I’m not an accelerationist. Too many innocent people would be hurt in a revolution. If we can get there through reform, it should be pursued.
I don’t exaggerate when I say the fascists’ greatest weapon is demoralization. If they can get us to accept their agenda without a fight, they truly win. Don’t help them win.
Well if you aren’t an accelerationist, then why would you point to Egypt as a positive example? Ousting a brutal dictator, ushering in a short era of political instability and violence, and then ending up with another brutal dictator - it seems to me Egypt is a prime example of accelerationism gone wrong.
But more broadly, I feel you didn’t answer my original question. I agree if we can get there through reform, we should try. But we have been trying. We’ve been trying - and mostly going backward - for at least 40 years.
If reform is impossible, then it is the reformists who are accepting the fascist agenda without a fight. If reform is unlikely, then it is the reformists who are helping the fascists win.
So what makes your possible reform any more likely than the reformists that have come before you? How can you be sure that your position isn’t helping fascists win?
They will just go work for ICE 🤔
Going to have to explain themselves to a tribunal when Donald kicks the bucket.
Just like how Obama punished all the war criminals when he got into office, right?
The people aren’t going to wait for the next president to look forward, not backward.
And what are the people going to do about it? Vote harder? Protest?
We did all that in 2008, and Obama still let the war criminals go free.
So if you honestly believe this situation will be different, please explain how it is different.
Mubarak was dictator of Egypt for decades. When the cost of bread became unaffordable, he was out within weeks.
Change is impossible until it’s inevitable.
Oh so you’re saying we need violent coup of the American government in order to make progress? That makes sense.
It seemed like you were suggesting we could get ICE Nuremberg trials through the electoral process. That is a fantasy.
I’m not an accelerationist. Too many innocent people would be hurt in a revolution. If we can get there through reform, it should be pursued.
I don’t exaggerate when I say the fascists’ greatest weapon is demoralization. If they can get us to accept their agenda without a fight, they truly win. Don’t help them win.
Well if you aren’t an accelerationist, then why would you point to Egypt as a positive example? Ousting a brutal dictator, ushering in a short era of political instability and violence, and then ending up with another brutal dictator - it seems to me Egypt is a prime example of accelerationism gone wrong.
But more broadly, I feel you didn’t answer my original question. I agree if we can get there through reform, we should try. But we have been trying. We’ve been trying - and mostly going backward - for at least 40 years.
If reform is impossible, then it is the reformists who are accepting the fascist agenda without a fight. If reform is unlikely, then it is the reformists who are helping the fascists win.
So what makes your possible reform any more likely than the reformists that have come before you? How can you be sure that your position isn’t helping fascists win?
double negative much?
Do you really believe that would happen?
Yes.
I wish I had your faith.
This stuff has been going on for almost a year with this kind of limp wristed wet lettuce response.
Half of America thinks things are going great.
Even with a change of government I cant imagine there will be a great repeal of all th bad things.
We narrowly avoided a revolution in 2008. Donald was the popular protest vote against the status quo that made the banks whole.
When even the populist demagogue fails to change the status quo and people can’t afford groceries, things change.
Loads of people have been unable to afford groceries for a long time.
To topple a regime you need the oligarchs to really start to hurt, so they withdraw their support.
I can’t really see that happening in the foreseeable TBH.
Respectfully disagree. A majority of people in the US aren’t going hungry. Yet.
Plenty of countries with lots of hungry people.
The thing is, you would need a big chunk of the population to enter hardship at the same time, rather than merely being in hardship at the same time.