[NetBehaviour] My name is [Your Name Here] and I am an Accelerationist

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Sun Apr 24 20:48:18 CEST 2016



On April 21, 2016 10:27:26 AM PDT, ruth catlow <ruth.catlow at furtherfield.org> wrote:
>
>This is less about speed (as distinct from Futurism) than it is about 
>rates of change.
>
>The technologies that we use are bound up with with advanced
>capitalism. 
>We watch our political and social infrastructures unable to evolve fast
>
>enough to solve the wicked problems - for environment, democracy, 
>justice and a good life- than they create.
>
>I think we can take two attitudes
>
>1) Save ourselves! Take what we can carry, run for the hills and build 
>the best fortresses we can with people whose values we share.
>
>or
>
>2) coordinate and collaborate in the higher interests of all living 
>beings - constantly working out who and what these are- and using all 
>means at our disposal.
>
>I like the idea of living in the hills.
>But not under siege, and not in earshot of future generations of 
>bemused, brutalised, alienated people.
>
>The dominant model of global coexistence is that of endless economic 
>growth and Neoliberalism (the (increasingly automated) marketization of
>
>everything). This  tends to centralize power and resources and renders 
>less effective the usual ways of blocking and resisting; of work-based 
>and traditional-identity based solidarity.
>
>Instead Contemporary Accelerationism suggests (I think) that we use in 
>new combinations all the tools, tactics, and knowledges in an attempt
>to 
>perform a series of judo moves (using the force rather than resisting 
>the force), or to sling-shot our way through the mess we are in.

Yes definitely 2. :-).  This is wonderful description of the spirit of contemporary left accelerationism.

>As always, there needs to be a way to accommodate the visions and
>madcap 
>schemes of all sorts- many islands rather than one land mass as Paul 
>said. That's why this discussion here and now.

Yes absolutely. My first thought on reading some of the MAP was "this has the potential to be a bit totalitarian....". Srnicek & Williams very thoroughly address how to ensure an open society in their follow-up. Reflecting what you wrote above, they do this in part by reference to neoliberalism, ironising its negative examples of international movement and regional mutaton into positive proposals.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list