/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2733247
>What do these guys even do for tangible praxis?
…praxis?
but if we are being honest, nrx is the logical conclusion of "accelerationism". if the state is fundamentally anti-productive as opposed to the corporation, it logically follows that the "democratic" state should be replaced with the sovereign corporation. honestly i dont actually see why people look at land and ever thought he was left wing since his politics was always libertarian and the dark enlightenment is just pushing that logic to its logical conclusion (rightfully diagnosing that democracy is incompatible with freedom of the bourgeois). i think this quote very nicely outlines the clean continuity in land's thought:
https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2025/10/01/the-timenergy-illusion-michael-downs-and-the-recurrence-of-idealism/
>The real transformation is not the return of kingship as dream-image but the collapse of sovereignty into algorithmic governance. Decisions are increasingly delegated to predictive models, actuarial tables, risk algorithms, and automated logistics. Authority no longer resides in the symbolic pact between ruler and ruled. It is coded into the protocols of platforms, the scripts of financial markets, the architectures of surveillance. Moldbug’s neo-monarchist script is therefore less the master narrative than a symptom produced by this infrastructural displacement. He articulates in clumsy political theology what has already occurred silently in code: the outsourcing of command to systems indifferent to the subject.

accelerationism had its revival moment from 2017-19 that was largely driven through unconditional accelerationism aka U/ACC (Vince Garton, Edmund Berger, Xenogothic, Vast Abrupt, various other blogs) and was less concerned with questions of praxis than with trying to develop on the analyses of the CCRU and early Nick Land for the current evolution of technocapital that had confirmed (and continues to imo) a lot of the predictions of the early theorists who would later be called "accelerationists". one of their main critiques of "left accelerationism" is that it didn't really manage to overcome the transcendental miserablism (http://hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org/archives/008891.html) that started to afflict the left after the collapse of the USSR and that L/ACC has always been an idealistic capitalist realism desire to go back to the good old days of centralized state planning instead of engaging in critique about why it didn't work while also being in denial of China's success in using the market to develop the productive forces within a socialist economy (hence the famous Nick Land quote "Neo-China arrives from the future").

acceleration-ism was always a flawed term because it implied a doing-things-ism ideology that completely misunderstands the nature of capital as a world-historic process that no single person or group of people is in control of. even in the case of China, its use of the market within its economic model (the "bird cage economy") specifically is designed to not try to control capital but to simply contain its antisocial excesses. it isn't that we can simply choose to accelerate the development of technocapital; it is simply the nature of the process for it to accelerate as a positive feedback loop.

>t. one of the U/ACC originalfags who was there for all this

>>2733259
Mark Fisher has a quote somewhere that I haven't been able to find for years where he describes the R/ACC people like late Nick Land and NRx as being essentially the ideologues of capital who are being used by a process that they don't understand except in an idealistic ideological sense and I think this has only become more true today as we've seen the terminal stage of capitalism mutate into a kind of technofeudalism that is just an updated version of fascist corporatism. all the NRx faggots really liked to pay lip service to the old capitalist propaganda about innovation and the efficiency of the market while conveniently ignoring that all the guys who are exemplars of their ideology (Peter Thiel in particular) not only depend on working with the state to maintain their hegemony but actively are opposed to the market as a productive force (which is why Thiel famously said that competition is for losers).

none of those people were ever worth taking seriously but unfortunately a lot of the accelerationist sphere was full of academic types who were too smart for their own good and removed from any real-world experience of the current material conditions.

>>2733273
>a kind of technofeudalism that is just an updated version of fascist corporatism
honestly looking at things i sort of lowk think that corporations are the real revolutionary subject somehow or some shit idk. capitalism when it gets developed enough in the first world seems to want to turn into corporatism every time. we dont even know where corporatism really leads necessary since we have only seen the fascists and nazis annihilate themselves through a war where they underestimated how powerful the ussr was. maybe someone needs to write Das Gesellschaft or something
>which is why Thiel famously said that competition is for losers
that is the fundamental error in accelerationist, pro-capistalist, and marxist discourse. they elide the fact that no capitalist actually wants capitalism. capitalism is not about profit but controlling more production than everyone else. if you are actually competing you hate competition, you just want to dominate everything, and crises are a great way to rock the boat until all of your competition falls away. actually i think there might be a deeper reason why thiel might hate competition due to his influence from girard .. if we look at 'Battling to the End', we see girard point out quite intelligently how capitalist exchange and competition is a sort of sublimated form conflict. the issue is that as exchange intensifies, this leads to increased tensions between nations which inevitably lead to war. if we think about it, imperialism is not simply the conflict between bourgeois nations but also a conflict between bourgeois themselves. if they can even sabotage the national bourgeois's productive forces, then they have gained from the interaction. if the frontier of imperialism is somehow pushed to its limit, we will see western corporations sabotaging each other more directly through violence (as opposed to the many more covert ways they have hitherto attempted mutual sabotage)

>>2733273
Very good post. Not gonna lie, I liked the manifesto of Srnicek and Williams, and I think they had a legit critique of the post-left/The Invisible Committee, but let's face it, their solution was not very different from the kind of things Yaroufakis already talked about, demsoc with more machines. They didn't inherently solve any problems.
Vince Garton and Edmund Berger wrote pretty interesting things even if a lot of it went over my head. As someone who didn't study philosophy in college, that era of shitposting felt exciting as I was seeing people trying to develop new ideas and engage with the present. Nowadays it feels like we have stagnated, r/acc predictably got a relative victory, and we are back to watching the shitshow unfolds with our old ideas. The problem of accelerationism is that it remained pretty descriptive, while a cascade of unforseeable events kinda changed everything, it became harder to keep up ironically.

>>2733333
also something to add: this is actually the unintuitive absolute genius of the chinese communist party. it is not simply that they are stopping the market from doing things that are anti-social, they are preventing capitalists from trying to annihilate capitalism hence forcing them to continue accelerating the productive forces to continue competing