It’s literally telling the Democrats to run, not walk, in the OTHER DIRECTION. If you don’t communicate that, then, they accelerate in the wrong direction. Essentially voting for them no matter what their policy is the accelerationism.
Because the goal is not to make the situation worse with the hope of later making the situation better. The goal is to hold people accountable for supporting genocide. The point is that we shouldn’t be afraid of a short-term loss, because that can lead to superior long-term improvement. We shouldn’t let the fear of a short-term loss prevent us from making the morally right decision today.
Accelerationism would be deliberately seeking to collapse the current Democratic party. For example, by convincing a bunch of Democrats to stay home, not out of any real response to their actions, but simply because Democrats losing could shake up the political structure.
The key difference is that one is simply not allowing the fear of being labeled “accelerationist” to prevent us from the right decision, while the latter is actually accelerationism.
Accelerationism is meant to have a very specific meaning. Unfortunately, it gets used as a cudgel to argue that every short-term win must be obtained at any cost, even at the cost of superior long-term success.
Doing the exact same thing accelerationists advocate for sure seems like accelerationism to me. Saying you’re doing it for different reasons just feels like delusional self-righteous accelerationism.
I’m still struggling to not read that as accelerationism. How is that not accelerationism?
It’s literally telling the Democrats to run, not walk, in the OTHER DIRECTION. If you don’t communicate that, then, they accelerate in the wrong direction. Essentially voting for them no matter what their policy is the accelerationism.
Yeah, because the conservatives definitely took their time tearing everything apart, it’s a good thing we got ahead of that by doing fuck all.
Because the goal is not to make the situation worse with the hope of later making the situation better. The goal is to hold people accountable for supporting genocide. The point is that we shouldn’t be afraid of a short-term loss, because that can lead to superior long-term improvement. We shouldn’t let the fear of a short-term loss prevent us from making the morally right decision today.
Accelerationism would be deliberately seeking to collapse the current Democratic party. For example, by convincing a bunch of Democrats to stay home, not out of any real response to their actions, but simply because Democrats losing could shake up the political structure.
The key difference is that one is simply not allowing the fear of being labeled “accelerationist” to prevent us from the right decision, while the latter is actually accelerationism.
Accelerationism is meant to have a very specific meaning. Unfortunately, it gets used as a cudgel to argue that every short-term win must be obtained at any cost, even at the cost of superior long-term success.
Doing the exact same thing accelerationists advocate for sure seems like accelerationism to me. Saying you’re doing it for different reasons just feels like delusional self-righteous accelerationism.