3 ms·

That is very true. I know and follow many Communists and Socialist, and none of them support Accelerationism in any form.

by valgor 7y ago

CrackerNews 7y ago
There is left-accelerationism.
- valgor 7y ago
  Thanks for the downvote and a thorough list of examples proving me wrong.
  - CrackerNews 7y ago
    I didn't downvote, but I will present a blog on the topic. (Like the rest of accelerationism, it's all on blogs) https://therealmovement.wordpress.com https://therealmovement.wordpress.com
eranima 7y ago
That's what's called a confirmation bias.
gnulinux 7y ago
I'm a Marxist and I support accelerationism. From a Marxist framework it makes more sense than activism or other sort of "modern" ways of protesting capitalism. I understand that capitalism is a necessary step for human development and there are no short cuts. Modern Marxism (mostly Marxism-Leninism) is sheer insanity especially those flavors with Third-worldism [1]. If you actually read Marx and later Marxists/sociologists and understood the basic, it's pretty easy to see that you cannot go to an underdeveloped society and bring "socialism". Socialism will naturally occur in an advanced capitalistic society, such as US, not in a third world country like Vietnam. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-Worldism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-Worldism
- Miner49er 7y ago
  What do you think of Climate Change and things like UBI? Acceleration makes sense on the surface, but it seems like Capitalism always adapts, with the current adaption being UBI. You have capitalists like Musk and Yang really pushing it, because it's a way to overcome the problem of automation and keep capitalism going. As Zizek put it, capitalism is "an undead vampire … it returns stronger and stronger." As for Climate Change, I suppose if we accelerate towards that we may come out on the other side without Capitalism, but there's no way to know, and it seems much of the damage done to the Earth will be irreversible. Seems like at this point accelerationism is a failed idea to me. Edit: just to add, I do think accelerationism maybe can work in electoral politics. Say for example the general's come to Biden vs Trump. In that case, an accelerationist approach is to vote for Trump, and I see an argument for that as a Hail Mary. Biden would keep the status quo and that's not enough to deal with climate change in time, Trump is more likely to break things and mess with the status quo and there would likely be more push back from the people against him then against Biden. But maybe Biden would be more responsive to any movement by the people? Idk, that's an example of where it could still be applied, but still seems questionable.
- beat 7y ago
  Does it really not work? It seems to have done okay in various contexts - Maoism in China and Ba'athism in the Arab world stand out to me. Maoism evolved and became very successful. Ba'athism mostly fell apart with the Arab Spring revolutions (the Syrian civil war is the last stand), but it lasted a long time and brought a lot of improvements to some really weak countries. Heck, consider Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh's revolution survived years of the most powerful nation on Earth dropping more firepower on the tiny nation than was dropped in all of WWII. They won, America left, and Vietnam is a modern communist state. Then again, I don't completely believe this... I'm kind of under the spell of Tolstoy right now, and tend to think that history just sort of happens, and we attribute the ebb and flow of it to the success or failure of individual leaders and their decisions, ignoring the broader forces. A lot of what led to success in these countries was going to happen regardless. preemptive edit: Yes, I know these were murderous dictatorships. No need to mansplain how wrong I am, guys.
  - 7y ago

That is very true. I know and follow many Communists and Socialist, and none of them support Accelerationism in any form.

by valgor 7y ago

That is very true. I know and follow many Communists and Socialist, and none of them support Accelerationism in any form.

CrackerNews 7y ago

There is left-accelerationism.

valgor 7y ago
Thanks for the downvote and a thorough list of examples proving me wrong.
- CrackerNews 7y ago
  I didn't downvote, but I will present a blog on the topic. (Like the rest of accelerationism, it's all on blogs) https://therealmovement.wordpress.com https://therealmovement.wordpress.com

eranima 7y ago

That's what's called a confirmation bias.

gnulinux 7y ago

I'm a Marxist and I support accelerationism. From a Marxist framework it makes more sense than activism or other sort of "modern" ways of protesting capitalism. I understand that capitalism is a necessary step for human development and there are no short cuts. Modern Marxism (mostly Marxism-Leninism) is sheer insanity especially those flavors with Third-worldism [1]. If you actually read Marx and later Marxists/sociologists and understood the basic, it's pretty easy to see that you cannot go to an underdeveloped society and bring "socialism". Socialism will naturally occur in an advanced capitalistic society, such as US, not in a third world country like Vietnam. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-Worldism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-Worldism

Miner49er 7y ago
What do you think of Climate Change and things like UBI? Acceleration makes sense on the surface, but it seems like Capitalism always adapts, with the current adaption being UBI. You have capitalists like Musk and Yang really pushing it, because it's a way to overcome the problem of automation and keep capitalism going. As Zizek put it, capitalism is "an undead vampire … it returns stronger and stronger." As for Climate Change, I suppose if we accelerate towards that we may come out on the other side without Capitalism, but there's no way to know, and it seems much of the damage done to the Earth will be irreversible. Seems like at this point accelerationism is a failed idea to me. Edit: just to add, I do think accelerationism maybe can work in electoral politics. Say for example the general's come to Biden vs Trump. In that case, an accelerationist approach is to vote for Trump, and I see an argument for that as a Hail Mary. Biden would keep the status quo and that's not enough to deal with climate change in time, Trump is more likely to break things and mess with the status quo and there would likely be more push back from the people against him then against Biden. But maybe Biden would be more responsive to any movement by the people? Idk, that's an example of where it could still be applied, but still seems questionable.
beat 7y ago
Does it really not work? It seems to have done okay in various contexts - Maoism in China and Ba'athism in the Arab world stand out to me. Maoism evolved and became very successful. Ba'athism mostly fell apart with the Arab Spring revolutions (the Syrian civil war is the last stand), but it lasted a long time and brought a lot of improvements to some really weak countries. Heck, consider Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh's revolution survived years of the most powerful nation on Earth dropping more firepower on the tiny nation than was dropped in all of WWII. They won, America left, and Vietnam is a modern communist state. Then again, I don't completely believe this... I'm kind of under the spell of Tolstoy right now, and tend to think that history just sort of happens, and we attribute the ebb and flow of it to the success or failure of individual leaders and their decisions, ignoring the broader forces. A lot of what led to success in these countries was going to happen regardless. preemptive edit: Yes, I know these were murderous dictatorships. No need to mansplain how wrong I am, guys.
- 7y ago