As an anarchist who is opposed to accelerationionism, it’s frustrating how many people see it as an ideology that wants the state to immediately collapse.
I’ve had multiple arguments with liberals who say I’m not a real anarchist because I want pragmatic short-term progressive solutions like Medicare for all.
So yeah, I’m not wanting to condemn people to death for my ideology. Got me! (Not you, PugJesus)
I like to point people to Desert by Anonymous. It talks about how the plan should really be waiting for the State to recede as collapse progresses, and finding the spaces left behind where theres room for mutual aid based organization.
I like that. It turns your attention to what’s in front of you, rather than waiting for the mythical Revolution we’ll likely never see.
Republicans and Democrats are both perfectly ok with state violence so long as it’s against brown people, and preferably overseas. How many millions have died from lack of access to affordable health care and an almost non-existent social safety net in the US over the past century? But those aren’t counted as ideological deaths for some reason? If you think that choosing either of the two main parties which both have an official policy of supporting foreign genocides is the lesser evil somehow, you’ve been duped. America has killed more people in wars in the past 20 years than nearly any other state, except perhaps for Russia. You’re just bent out of shape because that state violence has been turned on the domestic population for once. Anything has got to be better than the status quo.
This is not about “perfect behind the enemy of good” because I after with that. What this is about is the crazies will stop at nothing to say “b b both sides same!” and they use the term “harm reduction” to sneak that idea in. Anything good they will try to categorize as “it’s merely harm reduction, not actually good. And because it’s harm reduction, it’s harm light, it’s harm, and I will not vote for harm!”
What part of that is wrong? It’s two people looking at the same thing and seeing different things. You see the term harm reduction and see it as good. They see the term harm reduction and see it as bad because [see my explanation above].
That depends on the threshold for harm. But yeah, if you take the maximalist claim that any death or harm direct or indirect is unacceptable, you are basically arguing for no changes in society because we do not know the future and there is always uncertainty.
Conservative doesn’t mean reactionary, it is what it means now just like liberal now is taken to mean progressive, but that is not the real definition of the word it’s simply how people have been using them as a sort of shorthand.
And Ukrainians, and Palestinians. But I guess they don’t matter either, so long as you get to celebrate the deaths of some American minorities at the same time, eh?
Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics. This suspicion of government activism distinguishes conservatism not only from radical forms of political thought but also from liberalism, which is a modernizing, antitraditionalist movement dedicated to correcting the evils and abuses resulting from the misuse of social and political power. In The Devil’s Dictionary (1906), the American writer Ambrose Bierce cynically (but not inappropriately) defined the conservative as “a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.” Conservatism must also be distinguished from the reactionary outlook, which favours the restoration of a previous, and usually outmoded, political or social order.
I don’t think it’s a gotcha, mainly because I’m not arguing in bad faith you dumbass. I’m giving proof of why someone arguing for gradual change is the literal definition of conservative.
umm. no. direction of change is crucial lol. some of us want capitalism to wither away as well as the state withering away. that is not conservatism lol.
Explain the mechanism through which the state will wither away. Then when the state has withered away explain how it will take more than 5 minutes before it reforms again.
I’m not even trolling here, no anarchist has ever been able to explain this to me in a way that isn’t different from literal faith.
You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done. Who decides what gets done and how is it decided. How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will? The natural state of humanity is hierarchical, now that doesn’t mean that because it’s natural it needs to stay that way but I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.
I have thought about this a little though I admit to be ignorant about anarchic literature, Im basing myself mostly on the basic and most well known claims. But from what I know of the goals of the ideology, for me anarchism is only possible through the trans human project. Humans would transcend the genetical and physical differences that make us intrinsically different and therefore more capable than others. We would be truly equal, though not human in any sense of the word anymore. More like a program that can reach consensus without dissenting opinions causing rifts because we are in fact a one who also happens to be many if that makes sense? Like the Geth in Mass Effect. A hive mind.
You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done.
Why? How should I be able to? No one in feudal times could have predicted how things would be done in capitalism. Why should I be able to accurately predict how a free society would look like?
Who decides what gets done and how is it decided.
In my (limited) model? Federated councils. So the people have a say in decisions proportional to how much they are affected by them.
How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will?
How will these “smart people” be able to achieve such a following? Immediate hunter-gatherers have strategies against this kind of accumulation of power. For example by ridiculing people who are too full of themselves. Can’t find the youtube video that explains this concept, right now. It was one in this series, though.
Also: you do realize that liberal democracy has this exact problem of demagogues?
The natural state of humanity is hierarchical
Now where did you get that idea? Any sources for that? Also: naturalistic fallacy.
I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.
Maybe. Anarchists are quite in favour of these guardrails, though.
I think you overemphasize competition in mankind. One foundational text of anarchism is “mutual aid” by Peter Kropotkin, which adds on to Darwin’s theory by stating (and observing) that cooperation within one species is a vital factor in evolution.
I’m already skeptical because of the author but I’m willing to give it a read. I do know that Lenin by the end of his life really did not like the state he had built so the ideas must be different than the practice.
oh legit “in practice” is always different than on paper. speaking as a software engineer and firefighter - shit always goes sideways. humans gonna human.
but as a polemic I found it to be a solid read.
now, I have never been good at determining “depth” of reads - english class always confused me “what do you mean theme? it’s a farm with talking animals on it.” so … caveat emptor.
There no polite way to put it, that’s dumb, stupid, and very wrong take. Conservatives want to regress. We aren’t in the Nixon times anymore where GOP will launch the EPA, nowadays conservatives are all about regression.
At best you are relying on comically outdated and outmoded definitions/ideas. What part of the current GOP do you see as wanting gradual progress? None. They want to regress.
Do I and everyone else need to repeat it again? You are trying to rely on fucking hilariously outdated and outmoded ideas and definitions of Nixon and similar era.
I’d love for Mr. Definition to give a single example of a self-described conservative who isn’t a reactionary, but I’m not going to pull his string again.
Outdated? So conservatives are only an American phenomenon? Because that’s the only way that conservative = GOP = reactionary. There are conservatives all over the world, and they are explicitly different from reactionaries and usually opposed to them.
That would also mean that the conservatives that exist in America either need a new name or don’t exist. But that’s not the case. They are more or less politically homeles, but many have remained in the GOP because they see it as the lesser evil (for whatever reasons, I’m not here to argue the merit of that belief) or have thrown their lot in with the democrats, but they still exist.
JFC. Ok seeing your other comments let’s parse this out between normal terms and what I’ll call etymological terms.
I’m using the normal usage of the terms.
The modern conservative movement doesn’t want gradual progress. They want to conserve the 1950s America, which at this point needs regression (see below for how you put that as reactionary). So normal terms you’re wrong.
Or more normal terms, the conservatives (yes I’m using that term) of the Nixon era did some things like the EPA. In which case you saying conservatives want gradual progress is comically outdated.
Maybe you’re trying what’s best described as etymological use of the term. If you want to go to etymology, conservatives want to conserve. They don’t want gradual progress. They want to conserve the King’s power. Using these etymological terms yes you can say regressive means reactionary. But again using these etymological terms you can not say that conservatives want gradual progress, because conservatives want to conserve. You are wrong again.
Take your pick of the three scenarios, you are either wrong, comically outdated, or wrong. This is seriously not worth continuing.
The problem with wanting change without collapse is you have to figure out a way to live next to the millions and millions of people who didn’t want the change or believed they didn’t want it and will never change that belief.
The sad truth is for the kind of meaningful change any of us actually want, it would take enough collective trauma that it displaces the collective feelings of comfort and protection that allow people to have set-in beliefs at all.
This isn’t saying I want widespread disaster at all, nobody deserves the suffering of disease, displacement and starvation. Unfortunately it’s coming anyway, worse yet, it will only impact the people least deserving of this coming misery.
I always like to (admittedly, pedantically) point out that if anarchism is defined purely etymologically, all it means is “without hierarchy”.
My personal interpretation is that it doesn’t necessarily imply a lack of a state, democratic or representative government, or jurisprudence of established law; it only implies a lack of arbitrary and tiered authority or power.
As an anarchist who is opposed to accelerationionism, it’s frustrating how many people see it as an ideology that wants the state to immediately collapse.
I’ve had multiple arguments with liberals who say I’m not a real anarchist because I want pragmatic short-term progressive solutions like Medicare for all.
So yeah, I’m not wanting to condemn people to death for my ideology. Got me! (Not you, PugJesus)
I like to point people to Desert by Anonymous. It talks about how the plan should really be waiting for the State to recede as collapse progresses, and finding the spaces left behind where theres room for mutual aid based organization.
I like that. It turns your attention to what’s in front of you, rather than waiting for the mythical Revolution we’ll likely never see.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert
Ever hear about love? I checked and turns out its for everyone, can you believe it?
Republicans and Democrats are both perfectly ok with state violence so long as it’s against brown people, and preferably overseas. How many millions have died from lack of access to affordable health care and an almost non-existent social safety net in the US over the past century? But those aren’t counted as ideological deaths for some reason? If you think that choosing either of the two main parties which both have an official policy of supporting foreign genocides is the lesser evil somehow, you’ve been duped. America has killed more people in wars in the past 20 years than nearly any other state, except perhaps for Russia. You’re just bent out of shape because that state violence has been turned on the domestic population for once. Anything has got to be better than the status quo.
This has nothing to do with anything that I said. Please try to stay on topic and keep your strawmen in your own fields.
If you have to make up a bunch of bullshit about me to attack my position then you’re not attacking my position.
Spoken like a true child of privilege without any imagination - or understanding of conditions outside of your cozy status quo, ironically.
I’d much rather build systems that provide for people so we can all watch the old world crumble from a comfy chair with plenty of snacks.
Who am I kidding, I don’t want a society; people are too troublesome.
What you described, gradual change , is the literal definition of a conservative. So that means you’re a conservative.
“Harm reduction is conservatism” is where we’re at.
Fuck’s sake.
Stop using the term harm reduction. The crazies use that term to “subtly” push the “b b both sides same!” nonsense. Don’t fall for their framing.
Except harm reduction is a real and good thing. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Call it incrementalism then.
This is not about “perfect behind the enemy of good” because I after with that. What this is about is the crazies will stop at nothing to say “b b both sides same!” and they use the term “harm reduction” to sneak that idea in. Anything good they will try to categorize as “it’s merely harm reduction, not actually good. And because it’s harm reduction, it’s harm light, it’s harm, and I will not vote for harm!”
Well that’s just fucking wrong. I’m not going to give up on the meaning of words just because crazy people have.
What part of that is wrong? It’s two people looking at the same thing and seeing different things. You see the term harm reduction and see it as good. They see the term harm reduction and see it as bad because [see my explanation above].
Reducing harm is good.
Removed by mod
Look, there’s one now!
That depends on the threshold for harm. But yeah, if you take the maximalist claim that any death or harm direct or indirect is unacceptable, you are basically arguing for no changes in society because we do not know the future and there is always uncertainty.
Conservative doesn’t mean reactionary, it is what it means now just like liberal now is taken to mean progressive, but that is not the real definition of the word it’s simply how people have been using them as a sort of shorthand.
Removed by mod
And Ukrainians, and Palestinians. But I guess they don’t matter either, so long as you get to celebrate the deaths of some American minorities at the same time, eh?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Congratulations on having the absolute dumbest take I’ve seen on Lemmy!
It’s not a take if it’s a fact.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism
It’s embarrassing that you think this is a gotcha.
I don’t think it’s a gotcha, mainly because I’m not arguing in bad faith you dumbass. I’m giving proof of why someone arguing for gradual change is the literal definition of conservative.
The only thing you’re proving is that simple definitions are for simple minds.
Ah the good old words mean nothing. Ok I guess we’re done here.
“You refuse to fit in the box I put you in, so I’m gonna have a fit about it!”
Get lost.
lol
umm. no. direction of change is crucial lol. some of us want capitalism to wither away as well as the state withering away. that is not conservatism lol.
Explain the mechanism through which the state will wither away. Then when the state has withered away explain how it will take more than 5 minutes before it reforms again.
I’m not even trolling here, no anarchist has ever been able to explain this to me in a way that isn’t different from literal faith.
The state is the mechanism that stabilizes class antagonism.
Why would it reform “5 minutes” after it is not needed anymore, because class antagonisms ceized to exist?
You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done. Who decides what gets done and how is it decided. How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will? The natural state of humanity is hierarchical, now that doesn’t mean that because it’s natural it needs to stay that way but I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.
I have thought about this a little though I admit to be ignorant about anarchic literature, Im basing myself mostly on the basic and most well known claims. But from what I know of the goals of the ideology, for me anarchism is only possible through the trans human project. Humans would transcend the genetical and physical differences that make us intrinsically different and therefore more capable than others. We would be truly equal, though not human in any sense of the word anymore. More like a program that can reach consensus without dissenting opinions causing rifts because we are in fact a one who also happens to be many if that makes sense? Like the Geth in Mass Effect. A hive mind.
Why? How should I be able to? No one in feudal times could have predicted how things would be done in capitalism. Why should I be able to accurately predict how a free society would look like?
In my (limited) model? Federated councils. So the people have a say in decisions proportional to how much they are affected by them.
How will these “smart people” be able to achieve such a following? Immediate hunter-gatherers have strategies against this kind of accumulation of power. For example by ridiculing people who are too full of themselves. Can’t find the youtube video that explains this concept, right now. It was one in this series, though.
Also: you do realize that liberal democracy has this exact problem of demagogues?
Now where did you get that idea? Any sources for that? Also: naturalistic fallacy.
Maybe. Anarchists are quite in favour of these guardrails, though.
I think you overemphasize competition in mankind. One foundational text of anarchism is “mutual aid” by Peter Kropotkin, which adds on to Darwin’s theory by stating (and observing) that cooperation within one species is a vital factor in evolution.
Edit: Found the video I meant
i can’t explain it from an anarchist perspective but I can let you know a source for some great commentary on that exact matter if you’re interested?
I am. Shoot.
https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf
it’s well written and in a plain english form. a short read, honestly.
I’m already skeptical because of the author but I’m willing to give it a read. I do know that Lenin by the end of his life really did not like the state he had built so the ideas must be different than the practice.
oh legit “in practice” is always different than on paper. speaking as a software engineer and firefighter - shit always goes sideways. humans gonna human.
but as a polemic I found it to be a solid read.
now, I have never been good at determining “depth” of reads - english class always confused me “what do you mean theme? it’s a farm with talking animals on it.” so … caveat emptor.
There no polite way to put it, that’s dumb, stupid, and very wrong take. Conservatives want to regress. We aren’t in the Nixon times anymore where GOP will launch the EPA, nowadays conservatives are all about regression.
That’s because they are reactionaries not conservatives.
At best you are relying on comically outdated and outmoded definitions/ideas. What part of the current GOP do you see as wanting gradual progress? None. They want to regress.
Do I need to repeat it again? They are not conservatives, they are reactionaries. Two different things.
Conservative does not = GOP except as political shorthand. It’s like saying socialist = Democrat. Both parties are coalitions of many different views.
Do I and everyone else need to repeat it again? You are trying to rely on fucking hilariously outdated and outmoded ideas and definitions of Nixon and similar era.
They don’t want progress. You are wrong.
I’d love for Mr. Definition to give a single example of a self-described conservative who isn’t a reactionary, but I’m not going to pull his string again.
George F. Will comes to mind for his recent article calling Trump a progressive (pejoratively):
https://archive.is/20250529025350/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/05/28/trump-progressivism-unconservative-republicans/
Outdated? So conservatives are only an American phenomenon? Because that’s the only way that conservative = GOP = reactionary. There are conservatives all over the world, and they are explicitly different from reactionaries and usually opposed to them.
That would also mean that the conservatives that exist in America either need a new name or don’t exist. But that’s not the case. They are more or less politically homeles, but many have remained in the GOP because they see it as the lesser evil (for whatever reasons, I’m not here to argue the merit of that belief) or have thrown their lot in with the democrats, but they still exist.
JFC. Ok seeing your other comments let’s parse this out between normal terms and what I’ll call etymological terms.
I’m using the normal usage of the terms. The modern conservative movement doesn’t want gradual progress. They want to conserve the 1950s America, which at this point needs regression (see below for how you put that as reactionary). So normal terms you’re wrong.
Or more normal terms, the conservatives (yes I’m using that term) of the Nixon era did some things like the EPA. In which case you saying conservatives want gradual progress is comically outdated.
Maybe you’re trying what’s best described as etymological use of the term. If you want to go to etymology, conservatives want to conserve. They don’t want gradual progress. They want to conserve the King’s power. Using these etymological terms yes you can say regressive means reactionary. But again using these etymological terms you can not say that conservatives want gradual progress, because conservatives want to conserve. You are wrong again.
Take your pick of the three scenarios, you are either wrong, comically outdated, or wrong. This is seriously not worth continuing.
Yes we get it you discovered other cultural forms of “conservative”
Which are different things than the voting base of the GOP, which were talking about.
You’re being intentionally dense and nobody should keep engaging.
Lmao no, that’s not how this works.
History teaches us that collapse and revolution rarely goes well for anyone.
Similar
The problem with wanting change without collapse is you have to figure out a way to live next to the millions and millions of people who didn’t want the change or believed they didn’t want it and will never change that belief.
The sad truth is for the kind of meaningful change any of us actually want, it would take enough collective trauma that it displaces the collective feelings of comfort and protection that allow people to have set-in beliefs at all.
This isn’t saying I want widespread disaster at all, nobody deserves the suffering of disease, displacement and starvation. Unfortunately it’s coming anyway, worse yet, it will only impact the people least deserving of this coming misery.
I always like to (admittedly, pedantically) point out that if anarchism is defined purely etymologically, all it means is “without hierarchy”.
My personal interpretation is that it doesn’t necessarily imply a lack of a state, democratic or representative government, or jurisprudence of established law; it only implies a lack of arbitrary and tiered authority or power.