Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

CalmDownMate posted:

Please continue to tell me how well your strategy has loving worked for improving the conditions of the working class in any country on earth. Thanks.

Have you considered the possibility that there may not be a solution (not a rhetorical question, there's a good chance you have considered this)? I used to think along the lines of the poster you replied to - since working within the system has a 0% chance of working, there is no choice but to work outside of the system (i.e. some form of revolution). But in recent years I've realized that real life is not a book or movie and that it is entirely possible that there simply is no path to a good future where poverty is mostly eliminated, etc. So, as I see it, the two options go like this:

1. Work within the system. 0% chance of leading to the sort of good future I mentioned, but will at least slow the rate at which conditions deteriorate (or even offer some improvement).

2. Work outside of the system/revolution. Low chance of leading to good future - may also be 0%. If it doesn't work, it is likely to make things even worse than the status quo.

Since there's no way to know just how low/high the chance of a revolution (or similar action) succeeding is, it's pretty much impossible to know for sure which of these is the better option. If you're looking solely at the "expected return", acting within the system is probably the better choice. Despite this, however, I'm extremely hesitant to outright recommend this course of action since it pretty much guarantees a bad outcome; even though the chance of revolutionary activity resulting in a positive outcome may be tiny (or even zero), it at least offers some possibility of working.

It's sort of like if a person with a terrible disease has two options for treatment: palliative care that might ease the pain some but offers no chance of recovery, or a experimental treatment that has a tiny chance of curing you, but also will likely make you feel far worse in the process.

(None of what I said above makes accelerationism a good idea, though.)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Locked thread