Interesting read, but the article makes some jumps in logic that don’t really make any sense to me. Like, you’re going to fight white supremacy by handing the reigns over to a white supremacist who intends to become dictator, and don’t see that as contradictory? OK? Colonial powers didn’t want to allow you to vote, but now that you can, you’re giving it up for… reasons?
When it comes down to it, it’s basically accelerationism. That’s not going to topple capitalism. All that it’ll do is result in an unimaginable tragedy and then potentially (if you’re lucky) reinstallment of the status quo by outside powers.
I’m sympathetic to the authors position, but it doesn’t seem like they’ve thought this through properly.
I think it’s worth platforming this particular indigenous perspective outlined in Voting is Not Harm Reduction. Not expounding the point but rather bringing a concertedly marginalized voice into the conversation. https://www.indigenousaction.org/voting-is-not-harm-reduction-an-indigenous-perspective/
Interesting read, but the article makes some jumps in logic that don’t really make any sense to me. Like, you’re going to fight white supremacy by handing the reigns over to a white supremacist who intends to become dictator, and don’t see that as contradictory? OK? Colonial powers didn’t want to allow you to vote, but now that you can, you’re giving it up for… reasons?
When it comes down to it, it’s basically accelerationism. That’s not going to topple capitalism. All that it’ll do is result in an unimaginable tragedy and then potentially (if you’re lucky) reinstallment of the status quo by outside powers.
I’m sympathetic to the authors position, but it doesn’t seem like they’ve thought this through properly.
Yeah, i agree that there are some really tough contradictions there, and the material result definitely looks like accelerationism.
Thanks for reading it!
My pleasure. It was good food for thought! Even though I disagree with their takeaway, they did make a lot of valid points.