Accelerationism?

Lately I have been really enchanted by the idea of accelerationism, especially the idea of it being applied on technology and economy. Although I haven't even scratched the surface (or read one book sozz :c) I think you peeps will like the idea, or even know about it already. Do you have suggestions for my first read aside from #Accelerate? I am not well versed into philosophy or philosophical academia to read Nick Lands papers but I guess I can learn? Also general accelerationism thread. Do you like it? Do you hate it? Do you think it's super duper edgy in a way that it is antithetical to what you guys believe? Leave your replies in comment section below. And, as always, like share and subscribe. See you bros. **brofist**

no. seems very aesthetic and surface level and more about how cool it sounds then its values or actual benefit. what if we are limiting ourselves by moving forward along this thing we call technology or progress. its like how in evolution a cat will never walk on two legs and grow thumbs because it would have to lose survivability and go "backwards" to change to that course. Oversimplified but im just illustrating a concept. likewise if there is another path of "progress" that would ultimately lead to something much greater than our current one we will never find it only accelerating through the current one fundamentally. That is even when we are far far technologically advanced and very different from now its possible that what we fundamentally define as technology or progress will never lead to something really great. if you want to say this accelerationism thing is just how things are and inevitable I might sadly be convinced. Id want to think though we could eventually remove our attatchments and perception of things like technology as reality and instead continue to pursue technology while also finding entirely new and previously unconceived fields. all im saying is I think we inherently limit ourselves when we strive towards these somewhat arbitrarily defined and self confirming things like "technology" or "progress". im very liberal too, im only saying what a dive to take when your reasoning amounts to almost circular tunnel visioned values for EXAMPLE: progress is good because it creates freedom which is good because its progress. Its bizarre because its self confirming in its goodness and also in that progress is the only way to freedom. In this example we dont even need to be all abstract and talk about unconceived things, we know that many things can lead to freedom and also that what one considers freedom is not universal. We assume it to be linearly progressive as in what one sees as freedom becomes closer to REAL freedom as they acquire it, but this is quite an assumption from biased eyes. I wouldnt put a lot of faith in ideas that just sound good. From thousands of years ago we thought what everyone wanted was to not die and be full but turns out people just kill themselves and arent any happier. Now some want to create a technological singularity super AI to kill themselves off, christ. Just kidding about that last bit but really go fast zoom seems a bit dangerous.

Accelerationism is often associated with a kind of edgy ultra-capitalist aesthetic, but I would definitely recommend reading around the various ways the term is used. Check out the people associated with ccru in the 90s and their work has diverged since. (Sadie Plant, Mark Fisher, and Nick Land all developed very different perspectives.) One example of something more modern: http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/05/14/accelerate-manifesto-for-an-accelerationist-politics/ As for my personal opinion, I think its value is in highlighting that you can be critical of how our social system is developing, without falling into the Luddite hole. (That is, embracing technological progress actually opens up many more options for changing society than demonising it does.) That said, I'm not really convinced that it's so useful as an analytical framework. It's good for speculating on potential futures, which is super important. But has accelerationism helped me understand history, contemporary events, or my own social relations any better? Not yet, it hasn't.

>>10431 Thank you for such thoughtful response. >useful as an analytical framework Yea, as far as I have seen (few vids on youtube and basic descriptions on blogs of philosophy students) it doesn't have any of the tools with which you could explain things. I guess it is logical equivalent of probability theory in instable systems. Maybe not such analysis of past, but highly valuable as tool for giving estimations of future for those that want to change it.

Accelerationism is just blind faith in "the march of history". It doesn't get much more pseudoscientific than that.

>>10439 philosophy isnt science

>>10444 then maybe people should stop treating it like it is. Or worse: like a religion. There is literally no reason why things would just get better after getting worse for a long time.

>>10468 that first sentence was a powerful response in terms of being a solid comeback and more. Having faith and holding idealogy as a truth is to worship god. the times have changed but the desire or need for an ultimate truth has not. as the reality has shrunk or grown (as you take it) from the reality of world to the reality of society, the great unknown god answers (or is) has become things like political and societal idealogies. If you dont see what I see, id suggest not seeing faith as so literal/classical. Its a matter of personal preference but id suggest to him the alternative that if hes going to have faith (knowledge of the unkowable, whatever you want to call it)in anything , why dont you seek it in what proclaims itself as is.

>>10468 >>10468 >There is literally no reason why things would just get better after getting worse for a long time. You obviously don't understand what accelerationism proposes.

>>10500 enlighten me

>>10502 >spoonfeed me daddy uwuu What is it there for me?

>>10503 you get to rest easy knowing that I will never profane the name of accelerationism again. Downside, you have to drop the arrogant smartguy act

>>10503 Clearly Lain was being facetious? There's a common pattern on this board (and yes it's worse here than a lot of places) where a debater just says, *why obviously you know nothing about this* and believes they have suppressed the opposing view while adding nothing to the conversation themselves.

>>10505 >>10508 Accelerationism doesn't pertain to nothing about how system will work after getting destroyed, it just says how system is flawed and that it will get destroyed BY ITSELF sooner or later, sooner if you help contribute to its demise by fueling the fire with butterfly effect style small contribution that will make massive effects later on. Surely, "from chaos comes order" but accelerationism doesn't talk about what will happen after that system is destroyed. You are attributing to accelerationism what you want it to be, rather than seeing what it is.

>bad things are good, actually: the ideology memes aside, I think u/acc has some good points to be made, but as >>10428 said it's pretty surface level. Personally I like it from a more philophical / literary perspective rather than as a practical politics. Certainly acc is better than decc, but it still feels somehow oversimplistic or unnuanced. I think that u/acc has the most potential when synthesised with anarchy, but I need to do more reading on the subject before I come to any concrete conclusions.

>>10516 New poster here. That makes sense, but I guess I'd have the beg the implication: Is there any point in acting based on accelerationist beliefs if one does not believe that things will get better after the fall? Assuming that one is not a nihilist, why accelerate? I haven't read any of the literature, so maybe there simply is no 'why' in the philosophy. In that case, is accelerationism merely an observation?

>>10516 well that's just basic common sense, I don't see why the collapse would be a positive thing though.

>>10522 >common sense philosophy in a nutshell imo. and thats not dunning kruger effect speaking ive read plenty. however as im sure youve heard common sense isnt so common. in fact id say sense is pretty unique to the individual. someone out there needed it stated in words i assure you.

It's strange how acc became a thing of itself, unfortunately mostly not because of it's NRx Landian part. to be honest landian memes mostly suck and i don't like the aesthetic, but well He's reactionary after all so something good may come out of that if some people will get red piled. When I've read his Dark Enlightenment essays I felt like reading Moldbug, rewritten to be worse. >>10427 http://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/ Beside xenosystems, that's the only acc blog that i read with some regularit. Interesting insights and models to be found.

>>10468 It's not about it getting better or worse. It's about the lack of any viable alternatives, and our lack of ability to comprehend the fact that there are no viable alternatives besides 'more'. A good introduction - https://jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/ by land. Jacobite in general has some pretty good NRx and R/ACC takes.

>>10699 > It's about the lack of any viable alternatives I do not believe that this is the case. There are viable alternatives, we just aren't doing them. Cynicism is complacency, never forget that

Anyone read G/acc? I know n1x sometimes comes here. https://vastabrupt.com/2018/10/31/gender-acceleration/ What's you guys' opinions on it?

From what I've read it's pretty nasty. It's related to the cheapening of human experiences. In the need to experience more and more we experience more condensed versions of things, cheaper things, but, of course, more of them

>>10700 I think that's their whole point. We won't collectively agree to pursue those reasonable alternatives so it's better to throw all the fuel on the fire now and get it over with sooner. It's not that collapse is a good thing, just an inevitable one. When you rip a bandaid off, do it as quick as possible.

>>10732 tfw accelerationism promised me catgirls; at the very least. Now all we have are ugly self-important feeling trannies, cat"girls" in programmer socks, and an endless line of other freaks and failed science experiments.

>>10806 It's not supposed to be a fast forward to your escapist utopia but to the end of the world as we know it so we can hit reset. Try and pay attention.

>>10797 you make the assumption that other options are impossible so you go with the one option that requires no effort and makes all the other options harder. Can anybody say "self-fulfilling prophecy"? >>10858 "the end of the world as we know it" might mean that all the good stuff goes byebye too.

>>10859 > you make the assumption THEY made the assumptions, I'm just trying to break it down for the sake of discussion. Prove them wrong then. Briefly describe a climate change agreement that 100 squabbling nations will agree to before it's too late, taking into consideration that the biggest offenders on the planet already don't give a fck and won't stop for any reason. >>10859 Um... it absolutely does mean that but the accelerationists believe this is going to happen sooner or later anyway no matter what you have to say. I get the impression you didn't acquaint yourself with the idea before you formed an opinion.

Accelerationism seems to me to be deliberate Moloch[1]-worshipping. The accelerationists want to accelerate the race to the bottom. Whether because they believe we'll find something good on the other side or out of intelligence-fetishism[2] or out of simple nihilism[3]. I think this is seriously mistaken, as explained in [1]. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ [2] from [1] >Bostrom realizes that some people fetishize intelligence, that they are rooting for that blind alien god as some sort of higher form of life that ought to crush us for its own "higher good" the way we crush ants. [3] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vy9nnPdwTjSmt5qdb/could-anything-be-right

>>10865 >A lot of the commentators say Moloch represents capitalism. This is definitely a piece of it, even a big piece. But it doesn’t quite fit. Capitalism, whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen? Capitalism in whom I am a consciousness without a body? Capitalism, therefore granite cocks? >trying to push the idea of "muh societal oppression" boogeyman that gets all the blame for evil on planet I simply read through first few lines of it and already saw it as pretentious pseudo religious garbage, just like reading through your own comment.

>>10858 Please take yourself less seriously on the internet. You're wrong too, accelerationism does not describe the end it describes a process - the growth of incomprehensibility, capital and technology. "Pay attention", too late for that.

There seems to be lots of soykaf about philosophy, so I'd like to leave a few thoughts here. First off, everyone seems to be calling whatever gives them five seconds of thoughts or five minutes of reading "philosophy". This is correct in the sense that philosophy does include all human thought in all fields (see etymology - "filo-sofia lit. love-wisdom; natural philosophies), including all arts and sciences as long as they include thinking. Once a certain field had enough of a corpus, it gets a new name and definition to separate it from its roots - that is, unfiltered human thought. Eventually some idiots did the same to 'philosophy' itself, so it started to mean academic discussion following its own school of logic, but in informal languages with citations absolutely everywhere. Eventually people started to think philosophers are old school and cool, so we have thousands of bloggers thinking they are doing philosophy by writing novel-sized rants. I'm pretty sure some people already want to point out how "science isn't philosophy" and other stuff, who knows you probably even posted it before reaching here. The choice is entirely yours as its an aesthetic one: stop considering political rants and IQ-thin blogposts philosophy, or realize that science is also just part of it. Math and philosophy are technically the same, except the language they use, some of their tools, and how fat axioms grow. Math seems to be generally slower in exploring its ideas, but it often does so in groups (of axioms), while philosophers often flesh out just one idea. Both fields favor pure intelligence over "reason" (pragmatism), and would rather spend a million years exploring intriguing connections than finding a reason to do so. >To summarize the post< Philosophy either means all intelligent human thought, or just very pure intelligent thought (without goals) that prefers natural languages (philosophy is math in 'english', math is philosophy in a formal language and method). Some idiots call their political ramblings and 20 years of "life wisdom" philosophy, but they are to be ignored just as much as you'd ignore someone claiming that linear algebra is communist, or real analysis liberal. Either way, there's little connection to accelerationism.

There's nothing wrong with Accelerationism and the only people who have a problem with it do so either from cowardice or because they disagree fatalism/deterministic thought. True change only comes from a crisis, and accelerating one can be foolish or it can be necessary. The only people to have a problem with Accelerationism as a whole tend to be CivNats or Christians. CivNats because they are Constructivist and dependent on orderly society, and Christians because Accelerationism is inherently destructive, something that is very disruptive to the sense of order they desire. That and the whole image for Accelerationism as a whole being dominated by gritty futuristic imagery or Siege doesn't assuage them either. Since Accelerationists believe quite literally in causing the death of an era, its terrifying to the more religious and is seen by them as evil. That and churches/organized religion as whole would not only suffer but be faced with moral dilemmas causing compromise or discomfort. And Accelerationism subsists on destroying comfort.

>>10872 In what way am I taking myself seriously? Spending ten seconds to explain an ideology that isn't even my own? I detect some bruised feelings here.

>>10864 >Briefly describe a climate change agreement that 100 squabbling nations will agree to before it's too late, taking into consideration that the biggest offenders on the planet already don't give a fck and won't stop for any reason. They won't. I don't see that as necessarily a bad or good thing, relying on states to do anything has always been a mistake. But just because they won't, doesn't mean we won't. >it absolutely does mean that but the accelerationists believe this is going to happen sooner or later anyway no matter what you have to say. yes, and that is the point of contention I have with accelerationism. Please try to keep up/

>>10879 guess I should clarify: just because climate change is happening doesn't mean that all struggle is hopeless. The world absolutely *can* be changed for the better, if you don't believe that why not just kill yourself and get it over with?

>>10875 I made a joke about catgirls, you popped off, are your oestrogen pills making you moody? Accelerationism isn't an ideology just like how moores law isn't an ideology, it simply describes a quickening; it's too late to pay attention. That's the joke.

>>10880 > The world absolutely *can* be changed for the better I'm not OP, and I believe in accelerationism, but I also agree with you, however I think the solution we're going to see to climate change isn't going to be a natural solution or a solution that involves de-growth. It's going to be an engineered solution. Think blade runner 2049 but less nightmarish.

>>10885 I do also agree that you can't undo what's been done so de-growth isn't an option. However i'm not certain that we might be in such a different place far from now that we don't see a natural solution as de growth anymore. As in we are assuming progression to be linear but it's only linear because we've arranged what we have done so far on a line. Dumb example but at one point the world being round would seem like a de-growth to many I imagine, and it's only once we made the jump that we saw it as any kind of "progression". So I don't think it's fair to assume that some kind of non engineered or technological solution wouldn't eventually somehow seem to be the next step. I still think it would be in a very different way, as in it wouldn't simply be returning to how we were before because I think that's impossible, but potentially more not engineered than engineered? But again it's also just as likely in my opinion that what you are saying is true. I'm just saying other options are also equally likely perhaps and nothing can be counted out for sure.

>>10982 well, climate change isn't "the end of everything". There will be people, and a biosphere, the whole time. It will just be very different. It makes sense to expect that civilization will be different too. True environmental engineering is basically impossible for the near future. Engineering solutions will be limited, but probably enough to sustain a civilized society. De-growth may naturally happen just as a consequence of resource scarcity.

reminder that nothing human makes it out of the near-future

>>10874 >Christians because Accelerationism is inherently destructive, something that is very disruptive to the sense of order they desire. What a missed opportunity -- there could easily be a ☧/acc and arguably that was the original point. They sure as hell accelerated the Apocalypse of the Empire. >Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. >And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. >Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. >After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illumined with his glory. And he cried out with a mighty voice, saying, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place of demons and a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird. For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the passion of her immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed acts of immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich by the wealth of her sensuality." >Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? >But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. >While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. >And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation >And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

>>10468 >>10444 I remember being 14 too

>>10516 >Accelerationism doesn't pertain to nothing about how system will work after getting destroyed Nick Land's theories are explicitly NRX though.

>>10427 The problem with accelerationism is that it is defeatism masquerading as total belief in the idea that people will come to the same conclusions as you eventually. There's actually no reason to suppose that just because you're correct, people will eventually come to your side. You need to work to persuade, and to be the change you want to see.

>>12438 > there could easily be a ☧/acc and arguably that was the original point I think there really were Christian accelerationist cults who wanted to force prophecy to come true and bring the end of this world but I can't really give you a citation. For a fictional example, this appears in the series MillenniuM in multiple episodes.

>>10427 Is it a political tendency, an ethic, or a philosophy? Is it descriptive or prescriptive? Are there accelerationist organisations/parties or just accelerationist individuals?

>>13678 Accelerationism prescribes the current conditions of technocapital; I've heard it described before as a sort of theory of time.

>>13688 >current conditions of technocapital >theory of time My problem is that this kind of reply isn't very clear. I'm sorry but if accelerationists want to be taken seriously they have to tell us in simple terms what it's all about just like other "isms" have done in the past.

>>13678 There are two (or more) meanings to acceleration-ism, and this thread seems to be about the Nick Land sort. There are probably organizations dedicated to this in some way, but it kinda is the Nick Land Aesthetic ideology. He's the center of it all, largely post-2004 (he had been an unconventional leftist up to this point). He had a group called the CCRU, but that was before his reactionary turn. One of the other "Accelerationisms" is the idea that communists and anarchists should not try to help salve the wounds caused by capitalism if it means delaying the revolution. So maybe you think that Trump demonstrates the stupidity of liberal democracy, and so voting for Trump becomes the correct "leftist" thing to do, damn the short-term consequences. This Accelerationism has had a few niche parties associated with it over the years. The weirder sort of communists, maybe they want to hasten nuclear war to let communism grown in the ruins, maybe they want to talk to the aliens. And the term itself was coined by an SF writer, Zelazny.

Is Lain herself accelerationist praxis - becoming-god through techno-transcendence?

capitalism will in fact eat itself if allowed to accelerate, so in that sense I agree with. I have dream visions of this apocalypse, but its far from the end of the world. Do you remember the biblical story of the tower of babel? America will be the setting. every race has a unique contribution, the white contribution is a form of civilization, that many would know as the only definition of civilization because that is how much it has inflitrated the mind, and it involves capitalism. it has been fully realized and has already begun to eat itself, and we are in a zombie like state of seeming soullessness. We are now just puppets with, while we have individual autonomy, we have no group autonomy as what we have birthed has overpowered our souls. Black nationalism and other related movements will continue to rise. Those whos minds have not been colonized already will establish new civilizations in Africa, the Middle East, and South America. The trend of globalization will be splintered for a long time but the people of the world will reunite eventually. America will become hell almost, as capitalism eats itself so will we. We will become increasingly self destructive, and utterly destroy ourselves and capitalism and what we know as "white society" with it. Once this has been accomplished it will be a new dawn, a level playing field free from incomprehensibly large, complex, and horrific collective mental machines of oppression. Our self destruction will be our liberation, and the peoples who did not create capitalism but were nearly consumed and annhilated by it will be on the sidelines watching having long left in solidarity. For they wont be punished by a creation that is not theirs. Israel and parts of Europe will share a similar fate. The world will begin to reunify at this point. Because the undoing of this system was itself there was no war or new oppressed peoples. All will be equal and with a sense of identity not dependent on the gaze of an opprressor, allowing us to convene in peace. My body does not want this to happen because I am white and it will be horrifying, but my soul understands it is best and once it is over with and I am killed by my people or self destruct I will know peace.

>>13827 FASTER, WE MUST GO FASTER. ACCELERATION IS THE NEW NORM. PROGRESS WITHOUT END. CONSUME EVERYTHING. DEVOUR EVERYTHING. BECOME EVERYTHING.

>>13836 Earth First! (we'll strip mine the other planets later)

Accelerationism is just Eugenics and American death cult puritanism repacked for the silicon valley libertarian/doomsday prepper. It's ridiculous, nihilistic and anti-intellectual.

>>10874 >Christians would suffer and be faced with discomfort >And Accelerationism subsists on destroying comfort. No, no, no. Christianity distilled is essentially the logos, which is about voluntarily confronting chaos (discomfort, if you like) and transmuting it into order. It is the striving, willful, constructive side of the coin. Accelerationism is antithetical to this. It's in fact a misguided drive to what purports to be the ultimate comfort. The dissolution of all borders, the singularity, human instrumentality, call it what you like. But it's anti-logos because it doesn't DEAL with the chaos and disorder. It instead solves it with the comfort of annihilation. That's the ultimate ethos animating the globalists and anti-natalists and all the rest. Fundamentally, it's about being a fuarrrking pussy and failing to embody the great father archetype. The image of the Divine Father held up by Christianity as the Godhood is too bright for accelerationists and their kin to bear in all their shadowy comfort. You can't escape annihilation, but the right way to face it is individually, not as part of the fuarrrking collectivist tang. If you don't have the stones to face death alone, you fail the test and are denied resurrection.

>>13706 >My problem is that this kind of reply isn't very clear. (I am quoting my own post) Maybe the goal is precisely to not be clear. When you declare yourself an "accelerationist", "situationist", "xenofeminist", "gender nihilist" or any other obscure meme "-ism" you sound very cool and you get to insider trade with the other 10 people in your "-ism" on twitter or on blogs nobody reads.

>>10806 This honestly is the strongest & simplest take on g/acc. Especially the Twitter kabal ones.

The invisible hand of the market is fisting us at night

Accelerationism is the baffling belief that if we make the wolf at the gate larger, it will somehow hurt the wolf. Incredibly edgy and stupid. What are the institutions we hate going to do with this massive increase in power we willingly give them in one of the most bone-headed strategies ever devised? They're going to entrench that power, defend that power with new technology they develop, and hang on to that power forever. It's just going to become the new status quo. The neo-industrialists will go "why did you sacrifice your queen to my pawn? I'll take it though, fuarrrking idiot" and then we'll be stuck with far less power on our side and little chance left of ever beating this. It's not going to trigger revolution. Revolution is likely fundamentally different now than in history--people are tracked more easily, and structures of power are far more maneuverable, adaptive, diverse, and obscure. Information asymmetry has been widening in lock-step with the wealth gap. They have all the data on us, we have none on them. In any case, people don't really revolt until a significant portion of them are having food instability and are literally starving in the streets. This is a historical trend that has basically never been violated. It's a hard prerequisite for societal upheaval. Accelerationism will make our lives suck much worse, but in our current era we underestimate just how dogshit life can get before we hit a breaking point. It will get very clamped-down and horrible, but they'll keep us on just enough life support to stay productive and keep working for them. Nothing will change for the better. On the other hand, there's utterly zero historical precedent of anything like accelerationism working. But of course it was never meant to be a rational strategy. It's just frustration. It's wanting to watch the world burn. It's suicidal death drive. It's a rebrand of giving up. Oh, and if it's climate accelerationism we're talking about--even further beyond dumb. We accelerate that and we're all just going to die. Period. No revolution is possible against the laws of physics, even if we very rarely find little ways to kind of use them to our advantage. We'd just be racing even further past the point of no return. We'd be lighting a campfire inside a broken-down submarine with limited oxygen. And I guess there's a form of accelerationism where people are trying to create the singularity in hopes that it favors and rescues us all, which is basically a cult. That's just garden variety insanity.

>>15292 >if we make the wolf at the gate larger, it will somehow hurt the wolf. Only left accelerationists talk about hurting the wolf in this analogy. Right accelerationists want the wolf to get bigger because big wolves would be pretty cool lol, and would rather destroy the gate itself. This is not libertarianism before people start accusing this position of being the same as it. Libertarianism believes that by doing this, that life will be better for everyone, that it will be the road to a Utopia. RA knows there is no utopia, doesn't care whether it improves (or degrades) organic life, and just wants to see what happens for the thrill of it.

I feel the acceleration in my internet addiction to info and the torrent of all the sickening soykaf that's happening day by day. All the toxic comments surrounding such things yet I need to know, to analyse and disseminate. It's sickening but I cant turn away. I am compelled to spread the news of how bad things can be.

>>15297 >I wanna feed imaginary wolves because wolves look cool lmao Pure autism

>>15292 I dont agree with accelerationism, but your analogy fails because making the wolf at the gate larger is an effective strategy. A larger wolf needs more food to sustain itself and it will run it's life out and die quicker if there isn't enough.

>>15297 Yeah, and anyone with a mind correctly perceives this as utterly psychotic. This right accelerationism as you call it is so nakedly fascist that you almost have to hand it to them for being so straightforward. But it's incredibly immature, and as I said: pure death drive. Just totally suicidal, but they get some pleasure by causing others pain before they suffer and perish themselves. >>15301 Ok, it'll starve. After it devours you. Great job? Also it's not a perfect analogy, but the power structures we accelerate won't be outlasted by us. They will be the last thing standing and then maybe they'll collapse under their own weight at the end of the world. This is a very Pyrrhic victory. I feel like we should at least try to seek a better outcome for ourselves as a species.

>>15292 I believe you miss the point in assuming institutions is what accelerationism intends to accelerate. Rather it is the means of acceleration or production that is the target. Institutions break down at the sheer brute force of capital, heat, and time. It's these forces that destabilise and eventually destroys them. That observation isn't even completely celebratory neither, it is a process that informs. The breakdown of barriers "simply" happens. Accelerationists don't get into parliament, accelerationists don't vote, and they probably aren't even in control of any capital. Praxis be damned because this process is inhuman. But, setting that aside for now, even the NRx for all the gold crested bootlicking they do, have some conception of an entrenched and distributed human power known as "The Cathedral". Although it may be just a shorthand for the liberal consensus with some other connotations, the connection the concept makes to The Cathedral being a drain (or a negative feedback loop) on the process of acceleration is important. Mostly in that it shows the Accelerationist project (for lack of better words) isn't some veiled attempt at pulling wool over radicals' eyes.

>>15306 I'm sorry, but all this seems to me like just so much obscuring sophistry and jargon that tries to intellectualize and prop-up an idea that essentially still consists of increasing the resources that institutions and the owning class draw power from. Institutions don't break down with capital and time. They radically multiply their capital with interest and investment and become entrenched. They buy massive influence in other interlinked power structures. They certainly change shape, change name, shutter and merge, but the vein of power remains. Forking over an even larger share won't make them self-destruct. Of course everything breaks down with enough time alone, but accelerationism isn't going to affect that. In absence of any kind of historical precedent or real observations, accelerationists have apparently reasoned themselves into a belief that this will hurt their enemies and cause the world to break down and then renew. But it's all merely fictional reasoning, like an Ayn Rand novel. It makes sense in its own context but has no bearing on the way the real system works.