Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Accelerationism
#1
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/m...are_btn_fb

I hadn't heard  of accelerationism before but am familiar with many of the concepts through the Internet, like for example a blurring of left and right politics.  The left wing embracement of accerationism seems to be the argument that humans/the planet, have not experienced full blown capitalism yet as we have protected ourselves through politics, and if it was embraced there would be an end to Capitalism. This comes from Marxist ideeas about the last phase of Capitalism. They explain reactionary ideas an their uprising as a wish to slow down this accelaration that is experienced  in the last phase, where we should contrarily speed it up, in order to overthrow, a very big gamble in my view, as in history there has only been struggle and resistance.
Reply
#2
They must feel safe or suicidal. We fear things because we feel that they might actually impact us in ways we can not control or protect ourselves from, so rushing into anything sounds like the sort of thing someone very confident in their safety or very much unconcerned for their safety might be interested in promoting while others literally afraid of trouble and disability and death, concerned for their lives and ability to operate becoming troubled or having to learn new coping technologies would be concerned with. I dread anything drastic, especially anything which asks me to think or work or participate or cooperate.

As a human being, an animal, my main concern is food and shelter and health and luxuries and comforts and possessions.
Reply
#3
Yes the comfortable academics in a way. Why do they think their theories will all work out with the ends they envision ? Also I thought coming from the post humanist school of thought, that they would be more tentative about achieving ends, like the next phase or end of Capitalism. I suspect a disguised 'scientism'  perhaps based in the Marxist theory of the 'progressiveness of history' , which I think is the most difficult part of Marxist theory.
Reply
#4
I agree and I think these modern academics are not seeming to be at the same level as their predecessors generation after generation in many cases which almost looks like an overall deterioration of standards and immaturity stemming from over-specialization whereas the older generations each seemed more broad in their educations and areas of interest and writing which seemed to give more overall wisdom to to their writing. In the case of each generation afterwards their fields seemed to become increasingly more tight, narrow, and restricted leading towards ideas which don't seem to take into account enough overall information or "the real world" which has numerous impacted fields with any event or action. Touch the water or the web and the whole thing shakes, and an immature or inaccurate conception just doesn't simulate the animation correctly or is far too zoomed in. Either that or they are just frankly stupid and belligerent, getting some endorphins from saying radical things that young students might get excited about. This "shouting as philosophy" as been the trend also in colleges since around and after the 60's until it became the norm after younger teachers, the shouters and the children of the shouters and their students, became the reigning population. At this point, like in any rock-star revolution, the lyrics don't need to make sense, but the opinions need to be essentially phallic and vital, the same as Hitler demonstrated and gained female admiration for (representatives of resources and prestige, the true crown of conceptual society, if you have the women, one way or the other by whatever means, you have the nation, and it doesn't mean women are empowered or even aware of their key role in power and domination of human resources and society and societal interactions).

Anything which demonstrates vigor earns the attraction and attention of certain demographics, and produces for the resource champion a positive sensation and feeling of achievement and reward. They might call this whole thing a sort of careless exercise of stimulation which comes from increasingly hedonistic apathy from resentful and helpless feeling academics who may feel unrewarded or overshadowed by the past and unable to compete, so take instead to gaining groupies instead. I can understand that if it is true, and I have personally interacted with people like this on an intimate and private level to investigate aspects of their personality, desires, and dissapointments. There is a lot of restlessness because there seems to be so much to do and no way to do it, lots of pressures including biological pressures without a system to achieve them or prioritize them, so then chaotic sort of reactive philosophies seem to arise much more out of cathartic exhaustion than an exercise of anything more serious than a cry of pain. The kind which is self-absorbed, rather than sympathetic. This is a form of the Nihilism talked about or predicted at times. It seems to be a very real thing even while not acknowledged as such when it means pain leading to self absorbtion causing ignorance and apathy and aimlessly destructive measures like Terrorism or any sort of highly abrasive or abrupt sort of actions on people.

Despite its causes or motives, overall the whole idea sounds very inconsiderate and destructive, made without any apoarent concern for who might really suffer and that suffering can not be justified, even for the sake of non-existent hypothetical future pleasure vessels that are often supposed in anything promoted as eventually good. Who cares if some future person is happy while generations were made to struggle and suffer and take it out on each other at the time. In my view the best policies are those which seriously take into account the current population, not just the future or appeals to the past. If it neglects Now then it is us who pay the price.

What is important right now, is what is always the most important. "Creature comforts for all creatures" and work to create an ideal experience for every individual, thus reducing anxiety overall and the stressors which cause societal woes and problems including crime, hatred, and disease.

If a Left Wing Right Wing Communist Capitalist plan is inconsiderate, it has lost the plot, and become possessed by winning for what isn't real and doesn't matter or exist because it isn't "matter". We matter because we are "matter". The animals, trees and plants, bugs, and us. When people become obsessed with their symbolic representation of themselves (their idea) winning they have lost themselves and their humanity to become a slave to their symbol or projection, they've got it backwards and it leads to backwards results. Something which can never truly support life is given permisdion to take and take over lives and then acts destructively because it is itself a dead and lifeless uncaring thing.
Reply
#5
I am not anti academic, the accelaration theory has had a big effect on politics. The Guardian article may of been over simplifying the movement and it did paint a distopic picture of the people involved, as in their all being depressed and hedonistic. Just thought it was good to be aware of these arguments so you can take a position on these ideas and see them underneath a lot of presentations, like Trump, Blair etc. Those political arguments that say we should let this happen so that the oppression will be too much and then over thrown.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
Reply
#6
Its great that you brought it up. I have a bad impression of modern philosophers and thinkers as well as politicians and pundits who give me the impression of having too limited a scope of interest whatever it may be and really what it might come down to is not being ethical or spiritual or superstitious enough to really be trusted. The people I trust the most are the people who can not actually rationalize why they shouldn't do something but are sensitive and sympathetic in an almost superstitious way. They won't kill "just because" except when really necessary seeming or in relatable or acceptable seeming ways. The people attracted to many of these things are at their core, regardless of their affiliations, not spiritual simpletons who I would much prefer. Each one is inherently atheistic seeming, concerned about dead things more than living things in every case if examined carefully. Why do people matter? Answering the question is already an insult to humanity. There is no justification necessary for goodness, justifying it, as it can be, is already a step towards rationalizing and with that comes all sorts of rationalizations and weaponry because its a step towards mechanization rather than an organic core which was never born from rationality.

I personally hate to say it even because I am all about justification, but I also know that the people I trust are those who are tamed by irrational morality and biological ethics, animals. I can trust animals, I can not trust anything above or beyond that.

An animal wants to live, a human being wants the dead to live, wants ideas and organizations and structures to live, a God or The God makes anything live that lives. Man wants to be like God, God gets what God wants, and animals want the basics. Ambition leads people into trying to make bigger than themselves structures to represent them.
Reply
#7
The comfortable well fed animal - I am not buying that. Everywhere I hear this, 'well there isn't starvation and poverty in my life, so I see no reason to take these things seriously' kind of chatter.

Accelerationism gathers pace due to apathy and the religion of comfort.
Crito, we ought to offer a cock to Asclepius. See to it, and don't forget.
Reply
#8
I think the view that capitalism will collapse due to inherent contradictions is very wishful thinking and it seems like alienation, while inevitable, is a state we are having to swallow in the same way that neoliberal ideological axioms are swallowed, i.e. 'greed is good'.

Dostoyevsky is important here - man is an animal that can get used to anything.
Words are greater than we.
Reply
#9
Not all academics are accelerationists.

Accelerationism relies on the narcissistic belief that, if things got worse, people who were uninformed of systemic problems would come to see the same objective truth you see, because it's so obvious. When in reality, the perception of systemic problems can be shaped heavily by media, and those who are in power are going to have a better chance of coordinating their media to shape uninformed people's perceptions, and in doing so, convince them to work in ways to reinforce their positions of power. (see: the absolute Republican control over Kansas, even as the entire state goes further down the drain).

The Weimar Republic is the most notorious example that this revolutionary strategy could just as well backfire and send the working class heading into the complete opposite direction. This is especially true when the Communist Party uses some of the same antisemitic and nationalist talking points as the fascists.

Turning the former regime to ash does not automatically guarantee that something better will replace it and one may in fact end up with something that much harder to move away from. The political barometer does not suddenly reset to zero like resetting the mileage counter on a car; it can just shift to a position that's even harder to work to a better state from, if even at all. People wishing for change have to start from where they are now and do the hard, grinding toil of making it better every step of the way and clawing every scrap of progress and not give up their ground instead of resigning themselves to waiting for complete overthrow to start from the ruins of the old order.
Crito, we ought to offer a cock to Asclepius. See to it, and don't forget.
Reply
#10
I like the move to the left that is in the Guardian article: 
Quote:“Capitalism has begun to constrain the productive forces of technology,” they wrote. “[Our version of] accelerationism is the basic belief that these capacities can and should be let loose … repurposed towards common ends … towards an alternative modernity.” 

I would exchange ends for means here, but in essence, the world we were promised is radically different to the one we have in regards to technology. It was supposed to free us up.
Words are greater than we.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)