3 ms·

Well, I'm pretty sure EA isn't really opposed to moderate change or stuff like organizing for, I don't know, people who need insulin or anything like that. The

by pcstl 5y ago

Well, I'm pretty sure EA isn't really opposed to moderate change or stuff like organizing for, I don't know, people who need insulin or anything like that. The people who usually oppose EA are those who think that there is no solution to societal ills except fully restructuring society into something completely different, and who usually will oppose any kind of charity-based solution on grounds that it might make people tolerate the current conditions longer, thus delaying the necessary complete revolution.

hnbad 5y ago
Okay, this got a bit longer than I intended so I split it up into different points: 1) But society has already been fully restructured into something completely different. It's foolish to believe that we can get from one local optimum to a higher point without interruption if the only reason we're at the local optimum is that the previous one was violently interrupted in the first place. It's also foolish to believe that history is a linear trajectory towards something good or better, though this is indeed what most schools tend to teach because it avoids the difficult questions. 2) The status quo is unstable and will inevitably lead to accelerationism. You can not overthrow injustice without violence as those benefiting from the injustice have no interest in giving up those benefits without violence. Maintaining the status quo if it is unjust is in itself a violent act. The status quo isn't stable, most of us are just sufficiently detached from its injustices that it feels stable and safe to us. 3) That political action is violent doesn't mean it has to manifest as a revolution or civil war. We like to glamorize the suffragette movement as a non-violent political struggle that mostly consisted of women holding up signs but suffragettes were literally performing actions we would today label as terrorism. We like to appeal to MLK as the voice of reason and imagine that he ended racism by talking in a kind voice but his protests were literally portrayed as riots at the time no differently from how we portrayed the 2020 BLM protests today. The US itself was created in a violent revolution and had to fight a war against its own people to prevent a secession only a century later. Not every instance of social progress requires a complete overthrow of the entire system but the more intrinsic an injustice is to a system, the more violent will those benefitting from it defend it against anyone trying to change it and the more violence will be necessary to overcome this resistance. 4) Revolutions and civil wars are often not caused by a desire for things to better but as a reaction to governments actively making things worse. Cambodia is actually a great example in that the sharp turn to the ultra-right was a direct response to incremental progressivism that preceded it and this in turn necessitated a violent revolution because there was no way to recover from this shift without it. Incrementalism had not only failed but was violently halted and reversed by those benefitting from the existing power structures. By trying to undo the incremental changes they drove progressives into the arms of the Khmer Rouge who had positioned themselves as the opposition and were now seen as justified in overthrowing the system as a whole. 5) The question isn't whether we should oppose charity, the question is whether charity can solve problems created by the power structure that enables a tiny minority to engage in charity in the first place. And the answer is clearly no because it hasn't and there's no reason to believe it will. Charity is a form of wealth redistribution but it is extremely inefficient in more ways than just the obvious bureaucracy involved in maintaining charity organizations to develop and implement social works projects to actually help people in defined and limited ways. That's just food stamps with extra steps. The problem is that charity is itself replicating the top-down hierarchical dynamic by forcing "interest groups" to compete for scraps: whether the money goes to breast cancer research, education for people living in poor areas, treatment of AIDS patients, or exterminating the mosquitos that spread Malaria is entirely up to the market, i.e. the few extremely wealthy shopping for a philanthropic cause to support while saving taxes, indirectly transferring money to business partners, or legally bribing officials. --- I don't oppose harm reduction in itself. Voting for the less bad political party is probably better than allowing the more bad political party to win. Billionaires funding technological innovation is probably better than billionaires spending the same money on union busting or propping up totalitarian governments. But the question isn't whether we want the revolution or not, the question is when the revolution will come and who will win. And how we prepare for that.
- pcstl 5y ago
  My response to this is straight from your own post: "It's also foolish to believe that history is a linear trajectory towards something good or better". You seem to state that we need violent revolution to get from one local optimum to a "better" one, but violent revolution can also lead us to worse ones. It's foolish to believe that we actually know a surefire to fix injustice, or to build a system which will not contain "flaws" in its power structure. It's even more foolish to believe we can build a system with no power structure, like certain movements do. On the topic of injustice: While I agree that you can't overthrow injustice without some form of violence, my issue here is that people often create more and bigger injustice when trying to fix injustice, because the bad in the status quo blinds them to the good. People often take things for granted which are not obvious and only realize they had them when they lose them. Also, justice is subjective. There are visions of justice where you can create a "more just" world where everyone is worse off. What then? --- Addendum: I'd just like to say that I appreciate that you clearly put effort into your arguments, and actually talked things out with me even though we clearly hold different view points. I probably won't reply to this thread anymore, as I think I've said all I have to contribute to this topic for now. I will read if you reply, though. Thank you for debating this complex issue openly with me.
  - hnbad 5y ago
    FWIW > It's foolish to believe that we actually know a surefire to fix injustice That's why I'm not an accelerationist. I think (specifically in the US and most Western countries) incrementalism is preferable and building dual power is a more fruitful path than attempting a revolution. But when incrementalism fails, direct action can become necessary. Incrementalism wouldn't have achieved universal suffrage, wouldn't have abolished racial segregation, wouldn't have decriminalized homosexuality and will not end capitalism. Incrementalism rarely manages to topple hierarchies, it mostly just shifts them or tips them in one direction or the other. I'm an anarchist but I don't fully believe a purely anarchic society is possible at a global scale today. I think mutualism or democratic confederalism is a more pragmatic goal but that's certainly not something we can jump into just by overcoming one power structure alone. But as the saying goes, "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism" (or unjust hierarchies in general, for that matter). Thanks, I appreciate it.

by pcstl 5y ago

hnbad 5y ago

Okay, this got a bit longer than I intended so I split it up into different points: 1) But society has already been fully restructured into something completely different. It's foolish to believe that we can get from one local optimum to a higher point without interruption if the only reason we're at the local optimum is that the previous one was violently interrupted in the first place. It's also foolish to believe that history is a linear trajectory towards something good or better, though this is indeed what most schools tend to teach because it avoids the difficult questions. 2) The status quo is unstable and will inevitably lead to accelerationism. You can not overthrow injustice without violence as those benefiting from the injustice have no interest in giving up those benefits without violence. Maintaining the status quo if it is unjust is in itself a violent act. The status quo isn't stable, most of us are just sufficiently detached from its injustices that it feels stable and safe to us. 3) That political action is violent doesn't mean it has to manifest as a revolution or civil war. We like to glamorize the suffragette movement as a non-violent political struggle that mostly consisted of women holding up signs but suffragettes were literally performing actions we would today label as terrorism. We like to appeal to MLK as the voice of reason and imagine that he ended racism by talking in a kind voice but his protests were literally portrayed as riots at the time no differently from how we portrayed the 2020 BLM protests today. The US itself was created in a violent revolution and had to fight a war against its own people to prevent a secession only a century later. Not every instance of social progress requires a complete overthrow of the entire system but the more intrinsic an injustice is to a system, the more violent will those benefitting from it defend it against anyone trying to change it and the more violence will be necessary to overcome this resistance. 4) Revolutions and civil wars are often not caused by a desire for things to better but as a reaction to governments actively making things worse. Cambodia is actually a great example in that the sharp turn to the ultra-right was a direct response to incremental progressivism that preceded it and this in turn necessitated a violent revolution because there was no way to recover from this shift without it. Incrementalism had not only failed but was violently halted and reversed by those benefitting from the existing power structures. By trying to undo the incremental changes they drove progressives into the arms of the Khmer Rouge who had positioned themselves as the opposition and were now seen as justified in overthrowing the system as a whole. 5) The question isn't whether we should oppose charity, the question is whether charity can solve problems created by the power structure that enables a tiny minority to engage in charity in the first place. And the answer is clearly no because it hasn't and there's no reason to believe it will. Charity is a form of wealth redistribution but it is extremely inefficient in more ways than just the obvious bureaucracy involved in maintaining charity organizations to develop and implement social works projects to actually help people in defined and limited ways. That's just food stamps with extra steps. The problem is that charity is itself replicating the top-down hierarchical dynamic by forcing "interest groups" to compete for scraps: whether the money goes to breast cancer research, education for people living in poor areas, treatment of AIDS patients, or exterminating the mosquitos that spread Malaria is entirely up to the market, i.e. the few extremely wealthy shopping for a philanthropic cause to support while saving taxes, indirectly transferring money to business partners, or legally bribing officials. --- I don't oppose harm reduction in itself. Voting for the less bad political party is probably better than allowing the more bad political party to win. Billionaires funding technological innovation is probably better than billionaires spending the same money on union busting or propping up totalitarian governments. But the question isn't whether we want the revolution or not, the question is when the revolution will come and who will win. And how we prepare for that.

pcstl 5y ago
My response to this is straight from your own post: "It's also foolish to believe that history is a linear trajectory towards something good or better". You seem to state that we need violent revolution to get from one local optimum to a "better" one, but violent revolution can also lead us to worse ones. It's foolish to believe that we actually know a surefire to fix injustice, or to build a system which will not contain "flaws" in its power structure. It's even more foolish to believe we can build a system with no power structure, like certain movements do. On the topic of injustice: While I agree that you can't overthrow injustice without some form of violence, my issue here is that people often create more and bigger injustice when trying to fix injustice, because the bad in the status quo blinds them to the good. People often take things for granted which are not obvious and only realize they had them when they lose them. Also, justice is subjective. There are visions of justice where you can create a "more just" world where everyone is worse off. What then? --- Addendum: I'd just like to say that I appreciate that you clearly put effort into your arguments, and actually talked things out with me even though we clearly hold different view points. I probably won't reply to this thread anymore, as I think I've said all I have to contribute to this topic for now. I will read if you reply, though. Thank you for debating this complex issue openly with me.
- hnbad 5y ago
  FWIW > It's foolish to believe that we actually know a surefire to fix injustice That's why I'm not an accelerationist. I think (specifically in the US and most Western countries) incrementalism is preferable and building dual power is a more fruitful path than attempting a revolution. But when incrementalism fails, direct action can become necessary. Incrementalism wouldn't have achieved universal suffrage, wouldn't have abolished racial segregation, wouldn't have decriminalized homosexuality and will not end capitalism. Incrementalism rarely manages to topple hierarchies, it mostly just shifts them or tips them in one direction or the other. I'm an anarchist but I don't fully believe a purely anarchic society is possible at a global scale today. I think mutualism or democratic confederalism is a more pragmatic goal but that's certainly not something we can jump into just by overcoming one power structure alone. But as the saying goes, "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism" (or unjust hierarchies in general, for that matter). Thanks, I appreciate it.