[Paradigm]

What do you guys think about accelerationism? The idea is to accelerate the collapse of capitalism by enhancing its contradictions. The term is often pejoratively used to describe strategies that seek a deepening of capitalism in order to accelerate its demise, but many accelerationist philosophies are more subtle than that. I think of it in terms of Aikido, where the idea is to take the opponent's force and use it against them. In particular, one can look at the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and strategize about ways to prevent capitalists from counteracting that tendency, thus accelerating the fall in the rate of profit. Trying to confront capitalism head-on with brute force is a tall order, considering all the military might in capitalism's favor. Instead, the idea is to sabotage the vehicle the capitalist is driving, so that when they try to steer or put on the brakes, they instead find themselves careening off the road.

[mikema63]

So the tea party then?

[lucky]

In particular, one can look at the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and strategize about ways to prevent capitalists from counteracting that tendency, thus accelerating the fall in the rate of profit.

If you're talking about economic profit, there is nothing lethal to capitalism about it falling to zero. In fact, zero economic profit is called "normal profit" and is often used in economic models as an assumption, for simplification. It's what competitive markets generally already have.

If you're talking about profit in accounting (i.e. earnings / interest / rent), there doesn't seem to be any long term tendency of that to fall. In particular, interest rates reflect time preference, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for people to stop preferring money now to money in the future, which would be required for long term interest rates to fall to zero.

[quetzalcoatl]

It's going to be significantly more difficult to collapse capitalism than most of us are willing to admit. By "significantly more difficult" what I really mean is effectively impossible. As long as we continue to have a money/credit economy and a system that pays wages for work, we will necessarily default to some form of capitalism. These mechanisms are the underlying substrate out of which capitalism arises. It may be a more or less efficient form of capitalism, it may have more or fewer worker protections, it may have a stronger or weaker social safety net. But it will still be capitalism, and will still be subject to its logical necessities.

The Soviet Union and China, although nominally Communist, were in actuality adaptive offshoots of capitalism. One of capitalism's salient features is its viral mutability. Under pressure it will throw off mutations. The Soviet mutation was not sufficiently adaptable to external challenges and its strain died out. The Chinese strain is the currently the most successful viral mutant form of capitalism. The Chinese leadership has embraced constant experimentation + discarding failed policies, and has avoided straight-jacketing itself too tightly to theory. This is far from a perfect process, but it is shockingly more successful than the ossified legacy capitalism of the West.

The chief threat to capitalism in the West is its ideological adherents. Capitalism is a complex adaptive system, and such a system can only survive through experimentation and reinvention. The neo-liberal paradigm is now so thoroughly entrenched at all levels of our society, that we have lost the ability to make effective adaptations.

I fail to see how we could accelerate the process of collapse in the West more effectively than our elites are already doing. The question is what will happen in the chaotic aftermath of a real collapse. Who is best positioned to take advantage of chaos? Clearly the forces of reaction are best positioned, with strategic plants throughout the military, police, judiciary, legislature, and the academy, as well as effective control of mass communication.

The probable use these forces will be put to might be characterized as "decelerationism." Low/no economic growth. Control of destructive competition. Mercantilist parceling of markets. Slowing the rate of innovation. Eliminating class mobility. The phrase "neo-fuedalism" has been used to describe the result of such a process. The objective is a society with long-term stability, and a clearly defined social and economic structure free of constant upheaval.

So far as I can see there doesn't seem to be a viable path to any progressive alternative in the American/European axis. Asia is where vibrant change can still occur.

[The Immortal Goon]

If there's a specific form of acceleration, then I would be open to it.

But historically, it doesn't work because a reformer will come and take the wind out of all the sails of people attempting to overthrow the system as a whole. The prime example being FDR. Capitalism was essnetially on its knees, and he came along and, with complete support, structured things in a way to save the system.

A much less severe version of that happened with Obama, where the popular will was let loose into established parliamentary means more than anything.

[Dagoth Ur]

There is also the credibility issue. I hardly think we will win the hearts of the working class by being the worst capitalistists possible. Nobody is going to forget which side we were on either.

[ComradeTim]

So basically reverse entryism, a tactic legendarily difficult to pull off, except made even more difficult by the fact that the "organisation" your trying to infiltrate is on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum to you. Add to that, that you're not just trying to pull it in a different ideological direction but are actively sabotaging their fundamental activities. It sounds like it has a lot of moving parts and lots of opportunities for your activists to decide to play for the other team except for real.

[Cromwell]

It's anti-Marxian, is it not? According to Marx, the Communist Party is the Party of the Working Class itself, rather than the Party of the Ideology of Marxism, or so I think I'm correct in believing. So, for example, the Marxists supported the Chartists , who were purely reformist in character, because they were attempting to advance the rights of the working class

Either way, I don't see how it could work as a legitimate political strategy. Even after the collapse of capitalism, why would the general public then place their faith, not to mention the reigns of government, in the hands of people who never seemed to give a damn or, in truth, actually wanted to see social and economic collapse?

It sounds like a recipe for fascism. Reactionaries could establish a stab-in-the-back myth and, even more powerful, it would be totally grounded in reality.

Eh, I may be misrepresenting things here (the perils of posting so late and night and having got so little sleep the night before). I apologise if that's the case. I'd like to hear the OP's opinion.

[Piccolo]

It's anti-Marxian, is it not? According to Marx, the Communist Party is the Party of the Working Class itself, rather than the Party of the Ideology of Marxism, or so I think I'm correct in believing. So, for example, the Marxists supported the Chartists , who were purely reformist in character, because they were attempting to advance the rights of the working class

Either way, I don't see how it could work as a legitimate political strategy. Even after the collapse of capitalism, why would the general public then place their faith, not to mention the reigns of government, in the hands of people who never seemed to give a damn or, in truth, actually wanted to see social and economic collapse?

It sounds like a recipe for fascism. Reactionaries could establish a stab-in-the-back myth and, even more powerful, it would be totally grounded in reality.


Eh, I may be misrepresenting things here (the perils of posting so late and night and having got so little sleep the night before). I apologise if that's the case. I'd like to hear the OP's opinion.

This is a good point. I question the assumption that a major capitalist collapse would lead to socialist revolution. It is just as possible and perhaps, as things are now, actually probable, that a major collapse would usher in an even more reactionary system.

The Arab Spring is a good example of reactionaries benefitting from systemic collapse because of the weakness of left-wing alternatives on the ground. The Left has to rebuild itself so that it has the organizational capacity to take advantage of any revolutionary opportunities that may arise.

[The Awakener]

Well, I'm generally more of a 'we must create the social structure of the post revolutionary society today' kinda guy, but even disregarding that, Accelerationism seems unrealistic. Its like people who blame the working class for the rule of the right-wing, and wait for them to 'pay for their stupidity', or people who believe you can't truely crush a revolution. Well, you can, it just takes more bullets sometimes.

The bourgeoisie is, or is at least supported by, a sect of genius, well-trained manipulators that, given more power, will just find a way to fuck us harder.

[Mikolaj]

So accelerationism is basically like when some socialists and/or communists say something along the lines of 'things have to get worse and then people will be forced to rebel.' Possibly. That does seem to be happening in Greece these days.

However,

It's not 'inevitable' that the left will win. The public can just as easily look for alternative solutions in the right.

[quetzalcoatl]

So accelerationism is basically like when some socialists and/or communists say something along the lines of 'things have to get worse and then people will be forced to rebel.' Possibly. That does seem to be happening in Greece these days.

However,

It's not 'inevitable' that the left will win. The public can just as easily look for alternative solutions in the right.

Yes that's possible. The most likely outcome is what we have now with more police and soldiers.

[KlassWar]

It's not 'inevitable' that the left will win. The public can just as easily look for alternative solutions in the right.

It is inevitable that the left will win... eventually- The right only has false solutions that make all problems worse and guarantee tensions will flare up again in a few weeks/months/years. Only a classless society can solve the problems for real.

[quetzalcoatl]

It is inevitable that the left will win... eventually- The right only has false solutions that make all problems worse and guarantee tensions will flare up again in a few weeks/months/years. Only a classless society can solve the problems for real.

Eventually we are all dead. Capitalism has survived by constantly adapting in whatever minimal way will delay any reckoning. This has worked for over a century now. So even if it is true that "Only a classless society can solve the problems for real", it begs the question of whether solving problems for real plays any major role in political evolution.

[Varax]

It's a really bad idea that makes a number of assumptions that could backfire horribly. You would be pushing for a form of liberal-capitalism that takes an even greater dump on the working class - there's no guarantee that it would lead to any of the things commies project or want to happen after that. The only guarantee is that you just made things worse for the people you claim you're fighting in the interests of - assuming you have an effect at all. Except in this case you're blatantly not fighting in their interests, in fact you're intentionally trying to make things worse for them in the short-term even if in the long-term you claim you want to improve things. And despite the amount of crap many commies give the present working class about "false consciousness" and other things, people really aren't that stupid. If you are intentionally on the side of making things worse people are going to see that and they're not going to be inclined to like you either. Commies need to stop putting so much stock in their own ideology and predictions that they honestly think a gambit like that is going to lead to the kind of things they want. What Dagoth said is true, you're not going to win over people by doing that.

Communists really seem to have a problem where they come up with plans like this where they come up with over-ambitious plans with a lot of moving pieces based on their underlying ideology which have a tendency of not coming true. You still never solved that whole "opportunism" problem, nor worked out the whole socialist transition phase and making the actual communist part happen. You've had your system collapse on you numerous times, encountered problems with factional disputes including major splits between ostensibly communist-led countries (e.g. Sino-Soviet split, Albania, etc.) and constantly run into problems that got overlooked because communists have a tendency to be reductionist in their analysis on certain things. And then you have plans like "accelerationism" or whatever where you expect "accelerating the contradictions in capitalism" is going to hasten the breaking point to where you can finally destroy it and that you're going to be in a position to bring about the kind of system you want. So what happens when that last part doesn't happen instead someone else comes along amidst the chaos and probably crushes the commies for their role in creating the crisis? That seems at least as likely to happen.

Actually, considering that last part you should totally try accelerationism. It sounds like a great plan for someone, just maybe not you.

[Rich]

Accelerationism has worked in the past. First Hitler then us, said the Berlin Communists. Their prediction proved to be a lot wiser than people gave them credit for.

In away this is just a particular expression of Lenin's "the worse the better." The worse the better attitude is not confined to the left. It was that principle that caused the Okrana to secretly support Lenin and Stalin. In that case it didn't work out so well for them.

[Paradigm]

Looking back on my Georgist days, I realize that it's essentially an accelerationist idea: by taking away the tool of land rents from the capitalist, they cannot so easily fortify themselves against the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Marx himself supported free trade on similar grounds. This does not mean dismantling the social safety net and screwing the poor. It means careful precision in finding capital's weak spots and using them against it.

[KlassWar]

What Paradigm is now proposing is basically on the line of a Trotskyite trasitional programme for a 'workers' government' (working class party getting elected in a bourgeois state, which sometimes happens). The idea boiled down to having an ostensibly social-democratic minimum programme that would be totally unsustainable for capitalism when implemented. Presumably this would make capitalism unravel while shoring up support for the leftist government, which would presumably lead to the workers having an advantageous position when the shit hit the fan and the inevitable revolutionary civil war followed.

Gotta admit Trotsky was a clever bloke.

[Truth To Power]

What do you guys think about accelerationism?

Ever read "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"?

The idea is to accelerate the collapse of capitalism by enhancing its contradictions.

Marx didn't understand capitalism or logic, so he didn't understand that capitalism's weaknesses are not "contradictions." It's not a matter of contradictions but of social and economic failure.

The term is often pejoratively used to describe strategies that seek a deepening of capitalism in order to accelerate its demise, but many accelerationist philosophies are more subtle than that. I think of it in terms of Aikido, where the idea is to take the opponent's force and use it against them. In particular, one can look at the tendency of the rate of profit to fall,

"The tendency of the profit rate to fall" is just Marxist foolishness. The rate of profit on capital goods investment tends to zero, not to fall, because of competition; but the capitalist system simply ignores that, and increases the returns to monopoly privilege, which neither fall nor tend to zero: land titles, banksters' debt money issuance, corporate limited liability, patents and copyrights, government contracts, etc. But especially land titles, which, as we have seen, simply become more and more valuable as capital accumulation advances. Marx incorrectly -- and, let's face it, rather naively -- assumed that capitalism and capitalists rely on returns to capital goods: factories, etc. They don't. They have privileges, whose rate of return is not subject to competition, and therefore does not tend to fall.

and strategize about ways to prevent capitalists from counteracting that tendency, thus accelerating the fall in the rate of profit.

Irrelevant, as explained above.

Trying to confront capitalism head-on with brute force is a tall order, considering all the military might in capitalism's favor. Instead, the idea is to sabotage the vehicle the capitalist is driving, so that when they try to steer or put on the brakes, they instead find themselves careening off the road.

First you would have to get the anti-capitalists to abandon Marx's incorrect view that private ownership of capital goods is the problem.

Looking back on my Georgist days, I realize that it's essentially an accelerationist idea: by taking away the tool of land rents from the capitalist, they cannot so easily fortify themselves against the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

No, recovering publicly created land rents for public purposes and benefit (and restoring the individual right to use land, the crucial part George missed) abolishes capitalism at a stroke, with no need for any apocalyptic collapse. Marx just wasn't smart enough to understand how: he even absurdly called the Georgist Single Tax "capitalism's last ditch." Yeah, maybe, but in the opposite sense: if capitalism can't stop land value taxation, it will have lost its last ditch.

This does not mean dismantling the social safety net and screwing the poor. It means careful precision in finding capital's weak spots and using them against it.

First you would have to understand that capitalism and capitalist exploitation are all about private property in land, not in capital goods. That means finding a willingness to know that Marx was wrong, and George was right.

[annatar1914]

Accelerationism has worked in the past. First Hitler then us, said the Berlin Communists. Their prediction proved to be a lot wiser than people gave them credit for.

In away this is just a particular expression of Lenin's "the worse the better." The worse the better attitude is not confined to the left. It was that principle that caused the Okrana to secretly support Lenin and Stalin. In that case it didn't work out so well for them.

Maybe it worked just great for the Okhrana? Some say that the signing of Brest-Litovsk ending WWI for Russia was a betrayal of the Revolution, perhaps it was something else altogether.