Accelerationism

If a system is doomed to fail, accelerate the system and get it over with.

Karl Marx thought that accelerating free trade and a global market economy would bring about the revolution that led to socialism. He didn’t call it accelerationism, but that’s what he was talking about.

A funny thing happened in Russia when the czar was overthrown, those newly in power thought they would just skip the whole capitalism phase and go directly to full blown socialism.

That did work for a while, in that you did have a viable country, and a superpower at that for about 80 years, but it ultimately collapsed - as most systems do in the end.

Did capitalism “win” because it outlasted Soviet Style Communism. I think it is safe to say that it did, but that’s a bit of a pyrrhic victory. Things aren’t all peachy keen in capitalist land these days. Climate change and overshoot are slowly destroying nature’s ability to support us as we accelerate our consumption and resource use a bit each year. Don’t forget, we live in a system where a lack of growth each year is promised to bring unimaginable catastrophe, so we are told that we can’t stop growing.

So what can we do as passengers in this metaphorical car headed for the cliff?

Some people say - “hit the gas!”

Accelerationism 101.

Accelerationism is the argument that, “If we are headed to a terrible event, such as an environmental apocalypse or the collapse of society, let’s just speed that process up so we can get there faster, get this over with and start over.”

This is of course a blog you are reading, but for you visual learners, you might want to check out: Why Some Billionaires Are Actively Trying To Destroy The World, by Joe Scott. I came across this video while researching this topic and Joe is an entertaining and informative science guy I think you should check out. He has many engaging videos. He doesn’t know me. I’m not receiving anything for this endorsement - just thought you should know about him and his video on accelerationism.

The idea of accelerationism has been around as long as those in power thought it might just be a good idea to throw this whole system away and start over. If you are a sports fan who has ever suffered through your team tanking its season and selling off all its best players in order to get really bad, really fast, and start over, you have experienced a much more benign version of accelerationism. It may not be fun if your team tries to be terrible in order to go through a few rebuilding years, but that won’t lead to the collapse of your society or the biosphere. The concept is the same, but the stakes are lower.

The term accelerationism has been attributed to a blog post in 2008 by Benjamin Noys, who says he might have gotten the term from a 1960s fantasy novel “Lords of Light” which uses the term differently, referring to human development.

English Philosopher Nick Land took the idea and gave it a boost with his short essay, “A Quick and Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism”. This was considered one of the founding documents of Right wing accelerationism (rx).

That’s right, there is left wing accelerationism and right wing accelerationism. See, there is still bipartisanship in the world. Isn’t that nice?

Left wing accelerationism (Lx) focuses on a more equal and just world after the revolution/collapse. Technology is seen as a key to improving the human condition

Right wing accelerationism (Rx) also tends to put a lot of faith in technology but usually focus on a strong man or authoritarian figure holding everything together. Accelerationism is part of the recipe for those I wrote about last week: What if Oligarchs Directly Ran the Government?

Accelerating the crisis may be attractive to those in power because they feel they have the means to survive it and will be the ones shaping the world when it comes out of the crisis - or so they believe. Mark Zuckerburg with his bunker in Hawaii will be just fine, thank you. You … well, good luck.

Fundamental disagreement, or grudging acceptance?

I’m a bit ambivalent here but leaning against acceleration. On the one hand, I’m not a fan of increasing human suffering. On the other hand, if it is coming anyway (which seems likely) just rip that band-aid off and let’s get to rebuilding.

That kind of point of view assumes that some really bad stuff is coming no matter what we do. So, what’s the evidence of that?

• Planetary boundaries - six of nine have been breached.

• Climate, ecological degradation.

• Second gilded age.

• Democracy is declining across the globe, which may be ushering in a tilt to the right that brings isolationism and quite possibly a more violent future as nation states fight for the ever-decreasing spoils in a world falling apart. Maybe Trump and those like him are the catalyst.

I would rather do this by design, but it seems to be human nature to not take large scale action until we hit rock bottom. We are not at rock bottom, yet.

I’m slightly more hopeful than the accelerationists.

The purpose of creating this space on Substack was to not accelerate things. I knew things were pretty bad, and I’m guessing that those here know that too. My aim was to help people see that there is a better way than either ignoring the apocalypse until it comes or leaning into it. I think we can avoid the worst of what is coming if we choose. That may be a semantic argument, because things are going to break down - it’s just a matter of how badly.

Although I see that accelerationism is becoming more likely in the current political, social and environmental climate, I don’t endorse it.

To me, degrowth is still the answer - not to a utopia - but to a much better world than one that accelerated toward that cliff. Those who are pro accelerationism tend to be those who would be impacted the least and see an opportunity for more wealth and power if a couple billion of their fellow humans stopped living.

Just because things are accelerating, doesn’t mean you take your seatbelt off and hit the gas, or put more gasoline on an already raging fire. Do not go gentle into that good night and all that …

What do you think? Should we take a degrowth path in order to save what we have left, or put more gas on the fire?