>>819213This is internally consistent but does nothing to exculpate Marx for his conclusion that violent organised revolution was necessary to deliver a communist society. Capitalists had no grand blueprint for enclosure acts, mechanisation, population movements, financial innovation, and so on, these were all decentralised and iterative processes in the first instance. (even if latecomer countries took a more centralised approach)
Why, then, should we presume that socialism and communism arrive by violent revolution, and not by some similar "natural" outgrowing of capitalism? You might answer: well, his analysis said that such a revolution was inevitable and so he was just trying to hasten it… but that presupposes this analysis is correct, something we won't know until we're looking back in hindsight. What if, in the grand scheme of things, the socialist/communist "revolution" is a mostly mundane and non-violent affair?
>>819224It is a position I find myself sympathetic to, with one qualification: most accelerationists seem to take a "the worse, the better" approach, if you like, hitting the gas pedal so we crash into the brick wall at the end of the road faster. I think that's basically wrongheaded. The aim of trying to fully develop the system must be to
develop, which more often than not may require saving it from itself because the alternative may well be a slower path overall.
At which point you suddenly find yourself in some very mundane arguments about trade policy or whatever.