Accelerationism/ accelerationist praxis general

never met a working class accelerationist

Is Theresa May an accelerationism?

>>>/gulag/

I still don't know what accelerationism is. Does it aim to make living conditions as unbearable as possible to the point of workers revolt, or do they want to improve technological progress until communism is inevitable?

Left Accelerationism does not work.

probably because "let's make people's lives shittier immediately in the vain hope of somehow winning in the long run" is moronic

There are different definitions of accelerationism.
The most common use of term on Holla Forums is the vulgar one : "let's make the living conditions for the working class worse by electing reactionaries so it will hasten the revolution". It isn't what accelerationism as a theory really is though.

Accelerationism as a theory was born from the works of Nick Land and the CCRU (Cybernetic Culture Research Unit) in the 1990s.
Nick Land in particular is an interesting fellow. Here is an article talking about his previous life as a philosophy professor in England with a taste for amphetamines : divus.cc/london/en/article/nick-land-ein-experiment-im-inhumanismus. He now lives in Shanghai and probably shitposts on imageboards from times to times.
But, anyway, in short Nick Land argued, most notably in his essay "Meltdown", that within capitalism there is an inhuman entity or intelligence trying to emerge, and that we shouldn't be necessarily afraid of this process, even if it can potential lead to the demise of humanity.
One of the most telling part of the piece is this one :

A more succinct (and correct) summary of accelerationism can be found in one of his most recent publication : jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/
This is called nowadays unconditional accelerationism. Its proponents doesn't care if the intensification of capitalism brings socialism or barbarism. They just want to see what is going to happen. It's definitely an interesting perspective.

There are more than this to accelerationism though. From this starting point, two tendencies emerged. There is right-accelerationism which I don't know much about but can probably be found in the brain of Peter Thiel, and left-accelerationism, theorized by Srnicek and Williams, who observed the failures of what they called "folk politics" (e.g. Occupy Wall Street, the Invisible Committee) and believe that the left needs another approach than this.
They think UBI could be a step in the right direction within the framework of capitalism for example, and something akin to the Project Cybersyn could solve many problems for a future communist society.
They have been criticized for basically proposing an upgraded version of Leninism that is doomed to fail though.

I realize this summary might not be very clear, but I tried to do my best with the limited knowledge I have on the subject.

Thanks for this.

...

Srnicek and Williams are obvious shills repackaging Milton Friedman talking points under a thin veneer of technobabble. They claim to stand for 'the left', but capitalist realism lies at the core of their vision. Don't seize the means of production! It's not just realistic enough you guys we gotta be realistic.

metamute.org/editorial/articles/demeaning-future-1

Muh 'Folk politics' was an ancap talking point way before Srnicek and Williams. See this 2009 article by patri Friedman, Milton's autist ancap grandson. The point is the same– you stupid human, you will yield before our superior economic rationality! *tibbs phaedra*. Nevermind the global left momentum we are currently experiencing, all grounded on those derided 'folk politics'. S&W's agenda is practically indistinguishable from the NrX agenda.
cato-unbound.org/2009/04/06/patri-friedman/beyond-folk-activism

he has a twitter account, @Outsideness and he answers questions and talks with tons of people every day on there. If you want to talk with him just make a twitter and ask him there, he's very responsive and good-humored (people from the right and left make fun of him all day and he just ignores it or plays along with them).

From the same issue of CATO: blood sucking fascist oligarch Peter Thiel talks about his vision for the future. Democracy=Bad. Female Suffrage=Bad. AntiTrust laws= Bad. Monopolistic Corporate Dictatorship= GOOD.
cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian

Funny how all those cyber 'left accelerationist' hepcats get their opinions from back issues of CATO. And it's not even good, Srnicek and Williams praise think tanks, consider them key to neoliberalism success. think tanks are not these magical fountains of Ideas and Inovation. They are Reddit tier circle jerks with oligarch funding. Yet again, it isnt muh rational educated elites with good ideas that were responsible for the neoliberal revolution, but crazy people with lots of money. Just look at how fucking dodgy are the studies Friedman is citing.

...

lmfao cry more faggot no one cares anymore about these things. They're all straw dogs that'll be sacrificed with the rest of the nonsense from the enlightenment that isn't useful anymore.

The bourgeoisie are destroying living conditions in their pursuit of ever greater amounts of profit.

While many parts of the Left see this as a defeat, we simply embrace the revolutionary potential in the new order the bourgeoisie are creating. Truly the bourgeoisie are selling us the ropes with which they will be hanged.

so, you still want people to suffer?

You mean the riot potential.

I'm an ancom because I want the living conditions of the proletariat to improve. Any measure that does so, no matter how capitalist, I will support. Because I'm in it for the people, not some magical fairy tale utopia land.

Why are people who support revolutionary terror pearl-clutching over, for instance, welfare cuts? It's not like there won't be many proletarians fighting under the reactionary banner in a hypothetical revolution. Someone's getting terrorized at the end of the day, unless you think that one can social-democrat their way to FALC.

at the same time the bourgeoisie are destroying the living conditions of the poor they're also increasing surveillance and policing in order to stamp out revolutionary potential.
I don't know enough about accelerationism to know if i support it or not but i fail to see how shitting on the poor magically solves this problem.

To me, it's straightforward. Either you can social democrat your way to FALC, or you can't. If you can, you may as well just be a social democrat. If you can't, then palliative measures to forestall the revolution are pointless, and you may as well just do away with all such things to bring about the revolution more quickly.

I don't think socdem reforms shouldn't be blindly opposed in all circumstances and you can't just tell poor people suffering today to suck it up and wait for the revolution to come.

Not really. Porky runs a business of subjugation balancing enforcement, information control and resource allocation/infraestructure.

Accelerationism consists of encouraging porky to use the more invasive methods of subjugation.
It's not that the proles are making the informed and willful decision of performing their role, they are broken/apathic.

You guys don't get it.

It's out of our hands. We're not doing anything. This is simply the dialectic in motion. Capitalism was always going to cannibalize itself.

We simply need to embrace the futility in attempting to stop the march of history and allow capitalism to destroy itself. Our role is not in stopping this process, but in creating a progressive movement that will create a new order from the ashes of the old.

SocDem reforms will never come.

You don't get it. Neoliberalism is the new order of the day. And small victory you obtain will be accompanied by two or three major losses. Social democracy has failed. Attempting to cling to some old experiment of the past will get you nowhere, and is ultimately a reactionary cause. Our movement should aim primarily to dethrone the bourgeoisie, not cling helplessly to old programs.

I'm gonna have to agree with Chomsky here and say that reform vs revolution is a false dichotomy. You can advocate for revolution against the bourgeoisie all you want but you also have to make sure that you're comrades aren't all dying from black lung disease at the age of ten.