Also, in b4 fascists start pretending like the Stalinist bootlicker Thalmann hadn’t spent the past half-decade backstabbing and burning bridges with the SPD, which had previously been cooperative with the KPD after the establishment of the Weimar Republic.
You must log in or # to comment.
Collapse theory is fundamentally a privileged take. It is a position that is impossible to accept without either the assumption that you’d survive, or the assumption that the disproportionate harm to the disadvantaged is worth it for your end goals even if you die too.
Either way, you’re declaring that your paradise can and should be built over the bodies of the disemprivileged, and are automatically wrong and a horrible person for even being able to think that way.
You are the exact kind of monster that built the colonialist model of Israel, just insisting that your nation built on the bodies of the innocent will be a more moral one somehow.
Collapse theory is fundamentally a privileged take
It’s definitely a white-male-privileged take in the US.
It also just doesn’t make sense from a logistics sense – You want to address the current set of big problems by … creating more big problems to address with the same/less resources and organizations? Some that are more time sensitive than others?
You want to address the current set of big problems by … creating more big problems to address.
Right. There’s already a shitload of big problems.
What is this “collapse theory”? I’d like to learn more, but Google is only providing me links about quantum waves.
I think the usual term is Accelerationism?
it’s the idea that we should accelerate the collapse of society so “our” preferred system can replace it. Doesn’t matter who the “our” encompasses.
Do you have any readings you’d suggest? I sort of came to the conclusion that these ideas don’t work on my own, but I still find it tempting to throw up my hands because they’re all corrupt and playing for the same team.
Wonderful comment. I’ve been thinking similarly for a while. Nice too see it put out there.
Excellent take. It is a clear indicator of an individualist mindset.
I did a double take to see if this was my comment from like 6 months ago, but you do words more good than me
Honestly, the appeal of accelerationism to me is that it pretty much just requires me to give up.
I don’t think i’m the only one with a looming anxiety that capitalists are too entrenched to be defeated, that i can’t stop the ongoing collapse of society; well if i believe in accelerationism, then i don’t have to, the collapse becomes desireable if i can convince myself that a better world will emerge on the other side. It’s faster and easier to let society destroy itself than it is to built.
While my privilege is undeniable, subjectively, my emotional experience of accelerationism is one of giving up and relaxing. Which, you know, would feel nice sometimes.
So i know at least one source of accelerationist sentiment is rooted in fatigue and impatience, i know that because it’s the one i experience. The answer is an ongoing realization that progress is incremental.
You realize your life would be worse if society collapsed and then be vastly more stressful, right?
Yes.
Maybe i should rewrite the above, i meant it as a self-critical observation of why i give into a lazy and narrow-minded worldview. I thought it was clear everything i wrote is the opposite of an endorsement
Then Thälmann was arrested and shot and killed in a death camp 11 years later…
Surprising nobody
I’d imagine Thälmann was pretty surprised…
Well he was in a DEATH camp. I can’t imagine he thought he would live through it.
11 years though… Surprise!
Accelerationism is one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard of.
I mean it is like wanting the cold war to end with nuclear weapons. No one wins and we all die. Even the preppers who built bunkers back then would not survive for long, and this is assuming they survive the initial blasts.
They should have used a genuine Vault-Tec™ vault!
Now with only a 2% failure rate on our Vault doors!
At this point, I’m all for Plan D
Right, because if there was enough support for your stance that you could ensure it would prevail in the post collapse struggle, then you could almost certainly achieve it with democratic support instead.
If half the country hadn’t been brainwashed to vote against their own best interests I’d agree with you.
How does the brainwashing help you after the collapse?
No, you see, after their entire lives have been brought to ruin, the crumbling edifices of Humanity brought as low as the skyscrapers that embodied them; Thanatos cackling behind every mocking cry of the crows that feasts upon the righteous and the unrighteous alike; and when all the honeyed, happy thoughts turn to ash upon their tongues…
well they’ll be right jazzed about MyBrand “Communism”.
No no no, I’m sure we can build a better government from the ashes of our current resources, which we burnt down while gaining nothing in the process /s
Correct.
“Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil.”
You have a duty to ensure the least amount of harm is being done.
Saving three people out of ten is better than saving zero out of ten.
Rewatched the divergent series recently, in the last movie there’s an exchange between two characters that goes roughly like this:
“If you only had enough to save one, would you choose a sick, dying old man or the young boy?”
“I wouldn’t choose”
“Oh good, now they’re both dead.”
Sounds like Accelerationism. It’s stupid, but not fascism.
Stalinists are absolutely fascists. Accelerationism is just the preferred technique.
I don’t like these “polemic” definitions. I neither like the marxist-leninist definition (everything not socialism is fascism) nor the idea that any state-socialism is fascism, even if it becomes authoritarian or totalitarian.
The best definition for fascism I recently learned is “A belief in inequality based on a mythological identity” (like for example race or gender). See this book: What Is Fascism? An Excerpt From “Fascism Today: What It Is and How to End It”
What I call socialists who insist on principles and advocate for supporting fascism is “stupid entitled children”. But they are not really the problem. We just saw in France that the centrists there rather cooperate with fascists than with socialists.
if democrats really cared about ppl voting, they would be introducing proportional representation (eg ranked choice) electoral reforms rather then blaming voters for knowing exactly what the democrats are…
that said… hold your nose and go vote if you are in a swing state.
if democrats really cared about ppl voting, they would be introducing proportional representation (eg ranked choice) electoral reforms rather then blaming voters for knowing exactly what the democrats are…
There’s been considerable momentum towards ranked choice reform in the US in the past few years, most of it through the Dems.
They are.
People don’t pay attention and completely ignore their local elections in favor of national. People need to focus more on the local before expecting national changes.
Incidentally, Republicans have also made moves on ranked choice voting. They’ve banned it in Florida.
But someone will be around to tell me more about how both sides are the same.
They currently don’t have the necessary majority in Congress to pass such legislation. The legislation has been proposed, but if the Dems don’t control Congress it’s not going to happen.
So even if you aren’t in a swing state you might want to go out and vote down ballot if you want ranked choice voting.
Also proportional representation is a whole different thing from ranked choice voting.
Most of this would happen at the state level. That’s where most of the mechanisms of voting are handled.
But yes, this just moves the problem into state legislatures.
There is a new bill that would implement Ranked Choice Voting for congressional elections.
noice
more of this pls.
I wouldn’t cut things off at a half decade. A little more than a decade prior the German communist leadership were killed by military companies in coalition with the SPD, and then those same military groups tried to overthrow the SPD government, but the SPD ended up compromising with the coup uprising anyway.
So understandably the extrajudicial slayings of German’s communists sort of formed a schism between the SPD and the KPD. This all but assured any remaining communist power or authority in Germany had to look to the barely formed USSR for support: they’d literally fled there with their lives.
The important context is this period includes the aftermath of World War 1 where the German Empire collapsed and with the loss of centralized government and authority, communes and provisional governments were being formed all across Europe. There were also mercenary groups wanting to abolish the Republic and restablish the monarchy.
I wouldn’t cut things off at a half decade. A little more than a decade prior the German communist leadership were killed by military companies in coalition with the SPD,
Yes, after trying to coup the government before elections could be held. Funny how tankies and their apologists always leave that out.
and then those same military groups tried to overthrow the SPD government, but the SPD ended up compromising with the coup uprising anyway.
“Compromising” here meaning “If you surrender we’ll give you amnesty”. Wow, what an astounding compromise.
Funny how tankies and their apologists always leave that out.
How is highlighting the aftermath of World War 1 and that context leaving it out? Specifically in the attempt to include the anarchy of post war Europe is hardly a nefarious or intentional omission. Don’t mistake calling out a truncated timeline as a call for another one. I am refrencing the roving bands of militant monarchists seeking to overthrow the nascent republic and you’re missing that?
The critical issue is Ebert (who inherited authority from the monarchy initially) made a coalition with the Freikorps to allow the Weimar republic to inherit the separate governance for the military that existed in the Reich. That was instrumental and core to the issue. The organization and governance of Germany military until, like, NATO, was extremely hostile to democracy itself, amd surprisingly also a critical barrier to german communism in any form, be it spartacist, stalinist, or whatever.
Ebert making his pact with Groener after being given power, but before elections, shouldn’t be overlooked either. Pact in November 1918, extrajudicial slayings by Freikorps a week before the January 1919 elections.
“Compromising” here meaning “If you surrender we’ll give you amnesty”. Wow, what an astounding compromise.
Yes, this is the historical context. Compare to the level of amnesty given to communists who were summarily executed.
The failure of the proletariat revolution to succeed in Europe, especially in Germany, left Russia as the only successful revolution. The shift away from permanent revolution by the trotsky wings into stalins ‘socialism in one country’ was a response to what happened primarily in Germany and Hungary. It should be of no surprise communists in Germany by the 30s were following the USSR line.
How is highlighting the aftermath of World War 1 and that context leaving it out?
By literally leaving that context out and attempting to paint it as “Mean ol’ SPD went murdering the KPD for no reason :(” instead of literal fucking self-defense against an anti-democratic coup attempt. But fascist apologists rarely argue in good faith.
The critical issue is Ebert (who inherited authority from the monarchy initially) made a coalition with the Freikorps to allow the Weimar republic to inherit the separate governance for the military that existed in the Reich. That was instrumental and core to the issue.
Ah, yes, what he should have done is nobly refused compromise with what was the actual power returning to the country from the front, that way Germany could have enjoyed fascist dictatorship some 15 years early, or a ML dictatorship some 25 years early.
I really am more focused on the whole Prussian military organization structure and the coalition with the Freikorps, who were demonstrably anti-democratic monarchist military groups in direct coalition with the Ebert government. It is such a major component to the whole SPD-KPD relationship that was so bad it led to Thallman actively supporting Hitler.
The context as to what led Thallman’s KPD to arrive at such a disastrous policy you’re referencing here is something I think is interesting and important for people to know about. Obviously such history is offensive for this topic, and not what you were looking for.
I really am more focused on the whole Prussian military organization structure and the coalition with the Freikorps, who were demonstrably anti-democratic monarchist military groups in direct coalition with the Ebert government. It is such a major component to the whole SPD-KPD relationship that was so bad it led to Thallman actively supporting Hitler.
The Freikorps was such a major component to the SPD-KPD relationship that… almost a decade after the Freikorps had been effectively disbanded, it FORCED Thalmann, coming into power in a KPD that had had a very productive relationship with the SPD for the past 8 or so years, to cooperate with the literal Nazis.
Fucking insane.
The whole organization of the German (prussian) military was not just Freikorps. That whole machination which Ebert helped maintain is what I am explicitly referencing and including. Even so: that period of time where Freikorps effectively disbanded was when they converted into orgs like Consul or the SA starting in the 1920s. That component isn’t as fragmented or inconsequential as it may seem. There is continuity there and it isn’t insane to know about it.
KPD that had had a very productive relationship with the SPD for the past 8 or so years
They really did not. The SPD fucked up Weimar by working with all the right wing factions in the 20s and then the KPD fucked up by working with the right wing faction in the 30s. The united front collapsed in like 1922, or at least by the 1924 elections and definitely by the time Hindenburg was president from 1925.
The fraught politics of post war Germany was so chaotic that it resulted in something so crazy and insane to a modern reviewer: the KPD actively supporting Hitler like it was going to work out.
Even so: that period of time where Freikorps effectively disbanded was when they converted into orgs like Consul or the SA starting in the 1920s. That component isn’t as fragmented or inconsequential as it may seem. There is continuity there and it isn’t insane to know about it.
The idea of comparing the Freikorps with the SA is insane. Consul was disbanded in 1922 by government repression. But hey, who gives a fuck about facts when you can play Bothsides™ games?
They really did not.
Oh, okay, so the period between 1920-1928 just didn’t exist, cool cool cool.
What you’re missing is that PugJesus is trying to push the narrative that anyone unwilling to vote for modern Democrats is an accelerationist, just like a bad German.
Reading though the comments, I have to say… I’m so glad you have the tolerance to argue with these kids about this. I bow before your seemingly infinite patience.
Yes accelerationism is bad.
No that doesn’t mean you automatically get voters.
Ah yes because as we know the SPD working with the Nazis was ok because it was a united coalition. Today we’re all expected to vote for this Facist Lite™ liberal because? And after decades of “harm reduction” and slowly giving ground to the right what harm has been reduced? It seems to me that this country is dying a slow and painful death while the Liberals are too ignorant to notice it.
Ah yes because as we know the SPD working with the Nazis was ok because it was a united coalition.
I love that when it’s pointed out that the KPD literally worked with the Nazis tankies resort to making shite up.
The SPD literally backed Hindenburg, what the hell are you talking about. It seems to me like you’re spewing historical revisonism and claiming anyone who calls you out is a “tankie”.
The SPD literally backed Hindenburg
Would you like to remind me who Hindenburg was running against?
Fucking lmao.
For those who aren’t familiar with the Weimar Republic, Hindenburg was supported by the SPD when he was running against a little-known fellow called ‘Adolf Hitler’ running under the banner of the Nazi Party.
But definitely, tankies know their shit when they start talking about how the SPD supported the Nazis for endorsing Hindenburg’s candidacy against the Nazis. lmao
Remember, according to tankies, opposing the Nazis is a reactionary act! Critical support for Hitler, right? Red fash never change.
What? Hindenburg literally let Hitler into power and the SPD just whined like a bunch of sad Liberals. But no its the evil communists fault for… Not giving into Hindenburg. Yeah that went well, as we know when Hindenburg won he didn’t hand over the reigns to Hitler.
But no its the evil communists fault for… Not giving into Hindenburg.
Yes, that was definitely the issue, not the KDP refusing to work with the SDP since 1928 because according to Stalinism Social Democrats were ‘Social Fascists’ and the only valid course of action was to overthrow democracy. For the people, of course. :)
The point is that under capitalism you can never have true change through reform, this is agreed upon by nearly every major communist ideology.
The point is that under capitalism you can never have true change through reform, this is agreed upon by nearly every major communist ideology.
There’s a difference between “Capitalism will not reform itself out of existence” and “Democracy must be overthrown by a small cabal of vanguardists before the People’s Will can TRULY be expressed”. Unless Kautsky and other Orthodox Marxists are no longer ‘major communist ideologies’
deleted by creator
hey look there’s one haha
Famously the SPD didn’t work together with fascists to create the kill squads that murdered Rosa Luxemburg.
Famously, the Spartacus Uprising was definitely a democratic movement and not an attempt to seize the government by force before democratic elections could be held. /s
But hey, tankies love coups and hate democracy, so it’s unsurprising that fascism, to you, means ‘having elections’.
deleted by creator
There was a general strike!
Yep. And when the KPD started shooting, the strikers decided they wanted no part of that nonsense. But keep trying to peddle fascism.
It failed in large part because the Communists weren’t ready for it and their leadership was too paralyzed in the moment to actually seize power!
“Well, yes, we WERE trying to stop democratic elections, but we just weren’t successful!”
Red fash never change.
You’re calling anti genocide protesters fascist now?
If, in a saw-esque limited outcome system, you use your action to better the chances of turbo-genocide-fascist trump, then I have beef with the true motivations of such an “anti genocide protester.”
Except trump-never is a possible goal
Good point. You should never compromise or work with anyone who doesn’t share 100% of your goals. /s
Genocide apologia
Yes, you’re right, it is awful how these self-proclaimed leftists play apologist for intensifying the genocide in Gaza and committing genocide on American minorities at home.
You don’t have to justify and validate a genocide in order to vote for Harris. I am in a swing state. I will vote for Harris. But I won’t belittle and disparage anyone who chooses to vote third party or not vote because of the genocide. If she loses because of this adherence to a failed policy, that is on her, not the millions of voters who are deciding based on their perspectives and principles.
“I am just a voter, I have no responsibility for my actions as a citizen in the polity I vote in” is such a compelling line. I wish I had the kind of privilege where I could pretend that decisions of the polity were as inconsequential as voting for my favorite color instead of something the lives of millions ride on.
Only if their anti-genocide protest consists of helping fascists into power. All other anti-genocide protesters are based in my book.
You know that the people saying that the democratic party has to earn their vote are for a large portion muslims who can not vote for a party that will continue funding a genocide right? I find it appalling that instead of calling the people who are currently funding the genocide fascist, you are actually calling those people that are protesting against the genocide fascist.
You know that the people saying that the democratic party has to earn their vote are for a large portion muslims who can not vote for a party that will continue funding a genocide right?
Oh, cool, so doing that is going to reduce US support for the ongoing genocide, right?
… right…?
I find it appalling that instead of calling the people who are currently funding the genocide fascist, you are actually calling those people that are protesting against the genocide fascist.
Cool. I find it appalling that choosing to usher in fascists who will do everything in their power to assist the genocide is considered a morally acceptable choice by some people.
Protestation and striking is the only way to achieve goals that are against the interests of the ruling class. You are trying to shame the only people actually doing anything worthwhile. Electorialism is meaningless compared to protestation.
Protestation and striking is the only way to achieve goals that are against the interests of the ruling class. You are trying to shame the only people actually doing anything worthwhile. Electorialism is meaningless compared to protestation.
Oh, cool, so we’re in agreement, then, that the people saying stuff like “The Democrats have to EARN my vote against fascism!” are actually disingenuous accelerationists doing the old conservative routine of “Meet me in the middle” with no intention of ever actually cooperating or improving anyone’s life.
I find it wild that you take that conclusion from what I said. The largest portion of Palestine protesters care about one thing, which is the quickest end to the ongoing genocide possible. In the US that means getting the government to stop funding said genocide. The means through which to do that are protesting and striking. Is there anything in this that screams accelerationist to you? I’m just telling you that most anti genocide protesters will not vote for the democratic party. However, those protesters are doing much more for Palestine than you are. So calling them fascist is indeed appalling.
Palestinians have fought this battle for decades. They are experienced with tactics to support their cause. They are not asking for you to vote, they are asking for you to organise your workplace to make sure that ties with Israel are being cut, and they are asking you to get on the streets to demand your government to stop supporting genocide. These are tactics that have historically been effective on this issue and other similar issues.
I find it wild that you take that conclusion from what I said.
Electorialism is meaningless compared to protestation.
Would you like to re-read the first line of the meme, or are you just spouting off without regard to what the topic actually is?
Why aren’t the protesters calling for Hamas to release the hostages if they really want an end to the war? You have a far better chance of influencing Hamas than influencing anyone else at this point with your extreme rhetoric.
Methinks the goal isn’t actually to end the violence it’s to continue it indefinitely because many so-called pro-Palestinians are profiting from the suffering of Palestinians. A sickening turn for social media where human suffering has been monetized.
So… people asking the person who is supposed to represent them to meet them in the middle are facists? The ones asking the DNC to just, actually represent those it wants votes from?
Not the ones… actively supporting and furthering a genocide?
Ok. Yeah. Sure man. Because it’s clearly the thousands of people who should change and support the killing of their own, not the two who are supposed to represent them.
So… people asking the person who is supposed to represent them to meet them in the middle are facists?
My favorite part was late last year when so many Very Concerned Leftists were crying “IF THE DEMS CAME OUT IN FAVOR OF A CEASEFIRE, THEN I COULD SUPPORT THEM AGAINST THE LITERAL FASCISTS, OH WOE IS ME, I CANNOT DO SO UNTIL THEY AT LEAST DO THAT BARE MINIMUM OF EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR A CEASEFIRE!”
And then when Biden began publicly supporting a ceasefire, they immediately changed their tack so they could continue supporting fascism in the US. Such is how it always goes with such creatures.
You can tell they’re white because they think demanding to see genocide’s manager is more effective than voting against even more genocide happening.
I think it’s far more telling that you think this is something race-based. Let me tell you as part of a group that certifiably was actively and passively genocided by the US government. My grandmother even went to the notorious Indian schools. You know the ones where you often see stories of mass graves being found out back of today.
Now maybe it’s a personal failing in myself to not see the nobility of your position. Willingly sacrificing lives of people like my family and even myself. With no real chance of receiving anything in return. But someone’s going to have to adequately explain that before I’ll see it that way.
I’m going to stick to empowering voices like to talib, omar, and Sanders. Not trying to attack and reduce their power like you do. All as some sort of pyrrhic virtue signaling ritual.
Lol
Protesting and striking are valuable ways of organizing and fighting for change outside of the broken electoral system, but that isn’t incompatible with using the power afforded to us through the electoral system to avoid the additional damage of a Trump presidency.
Or would you prefer to continue protesting and striking while the president has openly laughed about illegally firing striking workers and backed the use of even more police violence against protestors? Have we really forgotten 2020 so quickly?
The dems don’t shy away from making strikes or protests illegal (look at the way students are getting beat up by the police today). Protesting has always been a risk and it will be a bigger risk during a trump presidency. However the people outnumber the police massively and killing the whole population is economically just not feasible for the ruling class. What I’m saying is that the equation is not as simple as just saying that you should vote for the ‘lesser evil’, because the lesser evil will grow more evil if they don’t face any repercussions. I’m also saying that the people who are actively partaking in protests are doing a lot more for a better world than someone who just votes once every few years. And calling the current anti genocide protesters fascists is a huge insult to any civil rights movements that have successfully taken place in the past.
Who are you going to vote for that will stop supporting genocide? Do you think any President will force divestment from Israel? Or end the massive influx of Chinese goods through Walmart and Amazon?
When there is no option to vote against genocide you turn to the streets. What have you done to stop the genocide? Shame other people for not voting for the party that will continue funding a genocide?
When there is no option to vote against genocide you turn to the streets.
You’ve got a little under two months to overthrow the government. If your master plan isn’t completed by then, the only moral choice is to vote strategically.
Only a small portion of the US needs to go on strike for it to be monetarily catastrophic for the ruling class to continue their strong support for the genocide. So yes, I think that a general strike is way more likely to stop the genocide than convincing people to vote for a party that will continue use their taxes to fund genocide.
Okay, so, like I said, you have a little under two months to complete that. Otherwise? Accept that political power comes with political responsibility.
Okay. Do you agree that calling people who are actually trying to do this fascist is twisted, given the fact that they are actively trying to change fascist decisions by the current US government through historically proven to be effective means?
Okay. Do you agree that calling people who are actually trying to do this fascist is twisted,
Only if their anti-genocide protest consists of helping fascists into power. All other anti-genocide protesters are based in my book.
Please try reading what I say before responding to it.
Do you think that pro Palestine protesters are nazi’s?
Do you ask questions that aren’t leading?
If the answer to the question is no then your comment is completely irrelevant.
News flash for ya, bud… you’re not part of some elite and secret minority group. Nearly everyone is anti genocide.
I’m expecting people here to be anti genocide and showing the contradiction in calling actual protesters fascist.
But clearly not everyone is anti genocide since there are still quite a lot of people who believe that Israel has the right to steal Palestinian land and kill Palestinian civilians indiscriminately (Harris & Trump do, most politicians in most European countries do as well)
