But all of this misses the most powerful defense of allegedly hypocritical involvement in a system you oppose! It's so silly once you realize it, and perhaps your average communist-aligned cartoonist doesn't understand things very deeply. I don't know.
-
Show this thread
-
First of all, communists don't want to improve society; they want to destroy it. Yes, I understand the fabians thought they could improve their way there, but the ultimate goal IS the abolishing of society as it is! This is the goal of all those who follow Locke!
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
But more than this, consider that the theory which is the end of liberation-struggles is nothing other than the removal of all coercion upon all people, and government is at root coercion. If indeed coercion IS society, liberation necessitates its annihilation at some point.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
Therefore all who follow Locke in some way - this includes Marxists of all kinds, people who believe in Huxleian paradises, Libertarians and of course all anarchists, are in fact hypocritical for participating in society. That's how philosophy really works.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
By this I mean, when you adopt a philosophy, unless you follow its tenets you're being hypocritical. Hypocrisy itself is not about immortal/universal standards, but about pretense; what is put forth, honestly or dishonestly. "By your own words you will stand or fall."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Now to clear something up, most of these folks view society and government as different things - they think of society as simply "relationships" between people that form the "community", whereas gov't is coercion. Society has always been governed, so they imagine a "new" society.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
I take the historical view, which is in this case less Plato and more Aristotle you might say - that no society is without government. Therefore society must be governed, to eliminate coercion is to dissolve society. History backs me up here, although this isn't the point.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
However, the moral point about hypocrisy and the concern about destroying humanity by destroying its "interlinking" fabric miss a very much more important point! And it has all to do with a dumb nursery rhyme, "the lady who swallowed the fly."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
In "the old lady who swallowed the fly", the woman tries to get rid of one pest with another, or, in short, she develops X to destroy Y, after which X becomes a new pest! Imagine if a socialist developed a government to destroy government... well, you get it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
So the Leninists, in order to get rid of the evils of government and bring on the classless society, create a government to destroy the evils of government, which proceeds to become a new, perhaps more virulent form of government. Ah.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 likeShow this thread
But let's say, what if... what if one as able to use the system to destroy itself? It would be hypocritical to engage and in fact in some ways help the system, but if successful, X destroys X, and X-X=0, the fly eats itself.
-
-
For this reason, in conclusion, accelerationism and decelerationism are identical movements, separated only by their expectations of what will happen after the "bifurcation" - an eruption, an AI, whatever, as Decelerationists will realize they need to use tech to destroy itself.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
