Inside of my psyche there are two "people" manifesting politically, most of the times they can be in disagreement, one is a reformist, an idealist that hopes for a better future and the other is an accelerationists that wants to see the world burn and be reborn in a mystic fire. I am certain I'm not an revolutionary because revolutions can be easy to steal from the revolutionaries (Romanian Revolution) or revolutions eat their own children (French Revolution).
Today I want to explore the latter side of me, the wicked one.
Accelerationism in the general sense is an ideology or way of thinking that wants to accelerate some things in order to achieve societal collapse so we can start all over again and hopefully do better this time around. Take it as.. there is a moldy house, is it worth to try to renovate it? or should we just burn it to the ground and build another. This ideal applied to politics is accelerationism.
Accelerationism comes in many flavours and forms, originally a marixst idea that said capitalist internal contradictions will eventually lead to it's deemise in favour of scientific socialism or dictatorship of the proletariat. It eventually also was adopted by certain far right groups pushing the idea of accelerating social degeneration and degradation until societal collapse so that afterwards we can have a traditionalist utopia.
I am not immune to this way of thinking rather when things seems to losse all hope I rather use it as a coping mechanism "it's not the end".
Accelerationism for me it's in relation to achive a technocratic subsidiar system of governance throughout all the means neccesary, it is deeply tied to an idea of paleogenesis and my relationship with European values, but also with a specific way of processing history "History does not repeat itself but it must certainly rhime".
Recently in history class we started learning about the history of the European Union but the lectures also had an propagandistic element in order to perpetuate the so called "European Values" they are quite vague principles like respecting human rights democracy and peace but the way they are presented it shows that only throughout the European Union they can exist in europe. This way they rather become dogmas and it's quite dangerous to make a dogma out of human rights peace and especially democracy.
Despite beeing considering myself an european confederalist, I am in slight to radical disagreement with some of those values or they way they could be approached.
Here my disagreement is slight to none with the European values, the basic human rights everyone agrees with and are known like the right to live, to freely associate, to freely express yourself and so on I fully agree, the problem with human rights is when people in general associate them with goods that are not immune to scarcity, socialists are the most guilty of this, there is no right to food or shelter but there is a right to private property and work, it is arbitrary to say otherwise.
Now the problem with the European Union I have here is their hypocrisy, the people that have in their mouths human rights and democracy wanted to implement chat control, a violation of the human right to privacy and we are still uncertain if it will be implemented or not.
Chat control was proposed by the European commission this year and it has sparked controversy, it is essentially an artificial intelligence that will scan all private messages and it forces encrypted messaging providers to give a backdoor to the governments for supposedly the safety of the children,
"think of the children!". This is part of a bigger wave of mass survailance in the governments of the world like digital ID verification.
Here the Europeans are hypocrites and are laying the first steps for a survailance state.
Democracy is dying and we are it's murders. Democracy like a false god while it is decaying it continues beeing worshipped. This is quite dangerous because in the near future with the 4th industrial revolution democracy will become impossible, not that it isn't mathematically impossible already but that's a subject for another essay in which I'll go into more details but until then....
To give my view of democracy, I see it as a utopic ideal that lead to a more function dystopia than the others. or as a failed God. with the rise of ai the 4th industrial revolution I don't think democracy can work even theoretically if by democracy we understand a electoral process. this truly started with the rise of algorithms, short form content and the ability of the oligarchs to control information. Democracy eventually leads to the oligarchy of parties, it is truly baffling to me that some people think that when a two party system emerges naturally in a democratic society it is seen as an advanced democracy, like the USA , this can be also seen in less advanced democracies like Romania with the PSD-PNL oligarchs, many parties here but the same people that essentially migrate to other parties, eat them or are always in a coalition, or they create anex parties so they can play both sides. This also translates economically for example Facebook has the monopoly of attention on bombers and older folk, while Instagram has one over adults and tik tok over kids and young adults. It is truly easy for oligarchs to work together, change their dogmas too, see what happens in the Trump administration now and the CEOs of major companies licking his boot while in the campaign they were "censoring him". i could go further into why democracy should not become a dogma , for example, how is it logical that a business owner, an university teacher, a political analyst and the local town junkey have the same decisional power in elections? And that it is easier to manipulate an colective than a individual. but I'll stop here. If by democracy we understand it ethimologically , as the power of the people I'm all for it, but power of the people does not necessarily mean elections. I believe that people should not have the right to ellect their representatives but they should have all the rights to dissmiss them. By heaving them elect their representatives, representatives chosen by political parties (the oligarchs) you only give legitimacy to the oligarchy. legitimacy should come from not being dissmissed from your position, this keeps you in fear of rhe community in a good way, it forces you to do the best job you can. But how do we put people in positions of power then? Simply the state should follow and adopt market principles. Contest over elections. A comision shall be made one of the most intelectual people from the community, business owners, teachers, philosophers, collage graduates that will decide who wins the contest. The local council should be made up of the most important people of the community, some kind of local corporatism if you will, the business owners, the teachers or a representative of them, representatives or leaders of syndicate of workers from respective fields and why not the local priests? The council should have a legislative and counciling role thought devolution from the county state that essentially gets it's devolution directly from a parliament The mayor put on contest should have executive role and to approve proposed legislation of the councils The mayor should be apart of a local county council of Mayors and throught contest the leader of a regional council and then apart of a national one. And throughout contest the leader of the nation.
yap yap about politics