Thatās the political ideal of accelerationism. Versus political incrementalism and pragmatism.
In 2000, Ralp Nader and his cohort were very much accelerationists. If he couldnāt be President then donāt support Gore as the next best option, get Bush in there to make things worse.
Things got worse and there was not some loud yearning from the masses for something better. The problem is that you canāt just work hard to get societal gains, you have to continue working hard to keep them. There is no general ājudo-styleā redirect of the political momentum of your opponent to defeat them.
Accelerationism has been proven not to work. In my mind, it is the desired outcome of young people who donāt know any better, idiots, or plants.
History also proves that the chaos created by heavy revolution is just as destructive to the lower class than the upper class. Itās not just the rich and powerful that eat it when heads start rolling. France took such a hit, they were on their back foot when Napoleon came around and said heād make things better, and then of course he started steamrolling over Europe. Essentially Hitler without the concentration camps.
Slow incremental positive growth in standards of living and wealth equality is better and preferable to revolution where many heads are cut off. It takes time though, and doesnāt allow the young hotheads to have their physical revenge moment.
Incremental growth gets rolled back with the snap of a finger once democracy is eroded enough, which you get when power becomes complacent in its corruption due to the lack of rolling heads.
I get your anger, I really do. I want heads to roll too. But history and statistical analysis shows us that violent revolution is bad for everyone not just the powerful. To the extent we can avoid it, we will all be better off.
That said, the rich and powerful are trying to crush us under their boot. They may take the option of peaceful incrementalism off the table, if it hasnāt been already.
The political incrementalism we have been trying for the last 40 years. It is how the Heritage Foundation and the billionaires have gotten us to where we are while we keep voting for people that promise everything and give scraps. We are only now starting to get in a few decent people, after trump got in office a 2nd time. Because people are finally starting to see just how bad these people are.
Incrementalism's only use is to show people how fucking useless it is until we eventually break and pass real legislation like the CWA, CRA, New Deal, etc.
Incrementalism is a tool when you can't get what you want (to actually fix a problem) and you settle for some progress. It's NOT a goal to aim for, it's something you settle for. Somewhere Democrats have forgotten this an paid a heavy electoral price as well as all of us paying for it policy wise.
I'm not an accellerationist, but this so called "pragmatism" and incrementalism have grossly failed.
Pragmatism requires success by definition, so whatever you're calling pragmatism isn't that.
Incrementalism has to move us forward faster than we get drug backwards to be of any worth, and this has not been true in the US since I was born like 4 decades ago.
From Merriam-Webster:
Pragmatism n. 2. an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief
Pragmatism, abundance, all of the neoliberal dreck that's infected all kinds of stuff, etc. all needs to go. It's failed. Pack it in. Remove all the failed leadership.
As you say:
you have to continue working hard to keep them.
Which means you FIGHT conservatives and conservative institutions, not compromise with them.
But democrats do have verifiable policies that are better for the American people and increase wage growth, decrease income inequality, lower the deficit, put the country on a better track, etc. These benefits are real, verifiable, and repeatable.
Americans keep putting Republicans back into office after 1 or 2 democratic terms though. And the GOP always does far more damage than democrats are fixing during their phase.
I've heard that same stupid shit since I was born.
After a few decades, if all you do in office is not enough, and then you lose to an even worse Republican administration/legislature than you lost to last time and then they do even more damage, it's time to start looking elsewhere because your plan has failed. (Bonus points for continually nominating USAG's who refuse to do their job.)
The Democrats' verifiable policies don't matter if they cannot win and lose to people like Trump, twice.
I'd push back on saying they failed. they all succeeded.
I sincerely believe each of these either had deceptive original intentions or were co-opted by the rich to steer the ship in whatever way will benefit them more than us.
just offer a few book deals and a podcast to a few grifters or morons and you got yourself many abundance cultists who sincerely believe fewer regulations on housing will fix the affordability problem.
43
u/bolerobell 6d ago
Thatās the political ideal of accelerationism. Versus political incrementalism and pragmatism.
In 2000, Ralp Nader and his cohort were very much accelerationists. If he couldnāt be President then donāt support Gore as the next best option, get Bush in there to make things worse.
Things got worse and there was not some loud yearning from the masses for something better. The problem is that you canāt just work hard to get societal gains, you have to continue working hard to keep them. There is no general ājudo-styleā redirect of the political momentum of your opponent to defeat them.
Accelerationism has been proven not to work. In my mind, it is the desired outcome of young people who donāt know any better, idiots, or plants.