeatism- but the contradictions will continue to grow), but Kamala strikes me as the more neocon/hawkish of the two, with much more political baggage tagging along that is even worse, and as a more palatable (low bar) face with which the empire could absolutely wreak havoc on the rest of the world and even domestically on its own people with better PR/a more unified western imperialist order, etc.
But doesn't that mean Trump is accelerationist, then? Because he would make it all crash and burn quicker? I think I don't quite get what accelerationism is, since I thought it wasn't about the magnitude of destruction, but the speed at which we arrived at it.
They're all accelerationist, TBF. Not a single one seeks to change the issues inherent in the system, hell, they all make their living off of exacerbating it.
Trump being a perfect example of a vile human being, incredibly alienating to the rest of the western lackeys, and seeming to have a bit more self-preservation and less interest in plunging the world into WW3 goes a long way in being "less accelerationist," that said (IMO). Not that anyone should support either.
Yeah I think this is the bit I don't get, because I read that as being "more accelerationist". I know it's a lot to ask, but would you mind explaining what you understand accelerationism to be or point me in the direction of some good reading?