The way I honestly see it, there are only 2 probable options

  1. Dems win and chuds wig out against the government for no reason despite getting everything they ever wanted, because they are simply subhuman automatons

  2. Reps win and chuds do not wig out against the government (and also still get everything they wanted)

IMO pretty much everything between 1 and 2 are the same, except that in 1 the chuds are at least somewhat more preoccupied by the government and inclined to play ''''''roblox''''' with them.

  • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Well either it accelerates and the gov stays intact

    or it accelerates and some braindead wignats maybe try to topple the gov because they are morons

    that's how I'm thinking about it

    • Nounverb [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Sure, but you are ofc, still the same person when the chuds pick up their guns and cross the metaphorical Rubicon. I know where I'm going and who I need to have an urgent conversation the moment it goes boog. I have a physical space to go to that will most likely not have a prevalence of armed people going door to door. I have access to things that I will need. Not everybody who is saying "accelerate accelerate" even knows what they plan on doing the second that acceleration allegedly happens.

      • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        have you thought about all the marginalized people that are gonna get murdered if we accelerate the collapse of this state

        this implies that I'm in favor of causing accelerationism, rather than simply believing that accelerationism is just the natural state and inevitable destiny of the US

        I honestly believe the latter, and so having accepted that, I just want the process to cause as much damage to the gov as possible in the meantime.

        • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          accelerationism is just the natural state and inevitable destiny of the US

          I honestly don't understand what you mean by this and the way you're using "accelerationism" throughout the thread. Accelerationism not the tendency of capitalism towards crisis or the inability of the capitalist state to govern sustainably. It can't be the natural state of anything because it's an approach to anti-instutionalism: the idea that by advancing the most reactionary elements, we will spur the people to revolt. You're just using it to refer to the US being a shitty state that is losing its grip (I think?)

          • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
            ·
            2 years ago

            I'm referring to the fact that chuds want to kill minorities, and this is not related to capitalism/alienation/economics. It's simply their core personality trait. They passionately hate anything that is "not them"

            Luckily, this also extends, somewhat, to political parties. They hate Dems almost as much as minorities.

            Thus, if Dems win, much chud attention will be taken off of minorities, and focused on Dem political institutions. This not only relieves pressure, but also wrecks the US state.

            If Reps win, chuds just get all the stuff they want codified into law, and the US just continues on as a Nazi Germany, and will be undisturbed for as long as it doesn't do something stupid like nuking China.

            • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              I guess I agree with what you're saying. I'm stuck on the term you're using for it, because what you're advocating is now clearly the exact opposite of accelerationism. Wrecking the US state is not accelerationism. I want to wreck the state and I'm very anti-accelerationist. Advocating for the Dems as a stop gap (however minor) against the very worst of Republican reaction is decidedly not accelerationist.

              I don't think Dems in power is going to take any chud attention off minorities, because they see the Dems and minorities as one and the same. But it would mean the most insanely hateful people on earth aren't in power, and there's value in that.

              • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
                ·
                2 years ago

                I guess I'm using the wrong words. "Accelerationism" is supposedly when you try to force the system to accelerate more. That is not what I want.

                I simply believe that the system is destined to accelerate. This is what I meant by "an accelerationist case". Since the system is destined to accelerate, we may as well manage it optimally, and I see many reasons why Dems would be preferable to Reps:

                1. marginally, very, very very VERY marginally better rights for Non-White people, LGBT people, and other groups. Meaning the Dems are probably slightly less likely to cancel a $1000 scholarship for some gay kid somewhere, which is pretty much irrelevant but it's objectively better than 0.

                2. The liberal base, and any remaining "convert-able" liberals, will continue to witness fascist horrors take place under Dem rule, possibly becoming disillusioned, and possibly making a leftist third party more feasible. If Reps were elected instead, the alternative would simply be the right-most Dem administration you can think of, like Joe Biden is right now.

                3. chuds are irrational subhumans who hate Dems. If Dems are in power, their anger is focused on the political establishment. Let them fight.

                  • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    so you’re saying if the US goes to total shit and we say "look libs!! did nothing! now all you need to do is

                    Yea. I think that if we had dems in power for like, 3 straight terms for example, and literally nothing gets done, some of the lemmings might start to wake up. In theory. At worst it just does nothing, it's not like voting republican is doing anything good so I might as well.

      • Nounverb [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I'm skeptical about the notion that "we" are doing anything. At best somebody claiming it do be doing accelerationism is just operating within the same constraints as the rest of us. :anprim-pat:

        Now if you were ted pollack you might be talking

        • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
          ·
          2 years ago

          pretty much, "doing accelerationism" is like saying you "produce animals" when it's the soil, sunshine, and rainfall that produces them and you just own the land