Does accelerationism really work? Are there any instances in history(or present) where accelerationism worked?

Does accelerationism really work? Are there any instances in history(or present) where accelerationism worked?

Other urls found in this thread:

8ch.net/leftypol/res/1705964.html),
youtu.be/BFr5MIx1Tgk?t=91
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

True accelerationism has never been tried.

You don't seem to understand what is accelerationism.
It's not an ideology, it's just an opinion in which you believe certain politicians are highly incompetent and retarded that will destroy everything without ever understanding what they are doing.
Trump fits this description.

Other guy here. Yeah I keep seeing people talk about this concept, while The Chump & his rich buddies keep doing ridiculous shit, openly & flagrantly violating every law, shredding the very concept of decency- and people keep saying "no no, just wait a little more…just let it accelerate…". So where's the line?

It doesn't matter if accelerationism works or not. Neoliberalism isn't the result of lefties approving of it, it's the natural process of economic globalization and the accumulation and reproduction of capital.

But, yes. In order for the people to start thinking kings were shit, you needed an era of absolute monarchy.

Accelerationism only produces the material conditions for a revolution, but not the subjective conditions.

You must raise consciousness of everyone to take advantage of accelerationism, or it does not work.

It's an excuse for not learning and not doing anything.



It was also a planned response against the working class empowered due to the cold war. Why are you accelero fags try to minimize the historical importance of the masses? It's like you are looking for shitty excuses for not doing anything.

Really sends your neurons twirling

Do you see communism anywhere?

not if you want communism. people on this board dont understand that outside of the autists on this board, there is no interest in communist theory or hard leftism anymore.

the vast majority of people today only care about legalizing drugs, pushing the acceptance of increasingly degenerate sexual behavior, and letting in millions of brown people who only want welfare and will continue to vote for neoliberals instead of doing the work to create some sort of actual class war. basically, everyone on this board is LARPing super hard and there is no revolution coming.

Actually yes.
Tsar Alexander II tried to abolish serfdom, not because he was a godless lefty, but because he feared that they will rise up again and gain their liberation by force.
He got assassinated 1881 and his successor, Lex III who was autistically reactionary, rolled back the reforms and made it actually worse for everyone. The rest is history.

...

Nice meme understanding of accelerationism.

In general it's forcing the issue by making it worse. How and when that's ideological nitpicking.

When capitalists actually make concessions, like the New Deal, and pass socialist policies, they prevent socialist revolts and extend capitalism's life span. Further life extensions require further socialist policies. Welfare capitalism is not sustainable because you're privatizing profits, while socializing the losses, so you need to nationalize most of the industry. Which obsoletes most of the financial sector, and then you quickly see that growth for the sake of growth is unsustainable and wasteful and that the way those industries are being run is fucking idiotic. Rolling back will result in your country being on fire within 24 hours.

it's not "making it worse", it's endorsing capitalist maneuvres in the hope that it will accelerate (get it?) the conflicts generated by capitalism's contradictions and bring to its downfall. Unless you're nick land, in that case accelerationism is screaming into a mike and sperging about computers.

Now as we all know Russia wasn't capitalist before the revolution.

According to the left accelerationist argument posited in , its major elements are already here between FLOSS, the "sharing" economy, automation of management with ERPs, 3D printing, etc precisely because capital's major elements are feedback loops which have run away and therefore begun to swallow whole even that which previously defined capital-ism. Parliamentary politics don't matter at all - what should be made is a startup in the gig economy which beats its competitors by relying purely on open source, crowd sourced software to break apart the traditional structure of the firm and further the emergent organizational form of the gig economy, the free association of producers made to produce profit. Organize production within this network via an in-kind economic calculator.

yeah people are sharing things that are not subject to scarcity and they've been doing it since cassette tapes were a thing, if not before.

i think the fact that you put "sharing" in quotes is telling. even the other user said that it's "sharing at gunpoint". in fact i'd say it's not sharing at all, just pretending personal property is a means of production (even though all of these gig economy jobs are tertiary sector and don't produce anything).

Look, accelerationism obviously isn't the best way to get to communism, but it's not about that at all.

In practice, it's all about the CHOICE we get (Trump vs Hillary for example). Accelerationism is just the lesser of two evils.

It's better to let the thesis go extreme right so the antithesis can go extreme left, than let a fucking Neoliberal reform the system continuously to keep capitalism running.

TL;DR

Now stop making these 'hur dur accelerationism doesn't work' threads kthxbai

Come on, fampai.

A big part of the argument for a left-accelerationism being the most correct approach to our current situation is that capital's own unchecked growth within the parameters of meatspace's constraints has developed the state of affairs into a perverse photonegative of communism - something's just around the corner and already behind us. The only way to actually get there is to keep intensifying the process, giving more input to the negative feedback loop whose equilibrium is the generation of a positive feedback loop which accelerates onwards regardless of constraints. It's already too late to start building communism because its foundations have already been simultaneously built and destroyed beyond all possibility of reconstruction.
Personal property is a means of production. Read Kropotkin.

what if its working right now, one thing is for certain everything is gonna start going faster, if it doesnt we die

Left accelerationism reminds me of a joke I heard from Žižek: "The operation was a success, but the patient died."

Left accelerationism, as I understand it, sounds like Dengism on steroids to me, there is a perverse pseudo-Marxist logic to it: developing muh productive forces at whatever the human and environmental cost while we wait for the communist revolution, even if the "objective" outcome of it is that a good chunk of humanity is rendered redundant and disposable as Capital continues its deterritorialization process unimpeded (as it is already happening)

What I fear is the things one could be more enthusiastic about as listed by (FLOSS, the "sharing" economy, automation of management with ERPs, 3D printing, etc) merely create new commons to be encircled by capital at a time of crisis. This is just a crude conjecture of mine, and I would love to be proven wrong.

Anyway the point of this post was rather to upload this screen capture from that other thread (8ch.net/leftypol/res/1705964.html), I agree with that user, Marxism and accelerationism aren't compatible, perhaps they are even adversaries, I don't know enough about Kropotkin to comment on the rest of it but here you go.

This.

do a change in material conditions not directly correlate to a change in subjective conditions and the superstructure?

No, it doesn't necessarily follow. It has to be acted upon by revolutionaries.

Left accelerationism in the form posited by that user is very different from Kropotkin's concrete proposals (even if it has some similarities) and, being thoroughbred accelerationism, bears far more in common with the works of DeLeuze/Guattari (and therefore Hume ultimately, not Kant like Marx) and Land. That being said, what distinguishes it from D&G and Land is that it incorporates Kropotkin and his insights extensively, relying on an accelerationist logic to extend and complete his work in a certain sense.
There is no communist "revolution", at least not in the typical sense of the word, with masses of angry proles emerging from the factories to demand their self-management and hoisting red flags while a vanguardist gives a rousing speech and they storm the White House. Perhaps the closest thing is the insurrection championed by communization (and it could be considered a third current of communization, if a very different one), and even that's different. Do you at least see where I'm coming from?
The difference here is that these new "commons" are themselves born of and by capital for its own benefit. They cannot be reclaimed. The point on the supplanting of the water wheel by steam engines is that capital must eliminate temporal and spatial constraints to its growth and reproduction to grow and reproduce - the ability of workers to go on strike with impunity in the far away dales where strong rivers flowed had to end. Now, capital and its need to expand have become so universally pervasive in every sphere, every control mechanism which defined the previous world's management of collective work capacity (family, religion, state, etc.), that it atomizes to maximize productivity while simultaneously bringing people in close proximity in a mockery of communistic relations. Capital cannot reclaim these new "commons" any more than it already has, because it made them in the perverse image of the forcing of power onto humans for the forcing's own sake. It's running on a shoestring while it has more manpower in its sails than in any previous time in history.


Capitalism self-revolutionizes more than any extrinsic revolution can do so. This does not, however, mean that one must resign themselves to complacency. Like a pipe both ready to burst and already bursted, it can destroy previous, outdated territories of control, but would rather flow and advance where there is no opposition whatsoever. LARPing as revolutionaries is painfully pointless when you could instead don that businessman suit and partake in the system's self-destruction, conscious of what must be destroyed first to accelerate the process of it eating itself in absolute. Capital's self-reproduction as a really-existing phenomenon isn't dialectical, and neither is its extinguishing - it is cybernetic. Your approach, for all its attention to detail and how close it comes to reality, is wrong because its basis is wrong.

Accelerationism in Germany. Way to go, chucklefucks!

make sure you know what you think accelerationism means first. hint: it's entirely about AI

well, it was temporary.

youtu.be/BFr5MIx1Tgk?t=91

Accelerationism is for hobbyists that take an interest in leftist politics, but have no active struggle, so won't bear the brunt of the punishment that comes with accelerationist politics.

Stop posting before you read the thread and stop describing everything you don't like as MTW.

I mean it's working very fucking well right now. Trump has done more for the radical left in the US in 130 days than Noam Chomsky has in 20 years.

everything is temporary

also capitalism didn't collapse

China. They're bringing capitalism to an end faster than anyone.

because burgers intervened and propped it up

I confess I can't make heads or tails ofthis sentence.

It's almost as if capitalists are not all braindead and decide to stop the braindead ones when they fuck up too much.

How many levels of ideology on you on that you think this is in any way unique to Trump or even somehow worse under Trump than its been at any point over the past, say, 30-40 years?

Accelerationism may relate specifically to accelerating an existant capitalist system's life cycle. But nevertheless, I'd like to point out that in both big socialist insurgencies, the Chinese and the Russian ones, things had to get really, really, really bad before the people had enough.

This guy is right, you have to have both the base and the superstructure in the right conditions for a revolution to blow up. The base's conditions are clear enough, but the superstructure conditions are complicated, becase it's not just a matter of agitating, and raising awareness. The Russian far left had been doing it for fucking decades, and yet remained insignificant all the way up until WW1 blew up. To put it simply, the material conditions of the WW1 carnage plus general Russian misrule created both the base and superstructure conditions needed, but there was still need of a force to guide the latter into actual revolution.

As far as regular accelerationism within capitalism goes, I think it's a matter of human cost, isn't it? Is more suffering caused by letting capitalism run its course "unaided" or by accelerating it? Marx was of the mind that terror was an important part of the revolution because, among other things, it shortened it. Curiously, William T. Sherman had a similar view: "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." If we transpose it to the cruelty of capitalism, then I suppose it makes sense to burn it as quick and as bright as possible.


Some comr8 said that big corporations actively support FLOSS programs – while keeping their own stuff proprietary, of course. FLOSS effectively crowdsources innovation and solutions 4free, and corporations them implement those in their proprietary and very expensive software.

"no"
I'm well aware of this and included it as part of my point in the original post on it.

Marx sees the commodity as intrinsic to the self-reproduction of capital (M-C-M', etc.) and also sees it as containing and crystallizing the dialectical conflict between exchange value and use value. In this case, the commodity is analyzed from the alternative standpoint of DeLeuze (descended from Hume's skepticism and empiricism; pdf linked). Everything is seen as interlinked in control process upon control process, with the schizophrenic, fragmented culture of a postmodern capitalism which DeLeuze & Guattari deal with extensively being only its most visible effect.

Yes, it works. We all know that welfare and government jobs extend the life of capitalism. Since these are ubiquitous, it seems clear that capitalism is basically a zombie at the moment. All we have to do is abolish welfare and jobs programs. Ultimately, the conditions for Communism are going to come about regardless of whether or not you Raise Class Consciousness (lel).

Are accelerationists basically millenarists?

I made neither of those claims.

fpbp