blowing your house up and killing yourself will also speed up collapse incrementally

why dont you light yourself on fire to rek the libturds?

how is making your country shitter any different?

beyond that its not just yourself who you're affecting and you dont bear the brunt of it, so your kinda just an entitled asshole

i just want something different at this point, too depressed

then do something constructive because wrecking shit and then moping in the corner is a vicious circle because then your gonna want to wreck more shit because you feel weepy that all your shits wrecked

like honestly no hate but this is the logic of a 2 year old on a temper tantrum

Welcome, @deep sea arab! 😃

In my personal view, accelerationism aims at decreasing the peoples' standard of living so bad so that the only way to change the system, revolution, is possible. A problem with this, however, is that due to checks and balances on the president the country will not get to the accelerationist level of instability.

If you get Harambe's dead corpse elected to accelerate things it'll just be controlled by presidential aides and the senate to ensure the country doesn't collapse.

@Kazimir Malevich lets take that at face value, is it a bad thing that a country doesn't collapse overnight? Wouldn't it be considered a good thing that in any country with a bureaucracy there is a floor on how bad things can get while that country remains able to exert itself in order to do so?

in my view revolutions, by which I mean violent insurrections, often create a recurring cycle of poverty in that these movements destroy the infrastructure, institutions and capital that supports the established hierarchy, true, but also supports the wellbeing of the nation as a whole. This causes further unhappiness as the new regime is expected to produce a higher standard with a lower base of productivity to support that. Likely this will result in another revolution, further lowering the standard of living that country can support. This is without examining the effect of development and governance, sovereignty, etc

this is why countries which have engaged in longer periods of reform have performed more strongly then countries which have engaged in revolutionary behaviors.

while im feeling autistic and chat is dead, look at the difference between russia and 'murica. Russia's institutions, industry and infrastructure has been fucked by war, revolution and isolation from trade. Russian gdp is around $us10,000 per capita, the govt is among the most corrupt in the world and putin has very little accountability. Russia does not just have a govt problem, but a lack of infrastructure and industry that is required to support not only the lifestyle of a more wealthy nation but also the systems of accountability, independent research and communication, viable political opposition capable of a smooth transition, the list goes on

america, by contrast, has suffered almost no major periods of domestic destruction on a comparable scale since the civil war and has not only been able to establish all these institutions so that in the event of ineffective leadership they have strong means of not only mitigating the impact, but progressing in spite of poor governance. This continuing prosperity has also afforded it the wealth, reach and stability to ensure that it is insulated from these events occurring, establishing clear means of the peaceful transition of power between political rivals through elections, establishing forward military positions to allow for defense in depth to be applied without threat to the american heartland, private and public thinktanks and media outlets of pretty much every description, all things which a wealth of nearly 60,000 of gdp per capita can not only sustain but advance as threre is a consistent, realistic expectation that wealth will only go up

does america have problems? of course, but its position means it is better placed to solve them and faces issues which are less enduring or catastrophic then those of nations which have experienced periods of substantial domestic duress and destruction, be that by revolution or war or any other cause

People can feel free to address issues as they see fit or not at all, I’m not obligating anyone towards writing a wall of text if there’s something they’d like to contribute though

@CronoSaturn I didn't say it was a problem. I simply said that this is the reason "accelerationist election" doesn't work.

Although I do hope America collapses in the near future.

In what way could that possibly be positive?

>In what way could that possibly be positive?
America collapses.

I don't think I need to state how much of a malicious, money and land-grabbing unimpeded superpower Muttland really is.

Balkanization of the States will be for the country's own good.

I fail to see that the balkanisation of the states is anything near plausible, let alone a good for the us or indeed any other nation

It's fantastic for almost any nation besides Amerika. As for the mutts themselves, the downfall of such a superpower will balance the playing field much better than any of Amerika's "democracy" wars ever did.

As a free-marketer will certainly understand, competition is killed by monopolies.

And if America doesn't have a monopoly on trade, economy, media and culture, I don't know who does.

No-one.

America is highly central, many global transactions involve America to some degree but it is not a monopoly and American companies compete not only with foreign rivals but among themselves

A free marketeer also realised that economics is not a zero sum game and that comparative advantage allows for both parties to benefit from an exchange of trade, culture and ideas

Are there other concerns? Of course. Something I’m grappling with at the moment is the implications of what has recently been introduced to me as geoeconomics (https://youtu.be/lswiu1K1Vnk is an exceptionally good exploration of the concepts being introduced) that seeks to justify mercantile thought while accepting the validity of liberal economic arguments. It sees the strategic influence of supply chains as a risk not captured in conventional economic discourse and that it allows influence in decision making to advance the achievement of a set of goals. In the past we’ve also discussed my apprehension towards the increased capacity for war that a higher level of economic activity would provide to poor global actors

On the other hand I realise however that restricting this activity only serves to cement the established regimes influence on these poor actors as the domestic population is less equipped to maintain the proper function of apparatus I outlined earlier as they simply don’t have the means of doing so. There is then a tension in US decision making in the normal economic arguments and the desire to combat abhorrent regimes at their core by providing a means of mutual wealth by which such constructs can be developed to reduce the influence of these regimes and the requirement to keep such nations with these regimes at the helm in check

I’m unsure as to what the best course is to achieve these seemingly contrasting aims but I am becoming increasingly convinced that relying on these regimes to starve themselves out is ineffective both in success and failure.

To play the otherside, I think it’s massively important to realise the role America plays in global stability, development and prosperity. We’re having this discussion on discord, a primarily American platform using primarily American designed hardware bankrolled by American institutions. It is unrealistic to expect that in America’s absence that the same capability would spring up and then some because the demand far exceeds the supply already but other nations simply lack the same capacity to supply a global centre of excellence on par with Silicon Valley as of now. In order to even consider standing that kind of thing up it’s difficult to see where the amount of materials, expertise, planning etc might come from except from the land of excess and exception that is the United States

It’s counterproductive then to seek a level playing field by tearing down the leader where that wealth could be leveraged to mutually beneficial ends to ensure your own prosperity

Most people can live without Discord. Hundreds of thousands of people stop living because of America's influence and meddling.
Tearing down the leader is beneficial (unlike in the Middle East, which Amerika doesn't realize) because (unlike the Middle East) the power vacuum would be filled equally by several other countries.
It is productive specifically because a sole superpower causes stagnation.