There are few things that loom larger in our cultural consciousness than the idea of a breaking point: that someday it will all just be Too Much and something will SNAP and suddenly it will be RADICALLY DIFFERENT than the day before. There will be riots, there will be fires, there will be government officials dragged out of their offices, there will be something Shiny and New and we will celebrate and topple statues and cheer. America, especially, dreams of breaking points.
When I was a kid the term we used was “going postal,” as the most well known office shooting at the time was located in a post office. This was before Columbine, before schools were *the* destination for seemingly spontaneous mass murders. At the security company where I work now, there are calls every few months from companies that have let someone go and want someone to keep an eye out for them coming back armed.
You don’t often find people connecting these threads.
Accelerationism is a political philosophy that espouses the idea that things are bad, but not yet bad enough for people to act towards necessary change. The idea that society is hesitating at the cliff’s edge and just needs a little push before it tries to flap its little wings. Maybe, if we just make conditions intolerable *enough* it will be enough for change.
There’s math people don’t know that they’re doing in their head all the time. It’s economic theory kind of math, but it doesn’t have much to do with money. The question being posed is always the same: is Doing Something worse than Doing Nothing?
There are, as you might expect, lots of moving parts here. What is the benefit of doing the thing? Is there a future on the other end that seems possible, and better than current conditions? How much does it cost? In lives, in money, in time and effort? What are the chances we will succeed? What are the costs of failure? And how bad, really, how bad is it now?
Accellerationists try to move the needle by making “how bad is it now” even worse. If you’re just doing math, it makes a kind of sense. If you don’t like the idea of people dying because of something you did, it’s kinda less appealing.
There are trolley car arguments, of course. There are always trolley car arguments. The real villains are the ones who tied all these people up on the tracks in the first place, the ones who deregulated the trolley construction which led to the failing breaks. We’ve all heard it. I’m not going to try to convince you one way or the other on this.
What I do want you to chew on is the idea of that breaking point. That moment where conditions are so intolerable that literally any action is better than doing nothing and continuing as you are. That’s the core conceit, isn’t it? If we just get enough people there, revolution will spontaneously arise.
Now, back to the second point. Do you see where we’re going here? We have an abundance of people who are already at the point where conditions are so personally intolerable that they are willing to end their lives ending the lives of others for no more reward than simply not dragging themselves through another day like this. Add to that number the “deaths of despair,” the people who are numbing themselves by any means necessary to get away from the conditions they cannot tolerate. How big of an army do you really think you need to run the guillotines?
And there’s the thing: they’re not an army. Even the ones who think that their death is going to be The Spark that convinces everyone to finally get off the couch and start organizing, they’re just dead bodies.
We consume a lot of revolutionary media. In that media there are really only two common paths from Intolerable Conditions to Outright Revolution: a charismatic lone individual inspires others to spontaneously rise up with no prior organization or coordination, and a charismatic lone individual is exploited by an existing organization to swell their ranks to a functional number. When that’s all people see, it’s no wonder that they think of revolution as something they can do on their own, or at least start doing on their own, but the evidence is right in front of our faces: if you act alone, you will not have any meaningful impact. The Machine is designed to absorb aberrant individuals.
Acquiring accomplices is hard. It’s probably the hardest part of getting anything done. Building trust is not easy in a society that raised us on Stranger Danger, building community is hard in tract housing and car-centered design, every ounce of effort put into organizing is effort not being spent on the tasks of keeping yourself alive in a world that is ever more expensive just to breathe in.
But if you are pushing people, or yourself, to the breaking point, without laying down the groundwork? That’s not the Revolution. That’s just getting people miserable and dead. Stop doing The Machine’s work for it.
