/theory/ general

All first page threads are garbage, so I thought it's time to have another theory general.

Other urls found in this thread:

criticallegalthinking.com/2013/05/14/accelerate-manifesto-for-an-accelerationist-politics/
markfisherreblog.tumblr.com/post/32522465887/terminator-vs-avatar-notes-on-accelerationism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Anyone else reading this atm? It's actually bretty gud.

I launched into pic related, but the foreword was very critical. Made it seem like the authors socialism made him commit factual errors. True, or just liberal propaganda?

Not gonna repost it, but it's fresh, so

It's Based af, and more anons on this board should unironically learn about Communization.

As well as actual Left Accelerationism, which contrary to the memes retards on this board spew, is not a form of Catastrophism or Impossibilism, but rather has a lot more in common with Productivism, it's like Productivism taken to it's extreme, and it's ironic that all the same retards calling Accelerationism stupid are the same faggots who love FALC and say that Communism is impossible till we get post-scarcity, i.e. exactly the same shit Left Accelerationism proposes.

This is because anons on this board don't know the difference between Left and Right Accelerationism.

Some more Communization pdfs.

I assume it is increasing automatization and labor efficiency to such a point that profit rates plummet and it throws capitalism into a crisis. Then with the revolutionary potential caused by the unemployment of workers and state violence, puts society is in prime position to start a workers movement and take over the means of production by force. After the revolution, these high-tech means of production could then satisfy the needs of people with only small amounts of labor.

How can people disagree with this? Marx himself emphasized the necessity of capitalist development before socialism could happen. I keep seeing people shitting on accelerationism.

From Bakunin to Lacan - Saul Newman

On the topic of resistance to power and dislocation of power. One criticism that can be lobbed at Marx and MLs is that they only replaced the power of the capitalist and the ideological place of the free market, with the power of the state and the ideological place of history. I think there is some genuine questions about Marx's ambiguity here, is a dictatorship of the proletariat to authentically serve the proletariat, or to serve history?

Also, here are Mark Fisher's notes on Accelerationism for anyone interested.

markfisherreblog.tumblr.com/post/32522465887/terminator-vs-avatar-notes-on-accelerationism

I also miss Ismail tbqh.

Eeeehehehehehee

The situation of full automation will mean nothing but domination unless the proletariat, and the mass of people at large, have some means of power against the capitalists and their state. What will the strength of millions mean when pitted against automated drones, robotic soldiers, and weapons of mass destruction? People must have power over their state, and the material base, if there is to be some hope of automation serving everyone.

What gives you the impression that Accelerationists reject DoTP? They don't. Please read Srnicek.

Doesn't he reject both the DotP and the revolution? If so, what are his steps to radical change?

The impression I'm getting is that people don't want to act until full automation is reached under capitalism, which is a mind numbingly dumb proposition.

A big part of Srnicek and Williams' Inventing the Future is a rejection of the ultra decentralized organizing that marked things like Occupy, Battle for Seatle, and 15-M, which they call "folk politics", and instead argue for something along the lines of a more centralized movement, similar to the labor movements of the earlier 20th Century. So no, they aren't argueing, like MLs, for some "October Road" where we have to endlessly wait for the conditions to be just right, they're saying the conditions are already right, and in coming decades we're going to get more and more automation whether we like it or not, so the time to organize is now.

"MLs" – it's not like it's a unified thought. The Bolsheviks were one of the most productive and divided theoretical and practical groups in the 20th century. I can say with certainty that this is a gross mischaracterization of Lenin.

also comes with the objectively most apt definition of class war.

b2t:
I'm reading Fanon's Wretched of the Earth right now, it's a bit dated but still pretty nice and I'm learning a lot about colonialism and the struggles that come with trying to create a socialist society in the post-colonial stage (different structure of the Bourgeoisie in these countries etc.)

But those are Infants who argue so, not MLs

I'm not talking about Lenin, I'm talking about Marxist-Leninists, which is not a diverse group, and does possess a general orthodoxy. "Marxism-Leninism" isn't just Leftists who like Marx and Lenin, that describes all Marxists more or less, Marxism-Leninism was the party line of the USSR under Stalin, upheld by anti-revisionists after his passing and the Khrushchev Thaw. Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that necessarily, but ML isn't the only way to interpret Marx and Lenin, and it's hardly the most geared towards out current historical or material conditions.

First of all, no Leftcom rejects revolution. Second of all, endlessly claiming the Russian Revolution as their own personal achievement doesn't mean that ]current century] MLs aren't armchairs, they're just cunts about it. There are no armed struggles taking place in the West, MLs do not have a vanguardist position in contemporary labor movements, and yet they claim they're the only one's doing shit just because a.) the Russian Revolution happened 100 years ago, and b.) there are some successful ML groups in the Global South, but neither of these has much to do with the West in [current century]