this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
18 points (59.8% liked)
Asklemmy
54585 readers
633 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well. It was on the ballot. It just wasn't likely to win because it wasn't an issue considered important by the two major parties. You could have voted PSL or Green or one of the other parties, as over three million people did in the last election.
Besides, by that logic, Israeli aggression wasn't on the ballot either! Do you think Harris would have stopped Israel from starting war with Iran? The war with Iran was already beginning in 2024 before Trump even got into office. Maybe it would have taken a different form, maybe it wouldn't have happened this year, but Israel was going to attack Iran and the US was going to follow.
I don't think Harris would have bombed Iran.
But hey, it is better to do something that feels good than something which affects change, right?
Yeah you really affected change
There was already an economic war on Iran, which was already killing people and destabilizing their government. Harris would have waited a few more years for the economic war to collapse Iran's government and turn it into a situation similar to Syria, and only then would have started bombing. By then, Iran might not have been able to exert control over traffic through Hormuz.
Harris would have been a better manager of the empire. Instead, we got Trump, who is on track to lose to Iran.
Ahh, so you're an accelerationist.
Damn, that enthusiasm for"lesser evilism" sure dries up real fast when it might be you on the business end of it
I don't think you know what that means.
Accelerationism would mean voting for Harris because she'd be a better manager of the empire.
No. Wanting Trump to win is accelerationist because he's going to cause the empire to fall faster due to incompetence.
You aren't angry at Democrats for war crimes, you're angry at them because they are better at governing.
That's still not what accelerationism is you smug idiot
Emotions aside, is their assessment of events incorrect? Harris is a more sane war hawk, recognizing that doesn't make you an accelerationist.
An accelerationist is picking someone who will collapse the empire due to incompetence and destroying American institutions. Between Trump and Harris, I don't see Harris causing a collapse of American institutions like Trump.
Also, in regards to Iran, Trump has been far more antagonistic than Biden and Democrats in general were. The Biden administration at least needed a false flag attack to support Israel and a lot of the opposition came from Democrats. Trump got rid of Obama's multilateral nuclear treaty and has participated in Israeli attacks where Israel was the aggressor.
I think for many Accelerationism is speaking towards the capital transformations of society,
not the decline of empire. Even so, Trump is the accelerationist choice
Still applies more to Trump than Biden or Harris, given Trump's open corruption feeding into crony capitalism.
Like I've said before, it feels like the term is being changed because the argument behind how I'm using it is hard to refuse, so the choice is to try to redefine the word rather than discuss the argument.
No, people just know what the word means and that you're using it wrong
Accelerationism would mean accelerating the growth of the empire to bring about its collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, so, voting for the best imperial managers to keep growing the empire. That means voting for Democrats, they're better imperial governors. They're better at doing war crimes and getting away with it.
What I want is for the empire to lose. That's not accelerationism. That's revolutionary defeatism.
No. It means picking the person who will accelerate into whatever calamity which will cause a collapse.
I feel like there is a lot of revisionism of the definition because the definition is inconvenient to the opposing argument.
You're the one doing revisionism, completely overlooking the part of accelerationism where they seek to accelerate development.
Accelerationists believe that capitalism is a progressive self-revolutionizing force that is rapidly creating the conditions for its own obsolescence, and so we just need to develop capitalism more and more until it revolutionizes itself away. It views free trade as a system that breaks down nationalities, automation as a system that breaks down class antagonisms, and technological singularity as the ultimate end point of capitalism where profit and private property cease to exist. We enter an age of post-scarcity and transhumanism and algorithmic government i.e. the end of history. Capitalism collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
This is a really bad idea because unchecked capitalist development is creating conditions for human extinction. Maybe if there weren't ecological limits the accelerationists would be right in the long-run, but in the real world we're running into the limits to growth and capitalist development has put us on the path towards the collapse of civilization rather than merely the collapse of capitalism.
This is all in contrast to revolutionary defeatism, which predates accelerationism by almost 100 years. It is the recognition that the workers do not benefit from capitalist wars, that instead, workers should seek the defeat of their own capitalist governments. If the empire loses, the world wins. There's no interest in developing the empire further to create the conditions for its collapse, there's only interest in seeing it collapse. That's like saying anyone who wants to end capitalism is an accelerationist. It's nonsense.
Read this out loud into a reflective surface as many times as it takes.
Just smugly doubling down on being wrong