the disaster is right now, unfolding in front of our eyes. collapse is pure ideology.

  • Straight_Depth [they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    A lot of the collapseniks seem to believe there is some singular defining moment that will be when the collapse "happens". In reality it's a slower burning, far more boring series of barely perceptible non-events that to the layperson looks more like the garbage not being collected for a while and the mail taking longer than usual and the cops not arriving, ever, and the centralized government becoming more and more distant and uncontactable. Don't look into it too deeply or anything.

    • effervescent [they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Oh you mean the things that the US’s own intelligence agencies are predicting will happen over the next decade?

    • Mardoniush [she/her]
      ·
      3 years ago

      And it'll happen fast in some places, but not all at once. A seawall collapses. A 20 year drought empties a city. But most places keep going on just fine.

      Of course...If the system is under too much stress and has no resiliancy...you can get a Bronze age collapse scenario when a lot of things go down inside a decade, and you can even pinpoint an 18 month period at its peak where people don't even have time to tell the next city along the line that the city before them has fallen.

    • LilComrade [comrade/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      And those things have already been happening to some, and will not happen to others for centuries. Collapse has a class character.

    • CthulhusIntern [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Most of the time, we figure out things were falls or collapses after the fact.

    • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      People always look to Rome as the prototypical collapsing empire, but the lesson there is literally that it's a long, slow, mundane process, and even then half the empire continued on for like a millenium.

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Rome was sacked at least 3 times before it ceased to become an imperial entity, and then twice after that.

        • effervescent [they/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Hell, Britain is still in that process of expanding and shrinking, like a muscle that’s flexing to fight atrophy. They don’t actually expand influence anymore, but the fundamental mechanisms are still operational

        • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Wasn't even the first sacking post east/west divide? I think they'd arguably been pretty deep in the process of collapse at that point.

          • Mardoniush [she/her]
            ·
            3 years ago

            First one was 390BC, arguably before Rome's expansion.

            The other two were in the 400s, well after the split (which actually stabilised the Empire for a century along with other reforms) and then again twice during the Byzantine reconquest of Italy.

  • emizeko [they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    it's just going to get slightly worse every day until one morning you'll go to the grocery store and it will have been burned to the ground

  • Nagarjuna [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    There is no next crisis, gender, the state, and capital are one ongoing crisis. Don't organize for the next crisis, take action now.

    • CrimsonSage [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I like how gender is as critical to the dystopia we live in as capital.

      • Cowboyitis69 [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Second American civil war except it’s fought over whether gender is real

      • Orcocracy [comrade/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Turns out the boomers were right when they youthfully rebelled against "The Man".

      • Nagarjuna [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Colonists usually introduced western gender roles so that they could naturalize other heirarchies and seize property through marriage. Gender is integral to the nightmare world

  • Mother [any]
    ·
    3 years ago

    How can there be no collapse if we are living in collapse

    • Orcocracy [comrade/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Because the real collapse is all the everyday little disasters we suffer through along the way.

    • effervescent [they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      People talk about collapse as if it’s a sudden and distant event. Collapse is here like a glacier is here. It’s moving incredibly fast but could still be “here” for hundreds of years

  • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
    ·
    3 years ago

    For some, the apocalypse has been taking place slowly and continuously for 500 years.

    Another end of the world is possible.

  • Chapo_is_Red [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Then how do you explain me drinking a pint of vodka and collapsing down a flight of stairs?

  • Abraxiel
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    You best start believing in collapse, you're in one.

  • wmz [any]
    hexagon
    ·
    3 years ago

    only liberals in the imperial core fantasize about collapse, a mirage that is perpetually in the future, removed from the present.

  • effervescent [they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    It’s more like erosion. Small pieces of society are constantly flaking off a previous cohesive body. In this analogy the imperial core is literally the core of that body. Eventually the flakes are all that’s left. There were many people during the collapse of the Roman Empire who saw the trends and forces acting out this process, but it granted them no more power to stop it.

  • Shrek
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    deleted by creator

  • CyborgMarx [any, any]
    ·
    3 years ago

    The collapse already happened, it started with the fall of the Soviet Union