Something white folks like me from "middle class" backgrounds really need to fucking deal with is that privilege isn't just the advantages that put us a little ahead or give us a little more comfort or space or whatever.
-
I've said it before: I'm not an accelerationist, because we've already arrived. Actually, we've always been here.
The elitist fascist ethno-state is here.
What are we going to fucking do about it?
Are we going to try to preserve some people's peace & comfort at the cost of the lives & freedom of others? Or are we ready to stop accepting "freedom" & "safety" that requires millions of others to suffer & die?
It is fucking uncomfortable. I bet it's really hard for those among us who have kids, who want them to have stable, comfortable lives. Of course you do! You love your kids.
What about the people whose children suffer abuse in foster care because they have been stolen from them by the State, kids who will never enjoy the stability & comfort that you wish for for your kids?
Are you willing to choose "incremental change" that will result in countless more victims just so that YOUR kids are fine?
-
It is fucking uncomfortable. I bet it's really hard for those among us who have kids, who want them to have stable, comfortable lives. Of course you do! You love your kids.
What about the people whose children suffer abuse in foster care because they have been stolen from them by the State, kids who will never enjoy the stability & comfort that you wish for for your kids?
Are you willing to choose "incremental change" that will result in countless more victims just so that YOUR kids are fine?
@artemis and your child isn't even getting a stable comfortable life anyway
- Erin
-
It is fucking uncomfortable. I bet it's really hard for those among us who have kids, who want them to have stable, comfortable lives. Of course you do! You love your kids.
What about the people whose children suffer abuse in foster care because they have been stolen from them by the State, kids who will never enjoy the stability & comfort that you wish for for your kids?
Are you willing to choose "incremental change" that will result in countless more victims just so that YOUR kids are fine?
If your kids sink into the fully-expendable underclass as its boundaries expand, will you be ready to make the world anew then? Are you waiting until you have lost everything first?
It's not accelerationist to tell you to stop dragging your feet because it's time to fucking pick your side already.
-
If your kids sink into the fully-expendable underclass as its boundaries expand, will you be ready to make the world anew then? Are you waiting until you have lost everything first?
It's not accelerationist to tell you to stop dragging your feet because it's time to fucking pick your side already.
How many more centuries of the exploitation of the poor are we willing to endure, in the hopes that someday we will perhaps free their great, great grandchildren (should they even survive) by means of "incremental change"?
-
It is fucking uncomfortable. I bet it's really hard for those among us who have kids, who want them to have stable, comfortable lives. Of course you do! You love your kids.
What about the people whose children suffer abuse in foster care because they have been stolen from them by the State, kids who will never enjoy the stability & comfort that you wish for for your kids?
Are you willing to choose "incremental change" that will result in countless more victims just so that YOUR kids are fine?
@artemis@dice.camp (Your kids will not be fine)
-
How many more centuries of the exploitation of the poor are we willing to endure, in the hopes that someday we will perhaps free their great, great grandchildren (should they even survive) by means of "incremental change"?
Whenever we talk about "incremental change" we are calculating how many of which people's lives are an acceptable sacrifice to avoid the risk of society-wide upheaval.
The strange thing is, no matter how many years we continue down that path, we never seem to get any closer to "too many". The count always goes up, but so too does the threshold.
-
Whenever we talk about "incremental change" we are calculating how many of which people's lives are an acceptable sacrifice to avoid the risk of society-wide upheaval.
The strange thing is, no matter how many years we continue down that path, we never seem to get any closer to "too many". The count always goes up, but so too does the threshold.
If we're going to insist on enacting change "incrementally", we should at least reach a fixed number of how many is too many to keep tolerating: "this many imprisoned, this many killed, this many starving, this many frozen to death on the streets, this many raped," after which it is time to demand "justice now!"
That is...unless you actually think there is no limit which could justify certain other people losing their comfort & safety.
-
If your kids sink into the fully-expendable underclass as its boundaries expand, will you be ready to make the world anew then? Are you waiting until you have lost everything first?
It's not accelerationist to tell you to stop dragging your feet because it's time to fucking pick your side already.
@artemis@dice.camp I don't know how it's used generally, but to me "accelerationism" isn't making changes for the better fast. It's making changes for the worse faster in hopes it makes things better somehow.
-
Fuck "middle class". Fuck "the American dream". Fuck "upward mobility."
It's not freedom until we tear down the prisons.
It's not freedom until everyone's children have food to eat.
It's not freedom until we stop fucking ripping apart indigenous families, Black families, families of color, poor families, HOUSELESS families...
This is not fucking freedom. This is not "order". This is brutal fucking oppression.
None of us are free while one of us is chained, none of us are free... -
If we're going to insist on enacting change "incrementally", we should at least reach a fixed number of how many is too many to keep tolerating: "this many imprisoned, this many killed, this many starving, this many frozen to death on the streets, this many raped," after which it is time to demand "justice now!"
That is...unless you actually think there is no limit which could justify certain other people losing their comfort & safety.
If the cost of change now is too high, then I expect to see you crunching the numbers & keeping track of the data to see if the calculus ever changes.
Otherwise, I would have to think you aren't concerned about people's lives in general, just the lives of the people you choose to count.
Surely there is such a thing as too much, right? Too much cruelty, too much exploitation, too much death to justify the continuation of systems of oppression until they can be "gradually reformed"?
-
Something white folks like me from "middle class" backgrounds really need to fucking deal with is that privilege isn't just the advantages that put us a little ahead or give us a little more comfort or space or whatever.
Privilege is also having the real ugliness of the "American way of life" hidden from us.
There is no justice here. Our prisons are full of the suffering underclasses that are impoverished, criminalized, & enslaved. Unhoused people are treated like vermin to exterminate.
-
Something white folks like me from "middle class" backgrounds really need to fucking deal with is that privilege isn't just the advantages that put us a little ahead or give us a little more comfort or space or whatever.
Privilege is also having the real ugliness of the "American way of life" hidden from us.
There is no justice here. Our prisons are full of the suffering underclasses that are impoverished, criminalized, & enslaved. Unhoused people are treated like vermin to exterminate.
@artemis It didn't start in America. It's just that late-stage capitalism there has come to its logical conclusion. As an example from my country, look up the folk song 'Poverty Knock', about working in the mills in the Industrial Revolution, or, further back, the history of the enclosures of common land under the 'Enclosure Acts'.
-
If the cost of change now is too high, then I expect to see you crunching the numbers & keeping track of the data to see if the calculus ever changes.
Otherwise, I would have to think you aren't concerned about people's lives in general, just the lives of the people you choose to count.
Surely there is such a thing as too much, right? Too much cruelty, too much exploitation, too much death to justify the continuation of systems of oppression until they can be "gradually reformed"?
That probably seems really crude, to suggest keeping a body count. Maybe you think "it's not as simple as that."
Ok, then how DO you make this decision? What is your cost-benefit analysis that leads you to say "it would be far worse to stop the oppression-machine from functioning. We must gradually make adjustments"?
What concerns are you weighing there, & most importantly, is there anything at all that would ever change your mind? Or is this one of your first principles?
-
If your kids sink into the fully-expendable underclass as its boundaries expand, will you be ready to make the world anew then? Are you waiting until you have lost everything first?
It's not accelerationist to tell you to stop dragging your feet because it's time to fucking pick your side already.
@artemis
️NOT picking a side is actually picking a side, too -
That probably seems really crude, to suggest keeping a body count. Maybe you think "it's not as simple as that."
Ok, then how DO you make this decision? What is your cost-benefit analysis that leads you to say "it would be far worse to stop the oppression-machine from functioning. We must gradually make adjustments"?
What concerns are you weighing there, & most importantly, is there anything at all that would ever change your mind? Or is this one of your first principles?
If there isn't anything that would make you change your belief that incremental change is the only moral choice, how did you arrive at that belief? How do you know it's true? How will you know it is still true in the future?
If there *is* something that would change your mind, then do me a favor: pick that thing & stick to it. If that line is ever crossed, your incrementalism must be at an end, because the cost has now exceeded acceptable limits.
-
I'm sorry, y'all, I wish this could change with votes & legislation, but until there is a clean slate, all we're doing is trying to tailor the oppression a little more neatly.
It is baked in. You just ignore it because it doesn't align with your image of your comfortable, "civilized", "decent", middle class world. That world doesn't exist, so you can't preserve it. It's a lie. You can't build a better society on a lie.
@artemis I don't claim we have a solution for solving this without a "clean slate", but I also know that a "clean slate" without having built something to replace what's being wiped away will mean death for a huge number of people - disabled, those depending on ongoing medication or otherwise medically vulnerable, etc.
A lot of what looks like "incrementalism" isn't an unwillingness to shed the comfort of privilege but a knowlede that we don't know how to protect a lot of the less-privileged in "revolution".
-
If there isn't anything that would make you change your belief that incremental change is the only moral choice, how did you arrive at that belief? How do you know it's true? How will you know it is still true in the future?
If there *is* something that would change your mind, then do me a favor: pick that thing & stick to it. If that line is ever crossed, your incrementalism must be at an end, because the cost has now exceeded acceptable limits.
Whenever someone tells me too many people would get hurt if we tried to make big, immediate change, instead of trying to use the current system to slowly steer things, they list what they think the cost of change will be & who will get hurt.
I never see them weigh that against the other side of this: the people who suffer & die from things as they are.
I just want to put the moral calculus out in the open. If you make this argument, you must have determined what costs are acceptable. Tell us.
-
@artemis@dice.camp I don't know how it's used generally, but to me "accelerationism" isn't making changes for the better fast. It's making changes for the worse faster in hopes it makes things better somehow.
@flesh
That would seem to be the clearer definition of it.However, if I say "we should stop trying to liberate ourselves by voting," I will get accused of accelerationism.
-
@flesh
That would seem to be the clearer definition of it.However, if I say "we should stop trying to liberate ourselves by voting," I will get accused of accelerationism.
@artemis@dice.camp I understand why some may take that statement without clarification that way, yeah.
Unfortunately, quite a few anarchists end up with a position of "don't vote, shitpost instead", which isn't helpful either. -
Whenever someone tells me too many people would get hurt if we tried to make big, immediate change, instead of trying to use the current system to slowly steer things, they list what they think the cost of change will be & who will get hurt.
I never see them weigh that against the other side of this: the people who suffer & die from things as they are.
I just want to put the moral calculus out in the open. If you make this argument, you must have determined what costs are acceptable. Tell us.
@artemis me telling Lenin "Too many people would get hurt if we tried to make big, immediate change" on his train to Russia during WWI
- Erin
