[Hong Wu]

Although the term "accelerationism" has left and right variants, the basic argument seems to be that since capitalism has self-destructive tendencies (e.g., "late stage capitalism") the best way to fight capitalism is actually to encourage it to become as extreme as possible, thereby bringing about its own collapse. If the argument that capitalism destroys itself is correct, shouldn't all communists be accelerationists in at least some form?

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

[RhetoricThug]

Forum images, what's your take on an idea?

Although the term "accelerationism" has left and right variants, the basic argument seems to be that since capitalism has self-destructive tendencies (e.g., "late stage capitalism") the best way to fight capitalism is actually to encourage it to become as extreme as possible, thereby bringing about its own collapse. If the argument that capitalism destroys itself is correct, shouldn't all communists be accelerationists in at least some form?

The rate of change of the velocity of an object in the noosphere directly affects the structure of society. McLuhan departs from the media theory of Harold Innis in suggesting that a medium "overheats", or reverses into an opposing form, when taken to its extreme. The medium we call capitalism is an organizational concept that resides in the mind and bleeds through reality. All media produce field effects, which ripple throughout our milieu.



I know you're a linear or sequential thinker because you've been culturally trained to think in such a way (after-all, it's a quantitative and qualitative function of the communication process or language as it's encoded and decoded), hence why you focus on "stages" rather than the vortex or matrices of change. This way of modeling the rate of change of any concept is completely outdated. The evolutionary extensions of a medium or in this case capitalism, are present in its inception. Alfred Wallace said: Modification of form is admitted to be a matter of time. Socialism, Communism, etc; are extensions of capitalism. Ideas and physical tools are the same thing, but one has been given a material form in reality. And just like ideas, physical tools contain evolutionary extensions. The telegraph and the smartphone are contained in the same conceptual framework. It wasn't a groundbreaking notion to suggest that capitalism leads to socialism or communism. Marx understood Aristotelian thought (Four Causes) and Hegel, and he applied dialectics to the interplay of a material and efficient cause.

The vector and mechanism of acceleration is technology.

Changes in the environment (ground) automatically reshape or influence the people (figures). This is a field effect.

The laws of the tetrad exist simultaneously, not successively or chronologically, and allow the questioner to explore the "grammar and syntax" of the "language" of media.

1. What does the medium enhance?
2. What does the medium make obsolete?
3. What does the medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier?
4. What does the medium reverse or flip into when pushed to extremes?

Enhancement (figure): What the medium amplifies or intensifies. For example, radio amplifies news and music via sound.

Obsolescence (ground): What the medium drives out of prominence. Radio reduces the prominence of print and the visual.

Retrieval (figure): What the medium recovers which was previously lost. Radio returns the spoken word to the forefront.

Reversal (ground): What the medium does when pushed to its limits. Acoustic radio flips into audio-visual TV.



Lastly, accelerationism is a technological system of unfolding effects. Social change will always revolve around technological adaptation. Nonetheless, an organism's ability to adapt to a new technological environment (or conceptual system of organization) is not the exclusive trait of Darwinian natural selection. Darwin failed to recognize the environment as a programmable network of psycho-social biochemical communication and therefore failed to anticipate humanity's ability to intelligently structure its evolution. Marx and Engels failed to anticipate (minus the updates which come from Marxist successors) the other and perhaps final extension of capitalism, which is Technocracy. Technocracy obsolesces communism, because Technocracy obsolesces humanity.

In other-words, your thread is obsolete. Look around you, the technocracy is here. The perpetual acceleration scheme or Technocratic control system is in place and all you gotta do is participate. This thread is therapy for a simple life sentence. A safe pace, or place, where you can rehash the past and ignore the present. History ended with the implementation of the internet (provocative suggestion, but yesterday is here). The Noogenesis begins with 0 and ends with 1.

Enjoy the ride,

-RT

[B0ycey]

I think many people underestimate the versatility of the financial institution and the current capitalist model. How exactly do you think you can ever accelerate its destruction? Currencies value is worth as much as someone else is willing to exchange for it. Bubbles burst but all that happens is values get realigned to a truer (lesser) value and the process resets and starts again. The next financial crisis or the forecoming ones after that will not end Capitalism ever. It is an never ending circle. The only way it can destruct is if people decide to abandon it for another economic model. In other words revolution.

[RhetoricThug]

I think many people underestimate the versatility of the financial institution and the current capitalist model. How exactly do you think you can ever accelerate its destruction? Currencies value is worth as much as someone else is willing to exchange for it. Bubbles burst but all that happens is values get realigned to a truer (lesser) value and the process resets and starts again. The next financial crisis or the forecoming ones after that will not end Capitalism ever. It is an never ending circle. The only way it can destruct is if people decide to abandon it for another economic model. In other words revolution.

A quiet (r)evolution is happening. In the last decade smartphones rewired society. That's what technology does. Commerce is a technology. We're increasingly living life through a digital overlap interface. Accelerationism will continue to absorb human civilization unless there's an energy crisis (which is ultimately a crisis of ignorance). The Technocracy is engineering an artificial nervous system around planet Earth. You're an energy channel in the physical system, and your perception of the physical system is an interference pattern.

As long as the Earth (Milky Way/Universe) can support our interference patterns, we'll carry out our (r)evolution.

[B0ycey]

A quiet (r)evolution is happening. In the last decade smartphones rewired society. That's what technology does. Commerce is a technology. We're increasingly living life through a digital overlap interface. Accelerationism will continue to absorb human civilization unless there's an energy crisis. The Technocracy is engineering an artificial nervous system around planet Earth. You're an energy channel in the physical system, and your perception of the physical system is an interference pattern.

RT, you need to research David Icke. He is on your wavelength on certain things.

Although technocracy is more of an age rather than a revolution or an economic model. But over dependence of it could be dangerous as a simple solar flare can end it all in an instant. That and Technocracy seems to me that it could only exist in specific segregated areas on Earth that have wealth as poorer regions are getting left behind already today (and I don't see this changing). For this reason I don't see technocracy being the solution only a luxury.

[RhetoricThug]

RT, you need to research David Icke. He is on your wavelength on certain things

Did that years ago (I've been exposed to a wide-range of topics/lecturers), B0ycey. I'm not a fan of his "there's an alien conspiracy" conclusion, but I've read a couple of his massive and poorly written books (the guy needs an editor). Also, by mentioning David Icke, you give the reader a glimpse into your cognitive association process. Apparently you have no other reference point? If you study electromagnetism, biological evolution, the technological devices we use, or how biochemical systems work, you'd understand that this "wavelength" is an objective observation based upon a common-sense.

BTW, if you're trying to compare me to David Icke because many people think he's a loony conspiracy junkie... Please stop, thanks.

The Technocracy is here. It's not coming. You're surrounded by service environments that shape commerce and communication (behavior), and such environments are designed by scientific engineers. You're most likely using a device that is beyond your comprehension (when I say beyond your comprehension, I'm saying you're unable to replicate the technology, let alone fully understand its components), and that's a facet of Technocracy. Society has always been compartmentalized (involved specialism), because that's the nature of a functional civilization. But Technocracy is about the automation (or cybernetic control) of human behavior, engineered by a scientific priest class.

See, I can access knowledge through a book. I understand how a book works. I can write a book. Now, because of technological acceleration, if I refuse to participate in the computerized evolution of knowledge, it directly impacts social integration. BTW, Technocracy doesn't stop with the brain. It wants to control genetic evolution (aka, population management).

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." In the Technocracy, the common man is hoodwinked (masonic term) and doesn't understand the veil or the machine behind the veil.

I mean look at modern politics and its Kabuki theatre. Meanwhile, technology is rapidly obsolescing many aspects of regular (day to day) life. And if it isn't obsolescing, it's augmenting, invading, and controlling many aspects of life. It's accelerating, that's for sure... and it uses personal convenience and safety as an excuse.

Look at electric cars. We had electric trolley systems in 1888. Now, we're acting as if it's a revolution... No. See, we had to wait for tracking and monitoring systems to develop. Now we can have electric cars. It's plugged in, that's for sure.

[B0ycey]

If Technocracy is here, and the Capitalist model is here, then the acceleration of Technology will not be the destruction of Capitalism. They are not linked. Technocracy is an age. Whether I understand this age or how it operates is irrelevant.

Nonetheless if you want to discuss this "wavelength" or how technology is hoodwinking humanity, you need to start a new thread. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the acceleration @Hong Wu was talking about.

[RhetoricThug]

If Technocracy is here, and the Capitalist model is here, then the acceleration of Technology will not be the destruction of Capitalism. They are not linked.

Read my first post. Thanks.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the acceleration @Hong Wu was talking about.

If that's the case, Hong Wu clearly doesn't understand accelerationism.

In political and social theory, accelerationism is the idea that either the prevailing system of capitalism, or certain technosocial processes that have historically characterised it, should be expanded, repurposed or accelerated in order to generate radical social change.

Furthermore, I never said technology is hoodwinking humanity. Technology is neutral (which is true to a point, some tech can be designed to do certain things and carries a design bias). But Technocracy (as one political socioeconomic model) can use technology to hoodwink humanity.

[B0ycey]

If that's the case, Hong Wu clearly doesn't understand accelerationism.

It wasn't that he didn't understand acceleration. He was only implying if Marxist want the end of Capitalism they should embrace it. You are discussing a possible outcome of acceleration through the advancement of technological superiority and how it would influence our lives. And that wouldn't be the Marxist view as they would only use technology to enhance humanity.

[RhetoricThug]

It wasn't that he didn't understand acceleration. He was only implying if Marxist want the end of Capitalism they should embrace it. You are discussing a possible outcome of acceleration through the advancement of technological superiority and how it would influence our lives.

This topic is in the Economics & Capitalism area. This topic isn't in the Communism sub-forum. I'm not a communist so what do you expect? My perspective on accelerationism and its implications is relevant.

I'm not sure why I have to explain this...

And that wouldn't be the Marxist view as they would only use technology to enhance humanity.

I wouldn't trust it, look at China. Marxists obsess over efficient cause and ignore the rest of reality.

Here's a link to a thread I participated in- Causality and Marxism viewtopic.php?f=23&t=171871

[B0ycey]

You have explained your view well RT. The only problem is if a user comes along and reads the OP and then reads your posts, they are going to scratch their heads and not understand what you are talking about in terms to the OP. The OP is after all asking for the views of forum Communists on acceleration - an acceleration in regards to their beliefs I suspect.

[annatar1914]

You have explained your view well RT. The only problem is if a user comes along and reads the OP and then reads your posts, they are going to scratch their heads and not understand what you are talking about in terms to the OP. The OP is after all asking for the views of forum Communists on acceleration - an acceleration in regards to their beliefs I suspect.

Maybe for me it would be a case of doing evil that good could come from it, and I can't subscribe to accelerationism if that's what it would entail. Misery from private greed is bad enough, and Capitalism will fall. If I was an Accelerationist, I would then logically be an Anarcho-Capitalist or a Fascist in practical fact if not ideological theory...

As for Revolution, it's possible that one would be in the same conundrum as with Accelerationism, doing evil that good may come from it, but i'm even less sure about that than with Accelerationism. With Revolution though, one might say that people would get the genuine benefit of Socialism right off, and the evils associated would come from those resistant to the new political and socio-economic realities, that they were bringing it on themselves. When Socialism comes, a Capitalist could become a manager of some sort, become a worker, make less money but be better for it personally, whereas Accelerationism is calling for them to be worse and worse over time, until the whole thing collapses.

[RhetoricThug]

Maybe for me it would be a case of doing evil that good could come from it, and I can't subscribe to accelerationism if that's what it would entail. Misery from private greed is bad enough, and Capitalism will fall. If I was an Accelerationist, I would then logically be an Anarcho-Capitalist or a Fascist in practical fact if not ideological theory...

Accelerationism is a consequence (intended or unintended) of technology. Simple example, on a literal and figurative level- if you drive a vehicle, you're an accelerationist. The use of a vehicle changes society. Capitalists like acceleration because it speeds up the exchange of goods and services. A capitalist will invest in the principles of capitalism and that is why they capitalize on accelerationism. Mark Zuckerberg is a capitalist, but his technology has fostered socialist activities. So one could say Zuckerberg is a socialist. It doesn't really matter what kind of political affiliation is attached to a technology. Politics follow power/potential. Technology is the vector and mechanism for rapid changes in society. This ultimately leads us to the organizational concept called Technocracy. The Technocracy will contain Capitalism, because the content of any new medium is an older medium.

In-fact, one could argue that government follows technology. This is explored by Harold Innis: Empire and Communications is one of Innis’s most important contributions to the debate about how media influence the development of consciousness and societies. This theory was accelerated by McLuhan when MM realized how media structures our social environment or milieu on a micro (personal) and macro (group) scale.

As for Revolution, it's possible that one would be in the same conundrum as with Accelerationism, doing evil that good may come from it, but i'm even less sure about that than with Accelerationism.

Again, The laws of the tetrad exist simultaneously, not successively or chronologically, so when you drop a new technology in society it does not have a black or white effect. Technology produces a ripple effect in the field. Whether a technology is good or evil is a value judgment. Thus any political revolution would follow a value judgement. Furthermore, a revolution would depend on available technology, because an empire is built around available technology. Hence why classified patents or classified technology present a threat our collective (r)evolution.

Technology is built upon information and that is why knowledge is power.