Is there any merit to this accusation?
I would say there is discussion regarding the pursuit of economy/economic growth and technological development within a capital system and the subsequent effects on social inequality etc (e.g. âSome Reflections on the #Accelerate Manifestoâ - Antonio Negri, 2014), in particular âTHE CURRENCY OF THE COMMON AND THE REFUSAL OF LABOURâ.
Whether the refusal of labour and the significance of recognizing the impositions/exploitations of a capital system constitutes a foundation for economic theory, is I suppose what this question asks.
What I do believe to be more fundamental, however, is what I perceive to be a sincere divide between accelerationist thought and perhaps a communication of such economic theory to a greater (and I believe, in this context, essential) audience which is touched on in this article in the new inquiry (âTurn Down for What?â â July 14, 2014) by Malcom Harris:
Postâ2008 economic crisis, Marxist critique has ventured cautiously outside the classroom and the movie theater into mainstream economics. Neither Keynesian liberalism or free-market conservatism has an adequate explanation for why the proceeds of labor are accruing to a smaller number of profiteers. Marxism predicted it, and more and more people across and beyond the conventional political spectrum are willing to listen. Accelerationism takes the restoration of the historical Marxist project seriously, but itâs still shaking off the mental shackles of academic philosophy, and its proponents lack the interest, training, or perhaps the ability to communicate outside a small self-selected group.
Then continues with a reflection on the #Accelerate reader:
As a mostly 20th century academic reader, #Accelerate includes some of the worst examples of self-indulgent left academic frivolity. We can track the evolution of ÂAnglo-French accelerationism through the âFermentâ section, which reads in part like a game of Marxist telephone on acid. Gilles Deleuze and FĂ©lix Guattariâs daring fusion of Marx and Freud yields Lyotard endorsing the joy of being fucked by capital yields Gilles Lipovetskyâs foolhardy âacceleration of critique.â Class struggle falls out of these accounts, as the authors arrogantly pronounce that capitalâs blender has abolished such distinctions.
There is discussion of a âcurrency of the commonâ and a reflection upon currencyâs subsumption by society, a different and contrasting entity from the imposing âbossâ. There are many seemingly inherent polarizing structures: the common, the proletariat, the communists, the capitalists, the social, the sovereign⊠I wouldnât say class struggle is absent, but perhaps the line of communication to whom this thought impacts most. (Perhaps this is always the case).
Maybe itâs not about a lack of economic theory, but of a plan? Is accelerationism a tool for change or is it an observation/prediction of an inevitable implosion of the hypercapitalist system and what Franco Berardi Bifo believes to be âan extreme manifestation of the immanentist conceptionâ?
8 Likes
or both? Plan + economic theory.
(Iâm always stunned by the stern belief that for talking about economy no contemporary theory is demmed to be needed. Hyman Minsky would serve well to understand the crisis of 2007/08. ModernMonetaryTheorey - Bill Mitchell, Randall Wray, Warren Mosler and the like - deliver great insights in what is happening in our current situation. And for a better understanding of banking, Perry Mehrling is worth to consider. Few of these names appear in the accelerationist discussions.
But Marx, again and again. To me, the claim that Marx already 150 yrs ago explained everything is closely linked to a kind of intellectual fatigue that prefers to avoid the effort of looking at contemporary economistsâ work.
1 Like
Nick and Alexâs book on accelerationism is forthcoming, which as I understand will outline some specific economic prescriptions (i.e. universal basic income).
I recently attended an online class on the topic, based around selections from the reader, and I found the connections between those selections and what might be called an accelerationist political project to be mostly aesthetic. Any efforts deserving of the title should indeed draw from the most advanced theories and analyses available. My intuition is that few are prepared to take this jump so quickly. That said, the book, when itâs released, may help remedy that.
You might find this video where Nick delves into accelerationism beyond whatâs in the manifesto illuminating.
Thanks @mail for the references. Bichler and Nitzanâs Capital As Power came up in discussion in that class.
For a comprehensive economic rather than social analysis of the present crisis of capitalist accumulation I would suggest reading David Harveyâs The Crises of Capitalism or though slightly out of date, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 - for what Harvey gives us is analysis of base rather than the symptoms of the superstructure (pardon my old time Marxism here.)
I have asked this very same question since the release of the Manifesto. Apart from what Nick Srnicek & Alex Williams are working on, the closest thing to an accelerationist political economy is the thinking in this respect by Suhail Malik (watch out for his long essay in the upcoming issue of Collapse Journal) and the rest of us at the Fixing The Future Platform (http://fixingthefuture.info). Like Suhail, I firmly believe that moving towards an accelerationist political economy should entail rejecting marxistsâ insistence on the labour theory of value (LTV) and pushing Nitzan and Bichlerâs power theory of value (PTV) beyond its limits. This means realizing that debt, capitalization and financial speculation, if not the whole notion of capital, are not undivorceable from capitalism and can be effectively put in the service of a post capitalist future. When asking the question of the political economy, one has to keep in mind that what Accelerationism tries to address is not purely a political but what I myself has been calling an epistopolitical problem. MAP (Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics) is a program for reforming the production & distribution of knowledge as much as transforming the production & distribution of value.
1 Like
But @DADABASE - those of us who still hold to the Marxist view put forth that the significant contradiction in our corporate society is that of the means of production having out run the relations of production - as such the issue is that at this point capital in order to maintain the rate of profit must ultimately exploit and ultimately destroy all sources of profit - problematically when it does collapse its political solution is fascism - consequently to accelerate the means of production without a serious understanding of political economy (or in this case its displacement with an epistopolitics - we find ourselves talking about how we talk about corporatism without actually engaging it. As for the Labor Theory of Value - we may want to look to China before we dismiss the idea that labor generates capital
1 Like
I am perfectly familiar with your point. However, to understand the original question and find it an answer it is imperative that we leave behind a whole set of Marxist assumptions about the nature of capitalism and its historical trajectory.
It seems to be very âmodernistâ in its promotion of progress and cultural change. Even if that drive for progress/change originates from a nihilistic impulse. IDK. Thoughts?
From my limited understanding⊠capitalism must grow at a certain rate or it becomes riddled with crises and ultimately fails. If you accelerate this rate, is it even guaranteed to fail? I feel like the majority of the analysis goes towards when we fall short of capitalismâs necessary growth rate. How would we even accelerate it? We are eating our planet alive as it isâŠ
@averysinger important to note that accelerationism is not about âacceleratingâ capitalism. I found Peter Wolfendaleâs post âSo, Accelerationism, Whatâs That All About?â quite helpful in sorting out what it is and what it isnât.
4 Likes