Any number of deaths is worth the fantasy, apparently

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?
- 💜💜💜

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.

I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand I am tired of the unnecessary suffering that is common in the richest country in the history of the Earth. A step in the right direction is better than nothing.

Or is it? Every time we increase the social safety net, our righteous anger subsides. We stop boycotting, protesting, striking, organizing, etc, because faith in the system is restored. And then we delay the necessary work of dismantling this system that is based on greed and exploitation. Inevitably, the oligarchs bide their time and then strip away rights and economic opportunity as soon as we stop paying attention.

"Things getting worse will make people swap to MY side!" has a terrible track record.
- Sure, but this doesn't address the problem I'm noting above. We fought hard for worker's rights, so they granted them and then dismantled/neutered the unions. Public outcry forced the fracture of Standard Oil and now the monopolies are worse than ever. It's one step forward and two steps back.
  
  Because you have to keep taking steps forward. The fight against greed and corruption will never end, the other side is going to keep swinging forever. We don't get to rest on past achievements, we constantly have to defend them and push for more.
  And the thing is, if you can't rally the people to vote for incremental change, revolution is a non-starter.
  
  I agree with everything in the first paragraph. However, every time we fight against the oligarchs they learn better strategies to divide and conquer us. We are a much more isolated people than we were 50 or 100 years ago. Individualism and consumerism are ubiquitous while our sense of community is virtually non-existent. So people feel powerless to confront fascism because no one can do it alone. This isolation is arguably by design.
  And the thing is, if you can’t rally the people to vote for incremental change, revolution is a non-starter.
  Time will tell. But there are historical examples, in other countries, of the corruption and hypocrisy being flaunted so blatantly that the people rise up and demand sweeping systemic changes.
  In the U.S., we have forgotten our collective power. Our peaceful protests are ignored and even destruction of property is consider taboo. We haven't seen wide-spread violent dissent since the Civil Rights / Anti-Vietnam movements. Conditions were ripe then, but the government deployed a combination of modest concessions and state enacted violence: carrot and stick. The way this Trump term is going, they might not give us the carrot next time.
  
  Individualism and consumerism are ubiquitous while our sense of community is virtually non-existent.
  It's never been a better time to make it virtually existent. Look at us, here, now, puzzling out the best course of action. The information Age is the perfect opportunity to build robust social networks that transcend borders. But until we can cooperate and coordinate here in the most casual and forgiving circumstances, how are we going to coordinate collective power any other way?
  the corruption and hypocrisy being flaunted so blatantly that the people rise up and demand sweeping systemic changes.
  Accelerationism is a dangerous game of chicken with lots of collateral damage. I do not desire a pathway that rolls the dice on totalitarianism, even if you succeed countless of people will be chewed up by the acceleration. It's the ideology of the privileged, who are betting they won't be one of the ones chewed up.
  In the U.S., we have forgotten our collective power.
  We do still have the ballot box, we just have to use it in a coordinated way. We also have our workplace, which we can take steps to unionize and socialize. We should be arming ourselves, this administration actually changed my mind on the second amendment.
  
  Accelerationism is a dangerous game of chicken with lots of collateral damage. I do not desire a pathway that rolls the dice on totalitarianism, even if you succeed countless of people will be chewed up by the acceleration. It's the ideology of the privileged, who are betting they won't be one of the ones chewed up.
  Is it not the ideology of the privileged to maintain the status quo? Every second it is allowed to exist people are dying from easily preventable causes. You play chicken with their lives as you gamble on the chance to make 1 million small changes vs 1 big change.
  
  I didn't say anything about maintaining the status quo, my statements were about Accelerationism. How many seconds is it going to take to coordinate the revolution? How many small changes can be made in the time it takes to reverse a century of anti-left propaganda, inspire a population to abandon the system they currently rely on, and coordinate the action necessary to replace it? More than a million, I'd say.
  
  Is it not the ideology of the privileged to maintain the status quo?
  That doesn't seem to be what is happening. It is the richest, most powerful people who are fanning the flames of accelerationism in the form of owning or funding radical/divisive/violent propaganda like is seen on Fox News (and worse), or online on X or Facebook (and worse). Besides the divisive rhetoric intended to make people crave violence against their slightly different skin colored neighbor, climate change denialism could also be argued to be accelerationist as well.
  They all assume their power will let them come out on top -which has been mostly true historically. The World Wars both made a lot of rich people very rich, as did both the formation AND the collapse of the Soviet Union. Plenty of small-scale examples too of despots making people very rich.

Bookchin gang unite.

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.
Anything has got to be better than the status quo.
Spoken like a true child of privilege without any imagination - or understanding of conditions outside of your cozy status quo, ironically.
- Can you stop attacking people and argue on the topic instead? Are you able to?
  
  Tell me more about how anything is better than the status quo shitposting in the cozy West. I'm sure Palestinians are lining up to give you lot asspats for how brave you are living here and ensuring that fascists win and uncork infinite military aid for Israeli genocidaires.

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‘d say that @Zombiepirate@lemmy.worlds assessment is still the correct approach. If the system collapses anyways, the best thing to do is build local infrastructure through solidarity — which is best anarchist practice.
In scandinavia anarchist groups started „preppa tilsammen“ (prepping together). It is not about hoarding guns, but community disaster relief.

History teaches us that collapse and revolution rarely goes well for anyone.

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.

Similar

Anarchists are incredibly caricatured in the popular mind. Curious though, how would you describe your pragmatic short-term progressive anarchism? Reformist Anarchism? Incrementalist?

I don't know of a name for it, but it's fairly common in anarchistic thought as far as I can tell.
Mutual aid is really the bedrock principle in anarchism, so setting up structures for it where we can is important even if they are imperfect.

What you described, gradual change , is the literal definition of a conservative. So that means you’re a conservative.

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.
- 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.
- 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].
  
  it's merely harm reduction, not actually good.
  Reducing harm is good.
  
  Are you seriously going to ignore what I said? That's basically twice.
  I see it it as good. They see it as bad.
  
  "it's merely harm reduction, not actually good."
  "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 merely harm reduction, not actually good."
  "Reducing harm is good."
  I have been responding to exactly what you've said, and you think I'm ignoring what you said? Maybe you took "Well, that's just fucking wrong" as my saying that your claim about what crazy people think was wrong. I could have been clearer about that.
  My point stands. I don't care what crazy people who are wrong think. And if some bystander is going to be swayed by an argument that harm reduction is bad, they're crazy, too. There's a lot of fucking crazies, and there's nothing I can do about that.
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/
  
  Will uses this Madisonian framework as a basis for discussing a range of contemporary issues, including judicial review, America’s welfare state, the economy, and the nation’s role in international affairs. He acknowledges that progressives and their left-wing successors routed the Madisonian constitution over the course of the twentieth century, and he is dogged in cataloguing the damage they have done to the constitutional order in their century-long march through our institutions.
  He demonstrates in impressive detail—drawing upon statistics, expert testimony, and pithy observations from his late friend Daniel Patrick Moynihan—how the welfare state, and the overblown federal establishment that it has created, has undermined the virtues upon which a free and prosperous country must depend.
  You apparently have no idea what the definition of reactionary is.
  Now buzz off.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  Wow you wrote all of that and still failed to leave American politics behind. But even within American politics still did not address what should be the label for people who fit the definition of conservative (gradual change) if conservative now means reactionary. And they absolutely need a label because they are actually the larger faction in American politics, as most people would say that they do not want radical change. Independents then? Are they liberals? Centrists? We need a name to give to this politically significant group.
  But you really just want to win the argument.
  Here you go you win 🏆🎉🥳
  
  I addressed what seems to be your attempted etymological use (non American). So now you're just sticking your head in the sand.
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.
  
  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.
  Edit: Found the video I meant
  
  I believe some anarchists believe that cooperatives are a good first step. This is maybe more stateless socialism, but an anarchists would prefer elected managers/leaders in such organizations be trained that their position doesn't give them any real authority over others but rather just additional responsibilities. A small example could be the wording of these positions might be different; instead of managers, they might be called coordinators.
  Cooperatives are, at least now, still currently subject to market forces, and people would would together to get things done. The sole difference being workers would have more freedom over their lives since they'd be the owners of the means of productions.
  
  What happens when there is no consensus on an important decision and people split in half and one half tries to impose their will on the other? How is this mediated? And if they do not have authority what happens when someone doesn’t want to do what needs to be done? Who has the authority to punish coerce them?
  And I have so many questions about security both domestic and foreign that I don’t even know where to start.
  
  In the coop I was in, important decisions required 2/3rds majority for two meetings in a row. Talked to someone where they required consensus for all decisions, and they said it would sometimes take months of conversations until everyone agreed.
  Once a system is in place that everyone agrees with, there's hardly any need to enforce anything, but in the case there is, there'd be bylaws to fall back on to collectively enforce.
  I'm thinking in terms of what a cooperative economy would look like, so corporations and business, manufacturing and production would be run by cooperatives. I imagine there'd still need to be larger state, but why not run state and federal departments like a coop too?
  
  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.
Congratulations on having the absolute dumbest take I've seen on Lemmy!
- It’s not a take if it’s a fact.
  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.
  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.
  
  Am I having a fit? It’s just clear we’re not gonna get anywhere, so why continue arguing?
  
  I’m not arguing in bad faith you dumbass.
  lol
Lmao no, that's not how this works.
gradual change , is the literal definition of a conservative
Lol no it's not.