[Caution, leftist infighting/snide remarks below]
spoiler
I’m confused, doesn’t worsening material conditions count as political utility in his eyes?
Edit:I normally wouldn’t have an issue, since it’s actually pretty sane, but I literally thought to myself today “it would be funny if BE said Kirk’s death was a bad thing because adventurism will make things worse.” I was joking. I’m starting to hypothosize that economists [both accelerationist and reformists] are actually simps for the status quo
It’s not that they weren’t going to do anything before. It’s that this lets them say “You see? I told you the left is out of control! They attacked us for no reason”. It solidifies the position. It gives them stronger grounds to do what they planned to regardless.
This is a completely unmaterialist take. This has absolutely 0 material effect on the situation. Stronger grounds to do what they wanted in the eyes of whom? Libs who werent gonna do shit either way? Conservative who were gonna eat up whatever they say regardless? Genuinely what is materially affected? This is a position based on the vibes of what sounds like should be true, not a realistic material analysis of the situation
Unmaterialist?
Yep, its based on a vibe or the idea of ‘solidifying their position’ when there is absolutely no material gain the right has from this, if anything they lost one of their main propagandists (which granted is only an issue for them in the short term, if even that). Their position is not ‘solidified’ and their grounds are not ‘stronger,’ the resources at their disposal, the propaganda they wield, and the industry they command is the same regardless if this guy is dead or alive. Hell Trump, Vance, Shapiro, everyone on the far right could die tonight and it would not significantly strengthen or weaken their long term political power, it would only cause short term confusion
Your position is solely based on vibes of what sounds like should be correct. This is something people implicitly accept as true without any critical thinking. It feels correct, its what everyone else is saying, and it aligns with how historical development is traditionally understood so it checks off the bias box as well. But make no mistake, this is an idealist view of the world. You absolutely cannot strengthen material power and material goals through ideals alone. Rhetoric does not create material power.
But lets just say that yes, youre correct. That his death really will somehow strengthen the far right overnight (as if they didnt already have the backing of the bourgeoisie with little challenge) and werent already deploying the national guard to major cities. Lets say such a thing not only is possible but even significantly beneficial to the far right as you describe. Would they not just orchestrate a similar event themselves to create the justification anyway? If they really needed it then theyd just do that. Ergo, Kirks death means nothing, because otherwise it wouldve been someone else and the outcome is identical. Because this was the trajectory regardless, and no ideals, rhetoric, sense of petty revenge can change that. No one man can change that by being dead or alive.
Your take is fairly unmaterialist and ignores class struggle in favor of individualism and vibe based idealism
They were always going to do that anyway, in the absence of a real event they would have made some shit up