0chan [ 0040 / deck / bash / xeno / life / kvlt ] [ tor / meta / ukko ] [ rules / about / news] [Matrix / IRC / Follow us on Mastodon]
/0040/ - Is there any decent left-accelerationist theory? Pretty much the only works I've read on accelerationism at all have been the ones included in #Accelerate.

/0040/ - Anarchy

Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1518336349233-0.png (56.8 KB, 816x476, screen-shot-2017-06-12-at-….png)


Is there any decent left-accelerationist theory? Pretty much the only works I've read on accelerationism at all have been the ones included in #Accelerate.


>Is there any decent left-accelerationist theory

Accelerationism is garbage, so that's going to be a "no"


File: 1518343198160-0.png (12.31 KB, 400x500, accelerationism.png)


If I'd just like to understand it?


There's nothing to understand, it's like the slavemaster claiming that beating up his slaves is actually good for them because it makes them want freedom more. Accelerationism is completely absurd.


What exactly is accelerationism? First I thought it was a leftist 4D chess strategy where you vote for the right wing candidate in order to make society so shitty that people will revolt. Now I hear people say that this is a strawman and that accelerationism is more related to technology.


It's the idea that the best way to fight capitalism is to amplify its internal contradictions.That can mean anything from voting for Trump to advocating "disruptive technology" that will cause massive unemployment.




Back in 2000 I had some US friends who said "Vote Bush: Hasten the Collapse". Then Bush won and there was no collapse and everyone was sad and we drank lots.


I'm not all that familiar with Left Accelerationism precisely because the majority of it seems to either be neo-soviet organization using technology (e.g. Project CyberSyn) or is just outright decelerationist and is only associated with accelerationism. And that's at its most coherent; the rest of the time, Left Accelerationism just doesn't make any sense and seems to only call itself accelerationism for marketing purposes, when really it's just more of the same leftist shit from the 20th century - but also computers n shit are cool, fellow kids.

Basically, I don't think any of Left Accelerationism (aside maybe from Xenofeminism - and even then, the Xenofem Manifesto leaves a lot to be desired in terms of all the sloganeering for leftism is seems to callback to) should be of interest to anarchists. It's all very state-centric and pretty much extremely oedipal and regressive.

The problem with L/ACC is that it's thinking in terms of a "Left vs. Right" as it is traditionally thought of - though to be fair, the overwhelming majority of Right Accelerationism falls into the same trap. If Left Accelerationism is just stalinism with computers, then Right Accelerationism is basically just Pinochet with Bitcoin.

The way Nick Land and Ccru in general arguably conceived of Left and Right is things that are left of capital and things that are right of capital. For them, fascism and leftism alike are left of capital insofar as they essentially expand regressive state apparatuses to maintain the purity and stability of a system (in a negative-feedback loop). Contrary to this, to be right of capital is to support the expansion of capital beyond the limits of the state or other centralized regulating entities. (cont.)


This may sound suspiciously ancap, even in the old Nick Land and Ccru stuff, but you've got to remember that ancaps are essentially statist who renounce the justification for statism into their shitty Lockean philosophy. They defend the same things that the state upholds (like rent, waged labor, courts, etc.) on the basis of shit like natural law and the NAP. And from this, they argue that their society would be a stable, pure, free society - "free" in their definition, at least.

What accelerationists (the ones who aren't terrible, which is basically Ccru, Nick Land, and some newer people on the scene today) want is something far more chaotic and inhuman. One may admit that accelerating capital would be catastrophic on many levels, but the point isn't to accelerate capital towards some kind of utopia - at least, not in the short term. It's likely that acceleration and the collapse of balance and order that the state provides (at the cost of great subjugation and imperial domination) would leave many fascist patches in its wake, but it would also open up many spaces for decentralized exchange and insurrection to self-organize. And without the support of a state entity, these small patches of fascism are unlikely to survive.

A lot of this, remember, is being based off of Deleuzian theory, which dovetails with cybernetics and chaos theory. A lot of people trip up on this stuff because Deleuzian theory is very different from the Hegelian metaphysics most of leftism is inherited from. It's all about the regulation and transfer of energy. A lot of this also cashes out very nicely in stuff from C4SS (especially Kevin Carson) and Proudhon, but you've got to sort it out from ancap stuff.

It's also important to remember that the world accelerationism imagines is a very pluralistic one and in no way outright denies the possibility of communes and the like, if that's your thing.


I don't really get the connection with Deleuze in the case of leftist accelerationism. If L/ACCs advocate for amplifying the contradictions of capital to the point of its destruction, then surely they are in the Hegel/Marx dialectical tradition.


That's exactly my point: L/ACC is pretty much entirely disconnected from any kind of engagement with some very fundamental concepts in the accelerationist canon and doesn't seem to add anything to it. Like I said, it seems to more or less be a very obvious and very thin marketing brand to sell more Verso books and get tenured professorships.

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]