The collapse of the American empire would benefit almost every other country. I am starting to feel that since I live in America I should want to accelerate the collapse (or make sure one happens if things start to go back to business as usual). Can someone tell me why this is a bad idea so that I don’t make a mistake here.
I’m reminded of when Margaret Thatcher first became Prime Minister in the UK. Some commies there supported her because they thought she would sharpen the contradictions and therefore bring about a revolution. We all know how that turned out.
Accelerationism isnt taken seriously because it doesn’t guarantee social change but more specifically to you advocating for and trying to collapse the American nation isnt accelerationism since collapsing it would actually benefit the communist movement as a whole
Accelerationism means actively working to make things worse for most people. Not only is it unnecessary because the decline is already ongoing and an eventual crisis of some sort therefore inevitable, but it is also bad strategy. Communists should not be seen to be making things worse, needless to say that is very bad optics. We should be seen as those who are most strongly on the side of the working class, defending and advancing their interests.
We want the masses to see us as trustworthy and reliable, as having their back and as those who they can trust to lead them. In order to win that trust you need more than just the right words, you need action. You need to show to the people by standing side by side with them in their struggles against capital, landlords, fascists, state violence, etc. that communists are those who will fight the hardest for their well-being.
By helping workers in their struggles you also contribute to the sharpening of contradictions as the limitations of the liberal bourgeois system are exposed and the need for a radically different system in order to fulfill all the needs and demands of workers becomes evident for more and more people. Organizing the working class is also how you prepare for “after the collapse”, it’s how you prepare the working class for eventually seizing power.
It is not sufficient for a collapse to occur, revolutionaries must be prepared and have the necessary support from a sufficiently large class conscious subsegment of the masses (in order to achieve this educational and agitation work is necessary) as well as the organizational infrastructure to be able to quickly mobilize the masses and fill the vacuum of power before our class enemies do.
I will add one caveat to this which is that you will frequently see the term “accelerationism” used incorrectly by disingenuous liberals in an attempt to intimidate or shame communists and other leftists out of sticking by our principles. According to these people the definition of accelerationism is “when you don’t vote for or support Democrats”. That is of course ridiculous and people who say such things should be ridiculed.
As @[email protected] said, accelerationism isn’t particularly useful, and risks desparation from the reactionaries plunging the world into war. Without working class organization, there is nothing to resist that meaningfully.
I think a common pattern with your posts is that they tend to fall into desparation and confusion stemming from a lack of theory. In your case, I think reading theory would be immensely clarifying and comforting. I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, but many others out there exist as well. I recommend you give that a try!
Don’t we want a non nuclear war?
What we want is a socialist revolution in the heart of the Empire, led by an organized working class with indigenous Americans and other oppressed nations within the imperial core at the forefront. This is feasible, increasingly so, as imperialism crumbles and the treat printers run dry.
I just feel like it’s almost impossible to make changes in America with how everyone is afraid of communism and how many still fall for western propaganda. I can’t even convince my own dad that capitalism is the problem. (even if I read theory I don’t think it would be able to convince him). America is the number one blocker of all progress towards a better future. Is there even any hope for a revolution in America or do we just have to hope the collapse causes a civil war so that America can’t lash out at other countries.
Not trying to dump on you but its a common misconception of people without good habits to think good habits wont help. This is called learned helplessness and it preserves the status quo.
Remember that you need to accept being wrong as a marxist. That is a core value.
I fucking love that quote “you need to accept being wrong as a marxist.” Somebody put that shit in the communist quote rotation. Fallibility is a lost art in the imperial core.
Yep, westerners take any failings as deep moral failings. It’s why AES not being “pure” and free of sin immediately loses support. That’s also why parties endlessly split, there isn’t a focus on unity because accountability means admitting failure.
To be fair I linked my dad good sources like this one for US imperialism and he says it’s “too biased” https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/us_atrocities.md#pervasive
Also these videos on debunking myths of communism and the other one is the death count of capitalism. https://youtu.be/BeRjTtKFlVM
As much as these are impressive, you will be much more convincing once you have a solid base.
Without being able to explain on a moments notice the reason why people should believe you and not some other rando (materialism), why they should consider an alternative narrative (dialectics), why it is easy to use thinking stoppers (e.g. the words biased or propaganda) to keep people in the thought prison, and how the world begins to make much more sense after leaving it, you wont get through to people. You need this theoretical base to convince people. Otherwise you will always scream into a void and get increasingly desoerate about it. That you are proving by asking for more drastic measures. It is the same as someone asking for an injection to make them loose weight, make them stop smoking, make them be more outgoing or whatever. Its always asking an external force to handle your problems. Asking for a shortcut.
There are no shortcuts.
Read theory. Stop with the rest.
Now go and read state and revolution, foundations of marxism leninism and questions of leninism.
They are really short and well written.
After that you can find the theory list on here pretty easily.
Read theory. Stop with the rest.
Don’t stop there. Also get organized and put the theory into practice. You cannot develop one without the other. As Mao puts it “knowledge begins with practice, and theoretical knowledge is acquired through practice and must then return to practice”
Nah, I dont think that is a great idea. As lenin said: there is no revolutionary practice without revolutionary theory. People have lives. They need to put regular reading into their day, not running around in “leftist” circlejerks. I speak from experience.
But then youre absolutely right. Once a strong theoretical core is set, it is time to act. Were talking weeks, not years.
I think that learning theory without something to apply it to is essentially useless. And that is something I learned from experience as well. I was studying theory for about a year without any organizing experience, repeatedly telling myself “okay, once I understand this stuff, I’ll start organizing.” But I didn’t really understand it because I had very little to relate it to. It wasn’t until I started organizing and studying simultaneously that things really clicked
Again, turning to Mao, “The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practice and repudiating all erroneous theories which deny the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice.” Lenin also says “Practice is higher than theoretical knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate actuality.”
The Marxist Theory of Knowledge holds that rational knowledge depends upon perceptual knowledge, and that perceptual knowledge must be developed into rational knowledge. That is to say, knowledge begins with practical experience and must be deepened with theory. Then it must once again be practically applied.
To put the Mao quote I used earlier into full context: “From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin’s statement, ‘Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.’ But Marxism emphasizes the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action. If we have a correct theory but merely prate about it, pigeonhole it and do not put it into practice, then that theory, however good, is of no significance. Knowledge begins with practice, and theoretical knowledge is acquired through practice and must then return to practice.”
I know you’re saying you should start applying it within a couple weeks, and applying it is certainly the most important part. But it is a major error to discredit the fact that knowledge must begin with practice, with perception, with matter. The first step of knowledge is and must be coming into contact with the very things you’re trying to change through practice. How can you understand the challenges of organizing without experiencing them? How can you understand what is an ultra-left or rightist error in your specific conditions without witnessing the effects of those incorrect theories? How can you meet the masses where they are at without meeting the masses? You can’t. Not in any reliable sense. The rational is only reliable insofar as its basis in the perceptual. Theory can only progress our knowledge if it is being used to elevate our perceptive knowledge, to rationalize it
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
These feelings are valid, but ultimately stem from a lack of theory. You don’t need to worry about convincing people capitalism is bad, if people’s material conditions aren’t in a place for them to be susceptible to such ideas. Further, reading theory better helps you explain why capitalism is unsustainable. The US is the number one block, but as imperialism crumbles the chance for revolution raises. We must organize the working class to do so.
Read theory! You’ll be happier for it.
You have to realise that Americas revolutionary potential is nil the only way to advance socialism is to collapse the nation (i.e intensifying the culture war and damaging America’s social cohesion, setting up networks and groups that grow to replace and or invalidate the federal government, setting up militant groups to fight off cops very late stage though)
while we’re on the topic, i meant to ask you what you think of the mlreadinghub.org reading lists? if you have any thoughts at all.
also big shoutout for the reading list great work!
I’ve followed this before! I feel like it was quite helpful, and I took what I liked from it and added it to mine. It’s valid as a starter list. I also like the Deprogram starter list as well, I intend on following it too as there’s a lot of stuff I haven’t read on it.
The American empire can be simplified into 2 parts.
One is the power projection overseas, and you can’t really do much about that unless you have federal executive power, which the government and adjacent organizations are structured to prevent people like you and me from gaining. It will only be the geopolitical adversaries of the empire that wear this down.
The other is national cohesion. This includes logistics, domestic production, taxation, and even peaceful participation in American life. This is the glue that you can break down.
Things are going to get worse no matter what, there’s no need to push them in that direction. Instead, every revolutionary has to consider the possible moments that will set off revolution, and make themselves as prepared as possible for those moments. What is a revolutionary force going to need?
You’re not going to beat the chuds gun-for-gun or bullet-for-bullet. But they don’t eat guns and they don’t keep warm with bullets. Their sustenance comes from a globalized system of logistics that brings electricity to their houses, gasoline to their vehicles, and meat to their bellies. Consider that a lot of the enemy lives in suburban or exurban areas, well away from distribution centers, extremely car-dependent, and not efficient in electricity use at all. These are all glaring weaknesses; their way of life is teetering. You should be thinking not about how to slaughter them all, but about how to make them realize (beforehand or in retrospect) that they cannot just do a Civil War 2 to wipe you out without critically weakening America’s domestic cohesion or maybe even its global power projection.
But counter point you want to collapse and weaken americas domestic cohesion but you don’t want to do that by feeding the fascists or intensifying capitalism
Right. One answer leverages a critique of economics that recognizes that some goods and services are part of The Economy, and others are not. There have always been sectors external to capitalism; it cannot possibly control them all without literally putting all of humanity in a prison with perpetual coercion.
One strategy is to expand the domain of the “homestead” to where it includes unrelated people, exchanges less with the outside economy (i.e. direct production for use), and thus deprives the government of tax income in comparison to the average lifestyle. The government’s own propaganda about “freedom” encompasses these “homesteads”; it cannot fight them on a broad scale without a civil war that weakens itself. And when a revolutionary army comes into being, they will need areas of material support that are not just “thousands of broke people in this town support you”.
I’m not a fifth column, Inspector. I’m just a regular American citizen, pursuing the American Dream, this is just a plot of land that I do silviculture on. This is my only structure on the property and it’s an unconventional construction, it probably wouldn’t sell for much.
How would a communist movement push for these “homestead” policies and generally draining the cities of their populations
A lot of these are going to be located in or around smaller cities or towns in the hinterland. There will certainly be a contest over urban planning, no one raised on liberal orthodoxy is going to be excited about the arrival of large multiple-family social units, but if the alternative is decline and brownfields, I think they’d accept it.
The more people you get working together and sharing things, the easier it is to “beat” the model of atomized capitalist subjects, either by saving more, or working and consuming less. As for the details, it’s more of an art than a science.
Whats the difference between this and suburbs?
Suburbs have minimal planning, little space set aside for collective use, individually-owned plots that reify the reactionary worldview of a war of all against all.
Shared spaces, higher density, real estate held by a land trust instead of individuals, fewer cars by an order of magnitude… everything is different from a standard suburb. Possibly even arcology- I dream about acquiring 10 contiguous city lots just 2 miles from the city center and slapping a small version of the Karl-Marx-Hof on them.
It’s not the be-all-end-all of revolutionary organizing, but it addresses some of the biggest frictions that minimize how much working class people can increase their ability to act.
Why don’t communist push for these “homestead” policies? They seem doable
This may seem unprompted, but it has been something I’ve encountered in these threads before.
In these types of posts, I want to clarify that wanting America to be cut off from it’s imperial exploitation of the global south is not “accelerationism”. None of the things we are offered in the west are “granted” to us, they are taken by force; either violence or economic coercion and the average person benefits from it. Even someone like me who grew up in a demunicipalized slum with no warm water, no constant electricity and no basic amenities as a child could tell you that. Despite those conditions, I still benefited from colonial exploitation of the south.
Any measure or method by any nation to enforce it’s economic and political sovereignty by seeking independence from American hegemony should be supported.
If it is possible for everyone in a country to live in decent housing with hot water and reliable electricity and adequate access to services, using just the resources of that country, then what does it mean for you to have benefited from colonial exploitation? Or is my precept there false?
then what does it mean for you to have benefited from colonial exploitation?
More or less this is the case in the periphery. Autarky and self-sufficiency tend to be the case, with some goods just straight up not available. This is because of U.S global hegemony.
Even though I grew up shit-poor; there was plenty of benefits and opportunities I was able to take later on in the imperial core that many people in the periphery would not get. E.g the existence of higher wages.
E.g the existence of higher wages.
Is that it? “Higher number on paper” is not a very strong argument for when we are talking about tangible benefits (this being a materialist forum, I assume we are only talking tangibles).
You listed factors of quality of life, I asked if they were achievable outside the framework of domination, you seem to have answered yes. But instead of the basics, the “things we are offered in the west” are specified as “some goods just straight up not available [in underdeveloped countries]”.
Which goods that a typical worker in the US can buy are either unavailable or marked up to be prohibitively expensive in other countries? And how does someone in the US, with yearly wages of $28,000 PPP (hi, it’s me) exploit a worker in a producer country in the global South with yearly wages of $20,000 PPP [1]? What is the mechanism and extent of exploitation that the worker in the core (as opposed to the business owner in the core) exerts on the worker in the periphery?
I’m using pre-tax income and leaving out the consideration of healthcare and transportation because while these are relevant, they could especially make the reckoning a lot murkier.
roughly averaging a selection of the most frequent producer countries I encounter on tags: China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Brazil, Indonesia, Honduras ↩︎
Which goods that a typical worker in the US can buy are either unavailable or marked up to be prohibitively expensive in other countries? And how does someone in the US, with yearly wages of $28,000 PPP (hi, it’s me) exploit a worker in a producer country in the global South with yearly wages of $20,000 PPP [1]? What is the mechanism and extent of exploitation that the worker in the core (as opposed to the business owner in the core) exerts on the worker in the periphery?
These questions deserve a separate post in c/askLemmygrad dedicated to this to help more comrades join in. However, for the first question, a typical US worker, even though it is expensive, can easily find a way to get a great medical service such as Kidney transplant compared to what a Burkinabe just now achieved recently. In the medical service, there are just too many examples and it gets uglier if the country is currently sanctioned by the US.
As for your yearly wage, we can make more comparisons but I prefer if we take this to a different post. Tag me if you have it!
You listed factors of quality of life, I asked if they were achievable outside the framework of domination, you seem to have answered yes. But instead of the basics, the “things we are offered in the west” are specified as “some goods just straight up not available [in underdeveloped countries]”.
This is true. I’m not denying any of this.
My point entirely was that even though we have people in critical poverty in America; there is a genuine framework of “higher opportunity” (as shitty and liberal as it sounds) in America due to the fact that the plunders of the imperial system exist around them. It’s a really shitty and tough topic to talk about, but even where I grew up I had running water (wasn’t warm ever) and irregular electricity. Some places don’t even have that in the periphery like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Brazil, etc.
China isn’t a “periphery” or part of “global south”. It is a developed nation. You could argue it is from a geopolitical perspective, but I’m using economics and development in terms of classifying them in a “vibey” sense.
What exactly was your point?
I was hoping you’d say something like “this T-shirt has its final sale value realized in a country where it is taxed more and contributes more to social services in the US than it does in Bangladesh” or "gas prices, largely guided by the petrodollar, are more affordable in the US and this makes everything in the supply chain cheaper by a small proportion. It was a softball that I hoped you’d be able to knock out of the park.
There’s an ambiguity of who is doing the exploiting of workers in the periphery, whether it is capitalists in the periphery, capitalists in the core, or workers in the core. Saying simply that workers in the core exploit workers in the periphery, without explaining the means and extent to which this is true, just encourages conflict between nations instead of international proletarian solidarity.
I asked if they were achievable outside the framework of domination, you seem to have answered yes.
Because you are purposefully being vague and assuming (you seem to have answered yes) I am answering questions when I have no idea what you were originally talking about or proposing.
I thought you were saying that there are other methods of imperial exploitation other than simply the benefits that are offered at home to other proles that encourage their division, to which I did say yes. I didn’t realize I’m in a college class and this was an open-ended question. Do you typically do this with people and get surprised when some have no idea what you’re talking about? Hate this shit because smug lib redditors would do it constantly and I always get confused by it because I heavily rely on context.
gas prices, largely guided by the petrodollar, are more affordable in the US and this makes everything in the supply chain cheaper by a small proportion.
Because of our domination of the ME and Saudi puppet-states (who gladly work with us). Part of the reason we have so much presence in the Middle-East is to enforce our will and doctrine of capital there as colluding with the vassal states of the gulf can keep the dollar linked to petro. To me, it’s more related to the fact that since it is linked to petro and the U.S dominates the main source of petro globally it has more power in being the de-facto established currency most of the world uses. Anyone who tries breaking away from that is bludgeoned economically by the IMF or just straight up invaded.
Should add in an edit it’s more than just “petrodollar” too. We have entire “schools” of colonizer thought in multiple countries encouraging rampant neoliberalism that shapes the economies of the nations to be more willing to be exploited. Argentina is an example.
this T-shirt has its final sale value realized in a country where it is taxed more and contributes more to social services in the US than it does in Bangladesh
I’d imagine when most of the world trades in the dollar. That part I’m not as aware of, though.
“Group A can afford X goods, while Group B cannot” does not self-evidently equate to “Group A is exploiting Group B”. I was asking you to trace the logic of this. If you’re so confident of it, it shouldn’t be hard.
You gave a response that ambiguously could have referenced multiple things, then said I was being vague.
A proletarian making minimum wage in the US is not the same as “the stochastic quality of life options for any given American”. From the beginning I was talking about the working class, the lifetime net debtors, the precarious class. How does it figure that the exploitation of the proletariat of the global South is being done by the American precarious class, instead of the American owning class?
since I live in America I should want to accelerate the collapse
consider that a collapse does not automatically mean things get better. fascists/military are very organised in the states, so in a collapse situation they will likely take power, without any barriers to do more atrocities. this is why accelerationism (focusing energy on collapse) is not a coherent strategy to achieve socialism. the only strategy is organising the working class
I would have thought a collapse would end more like a civil war due to the polarization of the country. I don’t think the military/corporations could outright seize power without the “justification” of democracy because I would think people would resist that when no longer bound by the laws of the previous government.
As zuzak said, it would be a massacre, not a civil war. The US military is just way more organised than any opposition to it. This is why we need to build workers power to undermine the fascists.
A collapse of the US will lead to a civil war fascists arent gauranteed to take power
Civil war between who and who? What organisation would lead the opposition to fascism?
I don’t believe the working class in the u.s will organize to any adequate degree without being truly and undeniably oppressed.
So yes the fascists will likely take power post government collapse but it’s necessary
That is what it looks like to me from the outside as well. Sadly it seems similar in my country. The question though is, who will fight the new fascist powers and would it make more sense to organise in the countries that form opposition or should one try to resist from within these systems? With all the information and tools the state has it feels like fighting from outside would be more fruitful but tbh I am talking out of my ass and would love some guidance as to how to fight fascism now and in the coming years.
I think internal resistance will come naturally post crisis, the effort will be in taking advantage of the fervor and leading it in the right direction
Outside influence would be necessary in the form of support
I’m also talking out of my ass of course but these scenarios we speak about become more and more likely each passing day, some education would be great to know where to go next but I think most of us here are aware enough to see what’s happening in the here and now
We should still do the best we can to organize what we can. This will mitigate the worst effects, and therefore is the best chance for success. Working actively towards collapse is harmful, assuming organizing is not the primary activity.
We’re in agreement, my only stipulation would be that any organization doesn’t seek to delay what’s inevitable via electoralism and awareness activism
Improvements to material conditions / aid should come from us not the state, otherwise people will continue to be comfortable with the status quo
Sure, I suppose, but the point is that being doomerist about org work and revolution just pushes all of the responsibility and agency to the global south, while we passively enjoy the spoils of imperialism. It’s selfish, and is common to western leftists that just purity test.
Not sure where we disconnected here, I’m not doomerist about Org work. Organizing is great, just not for electoral solutions or peaceful protests.
We should focus on organizing in the form of food drives and other means of material support, especially now with how badly people are starting to struggle.
But at the same time now is the best time to agitate, and provoke the inevitable and self destructive rise of fascist adjacent political hegemony.
In just a few short years they have done more to move the needle in our favor and hamstring U.S geopolitical power than left adjacent electoral effort has in the last century.
Early you said “mitigate the worst effects” and I think that’s perfect. We cannot prevent it from happening, we simply have no say in the matter. We can only bring what’s on the way from the distant future to tomorrow’s doorstep, while building something people can turn to in the aftermath.
Sure, I don’t disagree. I don’t think we are disconnected, I just think it’s important to not deny the potential for revolution in the west.
Even if that potentially is nil
deleted by creator
Harmful to who? Americans? Ok? Even in the worst case scenario America would be so badly damaged by the civil war that they’d have no hope of ever rebuilding their hegemony and thats a net good for the rest of the world organising to lead to that collapse is good for all of humanity
This is just sacrificing the colonized peoples within the heart of the imperial core. The US Empire is headed to collapse, not civil war. I do agree that the US Empire collapsing is a positive, but we as communists should do our best to facilitate the creation of a socialist state via an indigenous and colonized-led vanguard made up of the organized working class. A socialist state replacing the empire is far better than whatever reactionary rump state would come from the aftermath of civil war.
I don’t think it’s ever necessary for minorities and communists to die
Bad faith
What do you think fascism means?
No that’s pretty much what you said.
If you meant something different maybe try different phrasing because as it stands your post reads as: “Nothing ever happens and people need to die for that to change.”
Well I apologize for phrasing it poorly.
Time has shown that suffrage is the great unifier, most here sugar coat this by saying that for people to be convinced “their material conditions must be right”.
Suffrage may include death, and death may be necessary in regards to those who are fascist. But death is not necessary for the masses to become radicalized. Just the cessation of all that provides comfort and escape from the consequences of u.s global hegemony.
We in the u.s (even left adjacent) love the dividends of imperialism, so far it’s only when domestic conditions worsen that people cry out. Abroad, millions every year have been snuffed out for decades to maintain our domestic comforts and not a thing has been done. The dividends must cease. The greatest driver of that cessation have been our own homegrown fascists.
If and when liberals take back power it will be back to brunch, as it was post 2020, and so many times before.
It has to get worse, it will regardless.
Why do you think liberals will take power again? Everything currently points to the slow but real death of liberalism in the US. Fascism is rising, people want it stopped, liberals are doing nothing. I don’t see liberalism surviving this.
This is just “nothing ever happens” but with more words.
Liberals will survive this
The collapse will come no matter what you do so it is better to spend your effort to make the outcome better by organizing and raising class consciousness. america is already going down really fast and there is no obvious counter to the fascists. The harder you and other american comrades work the less suffering will result from the inevitable fascist stage.
So first of all, I feel you. I want the empire and vasall states to collapse asap too.
For reasons I wont comment on what measures I deem reasonable because this is still public.
But all in all, I dont think accellerationism is bad in its own right. Imo our very job is to heighten the contradictions of capitalism and bourgois regime.
This we do through calling out the government and their bootlickers in every possible situation. This accellerates the decline. You will be called a nazi, wrecker or whatever but that is okay.
Then, one could say “vote for bad guy” or “stop helping good guy” but that does nothing. Voting makes no difference at all and helping your neighbors is probably the one thing you can ethically do without it having negative consequences on the decline.
But of course, never participate in bourgois parties or groups as they will slow the decline down as much as they can which is terrible. This thing needs to burn down and fast.
In my mind, accelerationism comes from the same thread of thought that adventurism comes from. It comes from an alienation from the masses & a certain amount of nihilism that leads us to believe the only way is for us to accelerate. Being isolated from people who think the way you do, especially about the way out, will also produce these feelings.
When I first understood communism as the solution, I tried to convince everyone around me. While I did convince people, it required a long & concerted effort over time. People in the US grew up their whole lives learning that communism was literally the fucking devil, even if logically it is the correct solution it is still going to be resisted. But when things get bad, those same people I tried to convince over time start to see it for themselves & they reach back out for answers. Your ability to convince people will not just be a quick conversation - establishing socialism in the US will be a generational project. The Soviet Union developed their project for arguably 20-30 years before the October revolution. China had a 30 year civil war before they won.
There is a fascist regime currently consolidating power wherever it can. There is more open defiance of the regime in power than we’ve ever seen before. There is plenty of energy to be redirected into organizing the masses & radicalizing people. This will continue - the degradation of material conditions will continue with or without you. The collapse will also come. But now is the time to put in the ground work so that people will look to you in the future.
Accelerationism increases the degradation of material conditions with no alternative. This simply leads to nihilism & creates a breeding ground for fascism. When the collapse comes, the means of production aka the way this society produces the things we need, will be degraded without an organized working force that can take control of it. These are the times when the masses can fight & take control, not react to & say “i told you so”. The qualitative change, aka the “collapse”, is the time for revolution - don’t you want to be ready?
eh, so far it doesnt look like you need to do anything, the people in charge have it in hand
Collapse doesn’t mean it’s wiped off the map. All the guns and bombs will continue to exist as it becomes more and more of a failed state, there is a real possibility of lashing out and starting WWIII, and in any case the right is much better armed and poised to take advantage of the chaos.
All else being equal, I believe it’s better if it doesn’t collapse just yet. But we don’t really get to decide that, and regardless of what we want or don’t want, collapse is coming. There will be no return to the status quo, not for long anyway, because people are dissatisfied with it, and the powers that be have demonstrated that they’re unwilling to make any sort of compromise to keep things running if it gets in the way of their looting.
There’s no real reason to push for collapse since it’s inevitable, it’s better to just prepare for it so that we can best contain the damage.
Is there a chance that the collapse causes a civil war so that the US will be too busy dealing with that to lash out at other countries? The country is polarized enough that I would think it would just take the right moment to cause that to happen. Other countries could take advantage of the weakness of the US during that time to surpass the US in every field. I feel like if a revolution can not be achieved this would be the best alternative because at least the rest of the world would benefit.
A civil war would be entirely one-sided bc one side has all the guns. That’s not really a war, it’s a massacre. And nobody’s gonna risk their neck in the first place if it’s a doomed cause.
There are two scenarios where there’s a fighting chance, first, if the conflict is between the state and the right, and second, if the left becomes armed and organized.
The material conditions aren’t set for the left to take advantage of chaos and collapse. The first order of business is to set up the correct material conditions.
Regardless a “collapse of the US” will be something like the collapse of British empire
I think we need to examine what we’re specifically talking about when we say, “collapse.” The British Empire, the Weimar Republic, and the Qing dynasty all collapsed, but that collapse looked very different in each case.
They will exist as a shadow of their former selves no longer able to wage war or terrorise other countries with impunity
I’m not convinced declining conditions will lead to that result. As conditions have declined, the war machine has become more powerful than ever.
Declining conditions is too vague it can elapse anything from eggs got 0.5 cents more expensive to the economy just collapsed (which would weaken the war machine severely since the army is effectively a money sink with no returns) no in order for the US to collapse it has suffer several defeats at war and forcibly undergo an economic transformation that leaves is more isolated from the world
Wish I could answer your question but I’m in agreement.
It pains me to imagine any of our contemporaries having to suffer at all but the unwavering commitment to electoral solutions and awareness activism from those who are left adjacent and the most conscious of the u.s populace is clear evidence that we have gotten much too comfortable riding the backs of the global south and our own domestic unfortunates to do anything of political substance.
And then you have the rest of population, liberally right or so far gone that their only salvation is to become fertilizer.
I won’t belabor what we all already know, the only way out is a revolutionary crisis.
I do think that if it doesn’t seem possible for a revolution in America the second best thing is collapse so at least the rest of the world can benefit. The worst thing that could happen is America stabilizing and maintaining hegemony. I am just disturbed by the fact that accelerationism might actually be a valid answer here (not for the people in America but for the rest of the world). If it is a valid viewpoint then why is it banned in r/socialism. I asked here to clarify.
Unsure as to why it is banned but I believe that accelerationism as it is commonly known refers to a different ideology coined by some unpopular people, and has little to do with what you and I are discussing now.
To see what I mean, look into Nick Land and his Accelerationist views, otherwise maybe a more educated Comrade can speak on this point as I am not fully aware.
In my opinion, the need for a revolutionary crisis is only as ideological as the biological need humans have for air.
To your original point though, overall I think the collapse of the u.s as we know it would not only benefit the world but also those of us living in it.
Depends on how it collapses. Technically the current president is collapsing American soft power already. He can’t run the government competently which helps to accelerate the collapse. The problem for people living in America while this happens is things will get very bad as it increasingly represses it’s citizens and the class divide will only widen. I do think the collapse of american hegemony is still worth it though for the rest of the world. Regardless of how much we hate the current president we have to admit he has done things liberals absolutely would not have done (dissolve USAID, tariff all countries (this makes other countries adapt and become less dependent on the US), destroying the ability of the us to get rare earths by engaging in a losing trade war with China.) I mean I absolutely hate him but technically he has done more to desolve American hegemony than any other president in history (probably by accident).
Because Acceleration doesnt guarantee your specific outcome and could make matters worse for everyone because it’s essentially arguing “let’s make this worse to make it better” you’re manufacturing a crisis to imitate revolution of the past when you have no base to work from
