That makes sense

Don't be too serious on it though. It was just an interesting idea to be entertained

"You cant have lefty shit on bad economy"
Venezuela is still run by Maduro.

ya and what im saying is letting the left crash the economy to push libertarian ideas is the same as burning the car. your working under the presumption a economic crash would make people who fought for overtly left policies would wise up after the fact, they wouldn't even if it brought them to shambles. Alot of people in venezuela are still like 'owo hugo daddy why'd you have to go ;-;"

They for sure aren't getting fed by the state 😏

@Atkins and look how well it's working

But there is also no end in sight to the regime.

People aren't overthrowing him, they're just fleeing the country for less socialist states.

I think that's one of the biggest flaws of logic many people commit:

Just because a system fails does not mean that people realize the reason.

Accelerationism is just:
Step 1: Communism
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Libertarian Utopia

It might help people to exercise some introspection, but if that's ever to be the case, they would have incentive long before the final crash to do so.

This sounds incredibly harsh, but some people are simply stupid.

I'll never be Terrence Tao.

Countries that experienced communism are terrified of it for generations

@Atkins ya my point is thats never happened

Yes, and some countries are right back to socialism.

You sort out why.

^

In the case of the Soviet Union, there was an ideological war long before that.

So, when the Soviet Union crashed, people had a very clear example of what worked and what doesn't.

There were examples around how to do things better. Now, that everybody seems to go towards socialist policies, there is less of an example around how to do it better.

Back when the Soviet Union fell, everybody was looking to America as the glowing example of success, so I think it became more obvious what particular faults were responsible.

Acceleration is an incredibly dumb idea.

You really have no guarantees what comes after.

And everyone assumes they win.

^^

Really, if history is a guide the winner 9 times out of 10 is just a collection of warlords.

Which is about the worst possible solution.

Also with today's surveillance state technology there's no guarantee there even is an 'after'. The boot can keep stomping on the human face forever.

Yes, but I think in America, in case of a crash, people would look more to a return of free market principles, because there has been a stronger tradition of it.

Not necessarily.

In the case of a crash, we have a better chance for people to point at the fault.

Those who can most apply force tend to win. That means the young, the organized and the armed.

The socialists win 2/3 of those criteria.

In the depression, shit kept getting worse no matter how many handouts and soup lines there were. People didn't clamor for free markets; they clamored for more handouts.

But, I also have my doubts. Look at how the 2008 economic crisis was handled.

The conditions under which the system falls apart matters alot, but to put it gently, I wouldn't be assuming any particular outcome.

Except to say most potential outcomes are poor.

Today, I think there are too many people who had bad education.

If we have a crash, we might be right back to socialist crap.

I'm split. I can see it go either way.