|
Willie Tomg posted:Accelerationism does not mean "actively make things worse, then Full Communism Now, naturally, of course". It assumes only that a capitalistic economic organization trends toward a crisis point where hegemonic order breaks down into its constituent parts, and that meaningful opposition in a contemporary period is futile conflict for conflict's sake that at best destroys lots for no gain. Recognizing those two facts, Accelerationism then proposes that the only way capital-C Capital will be broken down (note: not destroyed) is to allow Capital to run freely to that crisis point and allow history to proceed. Letting "capital run freely towards crisis" is actively making things worse.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Many accelerationists are accelerationists because they figure people will only snap to reality when they are up to their shoulders in water due to climate change and/or think change is only possible if the old order is completely done away in the style of the French Revolution/Russian Revolution/WWI/WWII. And many republicans are republicans because they figure the world was made in six days by a presence who sent His only son to tell us how to live, then get killed so hard he bounced back. That doesn't mean contemporary movement conservatism and weirdo ideological zen-death adopting marxist language can't be isolated and talked about in its formal aspects. Effectronica posted:I guess that when you've tied yourself to Major Depression: The Political Ideology you have to take your fun where you can get it. As long as it keeps them off the crack. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Letting "capital run freely towards crisis" is actively making things worse. It's not "actively" anything when you use the verb let for goodness sake. jesus christ no wonder everyone's confused, illiteracy abounds
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:49
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:It's not "actively" anything when you use the verb let for goodness sake. jesus christ no wonder everyone's confused, illiteracy abounds I see you are new to asdf32. Anyways, I feel somebody should put together an initiative to get accelerationists some hobbies. I'll pony up fifty bucks towards model robots.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I see you are new to asdf32. Anyways, I feel somebody should put together an initiative to get accelerationists some hobbies. I'll pony up fifty bucks towards model robots. As long as that particular post is the signature on every post he (she?) makes regarding economics henceforth I'm cool with it. Also my vote is for gardening. It's good to be surrounded by life and light, burns calories, and gives you a skill in case the monkey's paw grants your wish nah mean?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:56
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:As long as that particular post is the signature on every post he (she?) makes regarding economics henceforth I'm cool with it. Also my vote is for gardening. It's good to be surrounded by life and light, burns calories, and gives you a skill in case the monkey's paw grants your wish nah mean? Hell, porque no los dos?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:It's not "actively" anything when you use the verb let for goodness sake. jesus christ no wonder everyone's confused, illiteracy abounds So your position is that Capital is naturally and inherently destructive and therefore the best thing to do is let it destroy freely? I don't see how b follows from a. Especially since it can get so, so much worse than it is right now, without even getting close to your your mythical world-shaping  crisis point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Hell, porque no los dos? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Somfin posted:So your position is that Capital is naturally and inherently destructive and therefore the best thing to do is let it destroy freely? I don't see how b follows from a. No, my position for the purposes of this specific thread because y'all are gormless limpid fuckers who cannot rebut the apocalypse is that Capitalism has created an edifice that has destroyed base leftist populism. My cite for that is the last 30 years of world history. Let it create further still for only wonders portend. My cite for that is the last century. terms like "worse" or "better" are gadflies for losers. Que sera sera, and internet posters will comment upon it I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Base leftist populism was destroyed when said leftists had to admit nonwhites into their group.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
When can we accelerate a new destination city for sexy people because SF is full of doughy nerds now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Base leftist populism was destroyed when said leftists had to admit nonwhites into their group. imasegregationist.gif
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 09:25
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Willie Tomg posted:No, my position for the purposes of this specific thread because y'all are gormless limpid fuckers who cannot rebut the apocalypse is that Capitalism has created an edifice that has destroyed base leftist populism. My cite for that is the last 30 years of world history. Let it create further still for only wonders portend. My cite for that is the last century. Isn't there a rule against drunkposting? I'm sure that you already realise that you are arguing that making other (poorer, less-white) people suffer will be worth it in the long run. After all, aren't the means always justified by the ends? Especially if those ends are inevitable. E: Sorry, because I know you'll pedantically take issue with this, you're technically arguing in favour of letting something else make other, poorer, less-white people suffer. Because it will be worth it. Somfin fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Accelerationism does not assume this. And then in the same breath you say Willie Tomg posted:Accelerationism does not mean "actively make things worse, then Full Communism Now, naturally, of course". It assumes only that a capitalistic economic organization trends toward a crisis point where hegemonic order breaks down into its constituent parts, and that meaningful opposition in a contemporary period is futile conflict for conflict's sake that at best destroys lots for no gain. Recognizing those two facts, Accelerationism then proposes that the only way capital-C Capital will be broken down (note: not destroyed) is to allow Capital to run freely to that crisis point and allow history to proceed. Note that "meaningful opposition in a contemporary period is futile conflict for conflict's sake that at best destroys lots for no gain" is the brave assumption I was talking about in 2 (really, you underestimate people's stubbornness and ability to cling to biases) and "allow history to proceed" makes the assumption that I was talking about in 3. You really, really underestimate how far humanity can take this critical point, and whether the critical point is where we think it is. What if by the time we reach this crisis point it will be too late? Valence effect is a thing you know. Willie Tomg posted:It's pessimistic as gently caress and not hugely academic, but since when the gently caress has political academia mattered a second squirt of piss to anything IRL? Besides: it's fun. It's fun to confront leftists with the reality of their loser failure ideology which decisively and utterly and irretrievably lost the Cold War. It's fun to see liberals attempt to quickly improvise as they realize in the moment that for all their veneration of progress as an end in and of itself, they haven't put much thought into what specifically is being progressed toward. I'm getting the feeling that I will regret this, but can you explain this paragraph please? What do you mean by all this? What are you blaming liberalism for? How is it to blame?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:It's not "actively" anything when you use the verb let for goodness sake. jesus christ no wonder everyone's confused, illiteracy abounds Heh, if you presuppose that that's the trajectory society is on. But it's not actually. Democratic liberal states are designed to check power and have so far been successful at it. Pretending that their default state is a free-fall is like declaring the same of a skyscraper. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:The OP's quoted post's premise is that the Presidency is a very big deal in that whoever fills the role has a lot of power and determines the direction of the country; however this is not really the case. Even if Trump became an idiot President he is still beholden to congress and the senate as well as the judiciary, who wield much more power. The president is still a huge influence on politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Wait, but if the system cannot be changed from within, and global revolution is impossible, and accelerationism just makes everything worse, what possible recourse is there?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:And many republicans are republicans because they figure the world was made in six days by a presence who sent His only son to tell us how to live, then get killed so hard he bounced back. That doesn't mean contemporary movement conservatism and weirdo ideological zen-death adopting marxist language can't be isolated and talked about in its formal aspects. My point about accelerationists and their logic still stands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Wait, but if the system cannot be changed from within, and global revolution is impossible, and accelerationism just makes everything worse, what possible recourse is there? Ｄｅｈｕｍａｎｉｚｅ Ｙｏｕｒｓｅｌｆ Ａｎｄ Ｆａｃｅ Ｔｏ Ｂｌｏｏｄｓｈｅｄ
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Wait, but if the system cannot be changed from within, and global revolution is impossible, and accelerationism just makes everything worse, what possible recourse is there? A slow(er) descent into shitsville because our systems of economics and governance aren't well equipped to deal with the kind of global challenges we're facing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
If there is one thing I've learned from the history of ever increasing prosperity health and happiness in the world it's that things are clearly in free fall towards complete collapse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
There's no world history narrative that trends towards anything in particular and the history that does exist is literally filled with ups and downs by any measure you feel like using.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
The post industrial trends are pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
The 'true' narrative is that of globalization. First humans went out of Africa and colonized most of the planet's surface - then things were more or less static until Columbus introduced Europe to the Americas. From the noble savage meme you get enlightenment ideas about how people are shaped by their social environment and integrating advances in transportation, communication, and so on leading to the present and the Anthropocene. Now we will either become cybernetic masters of the planet and ourselves or we will go extinct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The post industrial trends are pretty clear. Kind of completely missing the point here. Just because things might be better for our distant descendants 200 years into the future doesn't mean they won't be worse for our children in 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:A slow(er) descent into shitsville because our systems of economics and governance aren't well equipped to deal with the kind of global challenges we're facing? So let's work to abolish capitalism? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Ｄｅｈｕｍａｎｉｚｅ Ｙｏｕｒｓｅｌｆ Ａｎｄ Ｆａｃｅ Ｔｏ Ｂｌｏｏｄｓｈｅｄ That's accelerationism!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Relevant point for this thread in this interview with the Pirate Bay's founder. He argues that the Internet has become too centralised and tied to capital across its existence, and that there's nothing we can do at this point to ensure a free and open Internet. The way to win the war, he says, is to abolish capitalism entirely by letting it run free, which reminded me of this thread.quote:So, we should just let it crash and burn down, pick up the pieces and start over? Personally I'd say he's a bit too optimistic about how quickly automation will occur, but I can't know for certain. Interesting though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Kind of completely missing the point here. Just because things might be better for our distant descendants 200 years into the future doesn't mean they won't be worse for our children in 40 years. Not really. Accelerationists most decidedly do not beleive "up" is the long term trend. For good reason. If it is then shorter term problems are best handled with internal incremental solutions, not revolutionary destruction. Venomous posted:Relevant point for this thread in this interview with the Pirate Bay's founder. He argues that the Internet has become too centralised and tied to capital across its existence, and that there's nothing we can do at this point to ensure a free and open Internet. The way to win the war, he says, is to abolish capitalism entirely by letting it run free, which reminded me of this thread. Well he's insane. The parallels between different bad ideologies are always obvious. In that quote you can see the parallel to terrorism fearing islamophobes. They've misinterpreted reality by taking say 911, or some economic equivalent, irrationally decided that it represents some hidden fundamental truth (terrorists/capitalism are out to get us) and wildly extrapolated some fantasy disaster future from it which they make the centerpiece of their crank ideology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Venomous posted:So, we should just let it crash and burn down, pick up the pieces and start over? I would prefer to be 50 years in the ground when the system is crashing, personally. Dayum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
The electrical system in the US has been noted recently for how incredibly insecure it is and how it looks like foreign hackers already have the ability to break it from inside the network, but I doubt anyone here would seriously try to argue that it'd cost less in lives/money/time to start fixing the damage done by a complete shutdown across the whole network than it would to start fixing the system from, say, a regional/state blackout or maybe even when the system hasn't been broken yet by the potential intruders. Would it be easier to convince people to start the process of addressing the systemic problems that made it vulnerable to total annihilation in the first place after it was totally annihilated? Sure, but you're trading a lot of lives for only an increase in speed to start the process, not speed to an actual fix - it's going to take a lot of work, time, and money to fix it no matter when we actually start and a total shutdown will force that much more stress on everyone and make serious changes take that much longer vs. even a regional blackout.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:The electrical system in the US has been noted recently for how incredibly insecure it is and how it looks like foreign hackers already have the ability to break it from inside the network, but I doubt anyone here would seriously try to argue that it'd cost less in lives/money/time to start fixing the damage done by a complete shutdown across the whole network than it would to start fixing the system from, say, a regional/state blackout or maybe even when the system hasn't been broken yet by the potential intruders. Would it be easier to convince people to start the process of addressing the systemic problems that made it vulnerable to total annihilation in the first place after it was totally annihilated? Sure, but you're trading a lot of lives for only an increase in speed to start the process, not speed to an actual fix - it's going to take a lot of work, time, and money to fix it no matter when we actually start and a total shutdown will force that much more stress on everyone and make serious changes take that much longer vs. even a regional blackout. That metaphor only really works if you add in the belief that using electricity is the primary cause of human suffering. At which point it doesn't really work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:46
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That metaphor only really works if you add in the belief that using electricity is the primary cause of human suffering. Capitalism isn't exactly the primary cause of human suffering though? It's a means of economically organizing ourselves and it's not even the only one we've ever used. Unless you'd like to argue that feudalism was the primary cause before capitalism refined it, which would work up until dictatorships and oligarchies come in as the precursor to that at which point you might actually just be arguing any means of economic organization that involves 'might makes right' at any level is going to necessarily be the primary cause of human suffering... which I don't think is what you're actually going for, but you'll have to elaborate on what it would be instead then. e: If the concept of capitalism magically vanished from the world, we would not immediately all start acting like angels and feel like we were in heaven. Humans have inflicted heaps of misery on each other long before capitalism came to be. Ignatius M. Meen fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:Capitalism isn't exactly the primary cause of human suffering though? It's a means of economically organizing ourselves and it's not even the only one we've ever used. Unless you'd like to argue that feudalism was the primary cause before capitalism refined it, which would work up until dictatorships and oligarchies come in as the precursor to that at which point you might actually just be arguing any means of economic organization that involves 'might makes right' at any level is going to necessarily be the primary cause of human suffering... which I don't think is what you're actually going for, but you'll have to elaborate on what it would be instead then. You can argue that capitalism is the primary reason for scarcity in the world today, and that a more redistributive and, er, communist system of wealth organization would greatly alleviate an overwhelming majority of human suffering. Accelerationism is generally used as an argument against preserving the current social order on the basis that its perpetuation is the perpetuation of humans being born into inescapable suffering as a direct result of that order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
I've actually thought about voting for Trump, in the likely possibility that a Trump presidency would destroy the GOP as we know it today. There's only so much damage a president can do in the US, and even with a Republican-controlled Congress, old-line GOP lawmakers would be hostile to him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can argue that capitalism is the primary reason for scarcity in the world today, and that a more redistributive and, er, communist system of wealth organization would greatly alleviate an overwhelming majority of human suffering. Though this depends heavily on the scope you're willing to define for capitalism and communism. Communism in theory would alleviate a lot of human suffering. Communism as historically practiced typically has not, or at least has perpetuated suffering in more unique ways. But is that truly Communism? By the same token, Capitalism as practiced today is the cause of human suffering. A more redistributive form of Capitalism (you can call this Democratic Socialism or the Nordic Model or whatever) would also alleviate a lot of human suffering. But in that case, is it still the form of Capitalism that we were talking about initially? Is everything that's not-Communism by definition Capitalism? It all depends on which definition you're willing to talk about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Bush, post 911, singlehandedly helped destabilize the middle east while blowing billions of dollars and permanently damaging the image of the US abroad. Trump could easily repeat those things while also proving that a bigoted arrogant liar is electable to the U.S. presidency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Though this depends heavily on the scope you're willing to define for capitalism and communism. Being the a UKMT regular I would generally define both in Marxist terms, capitalism being accumulative and communism being distributive. Obviously you have a continuum between the two which is why I'm not an accelerationist, as I don't entirely see how Destroy Society > ??? > (lack of) Profit! is supposed to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Being the a UKMT regular I would generally define both in Marxist terms, capitalism being accumulative and communism being distributive. I think a lot of leftists would disagree that there's a continuum between the two, hence the need for revolution (or a clean break).
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Though this depends heavily on the scope you're willing to define for capitalism and communism. Right there is clearly a continuum which is why there is no utility whatsoever in the bright lines of Marxism. Nothing actually depends on definition boundaries, only real life outcomes. computer parts posted:I think a lot of leftists would disagree that there's a continuum between the two, hence the need for revolution (or a clean break). Which is obviously a huge problem with the ideology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:56
|
|