The death of the US Empire isn’t “accelerationism,” it’s an understanding that the number one obstacle to socialism globally is the US Empire, and with it out of the way socialist countries are under far less pressure from the outside. Ideally an indigenous led, decolonial socialist state takes the place of the former US Empire, but a strong and healthy empire isn’t going to get there. That’s why its decay is necessary for both Statesians and the international proletariat.
You are off your rocker if you think whatever comes next will be indigenous led lol. Not that I would be opposed to it. The scary thing is though, what does come next? If it’s socialism great, but what if it’s fascism
It’s important to recognize that the primary contradiction within the US Empire is settler-colonialism. The ones most oppressed by the current society are generally the ones most quickly adaptive to theory and practice, and this isn’t because oppressed people are “morally superior” but out of sheer survival. It’s also why there are so many queer communists. Without combatting settler-colonialism, anything that takes the place of the US Empire will fundamentally replicate that and would be closer to barbarism.
The US Empire is already fascist, fascism isn’t a separate mode of production but instead capitalism in decay.
Well, I wouldn’t really say it’s fascist quite yet (maybe I’m ignorant) but it’s well on the way. My point is it could get a lot worse before it gets better
One of the key characteristics of fascism is autocracy. You could argue that applies today but certainly not for decades. Regardless of if, from your perspective, neither party aligns with your goals and are far right by that standard, they are still working against each other.
Answer this because I’m curious of your perspective. Is Russia fascist, and if not why not? From what I have been exposed to (which certainly is biased admittedly) Russia is at least as far on the fascism scale as the US, they have a lot of similarities in my mind, but nobody on here will say that, but then turn around and label the US fascist.
If you think it wasn’t fascist over a century at least and point at anything “politics” then I am pointing at your finger.
That’s a circus; a show.
Look at the Banks. That’s politics. Watch it stringing the hands of workers a families. Sure their politics are in an Arch of characterization oration but they’re not even trying to force make anyone do anything.
Look at the Money. They’re puppetstrings fluxxing like Marty never fixed the Cubs mistake when it turned out that whole shenanigan was done like an inbelievably candid rigged card game, so named and trapped all attention from seeing the hot ounce balloon inflated for show. Pop the bubble. It was made to be see happening so we not get the trick dropped in 'Nam and settle for watching this cheeky shown name deflating like a doll.
“native Americans are more likely to like communism” isn’t exactly a solid foundation for establishing “an indigenous led, decolonial socialist state [that] takes the place of the former US Empire,”
It is highly unlikely that if the us government collapses everyone’s going to be like “whelp let’s let the communist indigenous people lead may as well, even though they don’t have the numbers, arms, food or production to run anything”
Sure in an idealistic sense it would be cool to go full Ferngully/dances with wolves/Avatar/noble savage cliche but if we’re going to dream that big I’d like an infinite pizza shooting unicorn.
You’re right, that isn’t a solid foundation. What is, is working class organization along correct lines of struggle, part of which is decolonization, as the US Empire’s primary contradiction is settler-colonialism.
Further, you’re right to say that if the US Empire collapsed now that it would result in barbarism. That’s the point of organizing, though, so that when the US Empire is in crisis, we can overthrow it and implement a new system.
None of this is based on ideals, but learning from historical struggles for socialism.
Idk mate, you’re the one who brought up the idea of an indigenous socialist revolution and now you’re saying that ideal isn’t a solid foundation. I thought the point was to unite the working class as a whole, not put a generic category of race made by colonialism on a pedestal. “Indigenous” isn’t a single group of people who all think vaguely the same about communism, so I’m not sure why you thought it would be a good idea to say that’s the ideal situation.
It’s multi-faceted. Ignoring the settler-colonial nature of the US Empire ignores its primary contradiction, the forces at play in the given society, and why the US proletariat is against revolution right now. Any working class organization needs correct analysis of settler-colonialism to have success elsewhere. It’s similar to trying to have a TERF worker organization, by excluding marginalized comrades and taking incorrect lines, we damage the movement and lose some of our fiercest fighters, all while winding ourselves into reactionary contradictions and tailism.
I feel that, but when you say the ideal is an indigenous led movement, and case that on the assumption that indigenous people will be all on board, it doesn’t come off as multi faceted, especially when you say that’s the ideal outcome. Your ideal outcome is based off of an assumption based on race, while lumping many races and cultures together. That’s easy different from “we need to bring the various indigenous people to the table and try to rebuild in a way outside of colonialism”.
Accelerationism is a range of ideologies that call for the use of capitalism and associated processes to create radical social transformations.[1] Broadly, accelerationism engages with antihumanism[2][3] and posthumanism,[4] and seeks to accelerate desired tendencies within capitalism at the expense of negative ones, though variants differ greatly on which tendencies and if this will lead beyond capitalism or further into it.
deleted by creator
The death of the US Empire isn’t “accelerationism,” it’s an understanding that the number one obstacle to socialism globally is the US Empire, and with it out of the way socialist countries are under far less pressure from the outside. Ideally an indigenous led, decolonial socialist state takes the place of the former US Empire, but a strong and healthy empire isn’t going to get there. That’s why its decay is necessary for both Statesians and the international proletariat.
You are off your rocker if you think whatever comes next will be indigenous led lol. Not that I would be opposed to it. The scary thing is though, what does come next? If it’s socialism great, but what if it’s fascism
It’s important to recognize that the primary contradiction within the US Empire is settler-colonialism. The ones most oppressed by the current society are generally the ones most quickly adaptive to theory and practice, and this isn’t because oppressed people are “morally superior” but out of sheer survival. It’s also why there are so many queer communists. Without combatting settler-colonialism, anything that takes the place of the US Empire will fundamentally replicate that and would be closer to barbarism.
The US Empire is already fascist, fascism isn’t a separate mode of production but instead capitalism in decay.
Well, I wouldn’t really say it’s fascist quite yet (maybe I’m ignorant) but it’s well on the way. My point is it could get a lot worse before it gets better
It’s been fascist for decades. Fascism doesn’t become official only when it happens to white people almost as much as the rest of us.
One of the key characteristics of fascism is autocracy. You could argue that applies today but certainly not for decades. Regardless of if, from your perspective, neither party aligns with your goals and are far right by that standard, they are still working against each other.
Answer this because I’m curious of your perspective. Is Russia fascist, and if not why not? From what I have been exposed to (which certainly is biased admittedly) Russia is at least as far on the fascism scale as the US, they have a lot of similarities in my mind, but nobody on here will say that, but then turn around and label the US fascist.
If you think it wasn’t fascist over a century at least and point at anything “politics” then I am pointing at your finger.
That’s a circus; a show.
Look at the Banks. That’s politics. Watch it stringing the hands of workers a families. Sure their politics are in an Arch of characterization oration but they’re not even trying to force make anyone do anything.
Look at the Money. They’re puppetstrings fluxxing like Marty never fixed the Cubs mistake when it turned out that whole shenanigan was done like an inbelievably candid rigged card game, so named and trapped all attention from seeing the hot ounce balloon inflated for show. Pop the bubble. It was made to be see happening so we not get the trick dropped in 'Nam and settle for watching this cheeky shown name deflating like a doll.
“native Americans are more likely to like communism” isn’t exactly a solid foundation for establishing “an indigenous led, decolonial socialist state [that] takes the place of the former US Empire,”
It is highly unlikely that if the us government collapses everyone’s going to be like “whelp let’s let the communist indigenous people lead may as well, even though they don’t have the numbers, arms, food or production to run anything”
Sure in an idealistic sense it would be cool to go full Ferngully/dances with wolves/Avatar/noble savage cliche but if we’re going to dream that big I’d like an infinite pizza shooting unicorn.
You’re right, that isn’t a solid foundation. What is, is working class organization along correct lines of struggle, part of which is decolonization, as the US Empire’s primary contradiction is settler-colonialism.
Further, you’re right to say that if the US Empire collapsed now that it would result in barbarism. That’s the point of organizing, though, so that when the US Empire is in crisis, we can overthrow it and implement a new system.
None of this is based on ideals, but learning from historical struggles for socialism.
Idk mate, you’re the one who brought up the idea of an indigenous socialist revolution and now you’re saying that ideal isn’t a solid foundation. I thought the point was to unite the working class as a whole, not put a generic category of race made by colonialism on a pedestal. “Indigenous” isn’t a single group of people who all think vaguely the same about communism, so I’m not sure why you thought it would be a good idea to say that’s the ideal situation.
It’s multi-faceted. Ignoring the settler-colonial nature of the US Empire ignores its primary contradiction, the forces at play in the given society, and why the US proletariat is against revolution right now. Any working class organization needs correct analysis of settler-colonialism to have success elsewhere. It’s similar to trying to have a TERF worker organization, by excluding marginalized comrades and taking incorrect lines, we damage the movement and lose some of our fiercest fighters, all while winding ourselves into reactionary contradictions and tailism.
I feel that, but when you say the ideal is an indigenous led movement, and case that on the assumption that indigenous people will be all on board, it doesn’t come off as multi faceted, especially when you say that’s the ideal outcome. Your ideal outcome is based off of an assumption based on race, while lumping many races and cultures together. That’s easy different from “we need to bring the various indigenous people to the table and try to rebuild in a way outside of colonialism”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism