Making things worse in the short term in the hope of bringing about a utopian society in the long term through social tension and misery… that sounds like a pretty evil philosophy to me. Ordinary people (non-communists) don’t care about some theoretical utopia, they want improvements to their quality of life now.
Am I missing something?
You have redefined “accelerationism” to mean “just kind of when anything changes at all” which is not what the word means.
Now that you ran out of arguments you start spewing bullshit 👏
Again you imply that accelerationism can’t have a graceful collapse without a single argument.
What are you even talking about? A “graceful” accelerationism is the exact opposite of accelerationism: it’s in the name! I genuinely can’t tell if you’re trolling or just genuinely ignorant but the idea that things will gradually get better is what progressivism is and the idea that the best way to have a communist worker’s utopia is to vote for a fascist is what accelerationism is. Note how everyone in this thread is disagreeing with you.
So I’ll go back to the question I initially asked and you ignored: “When has destroying society magically lead to society being good?”
(Screen readers, skip the rest of this comment): 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Why? Accelerationism is about embracing flawed systems so they collapse faster. The type of collapse is irrelevant be it grateful or chaotic.
You somehow imply that accelerated systems must collapse in chaos. Why?
Also chill with the emojis.
Hey, your privilege is showing. Super easy to say, "It doesn’t really matter how society collapses when you aren’t a Nigerian subsistence farmer whose seven children will starve to death.