Accelerationism: Speeding Up Societal Change

In an era defined by rapid technological advancement and constant shifts in global dynamics, a complex and often controversial idea has gained increasing traction: accelerationism. Far from a singular, unified theory, accelerationism represents a spectrum of ideologies that propose the intentional intensification of technological, social, and economic processes to bring about radical societal transformation. But what exactly does it mean to "accelerate" change, and what are the potential destinations of such a高速journey?

Defining Accelerationism: The Core Concept

At its heart, accelerationism is the belief that existing societal systems – particularly capitalism and techno-industrial modernity – should be pushed to, or even beyond, their limits to destabilize the status quo and potentially create something new and (theoretically) better. It's about leveraging the inherent dynamism of modern society, not resisting it, to hasten a fundamental shift. This concept isn't entirely new; its roots can be traced back to philosophical ideas about the self-destructive tendencies of systems.

The term "accelerationism" itself was popularized by Benjamin Noys in his 2010 book, The Persistence of the Negative, to describe the trajectory of certain post-structuralist thinkers who engaged with unorthodox Marxist and counter-Marxist views of capitalist growth. However, the idea of accelerating societal processes to achieve desired ends has been around for much longer.

Roots and Evolution: From Marx to Modernity

The historical lineage of accelerationism is diverse, drawing from various intellectual traditions:

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Many scholars pinpoint the "seeds" of accelerationist thought in Marx's writings, particularly The Communist Manifesto. Marx argued that the frantic intensification of capitalism would ultimately lead to its own demise through revolution, suggesting that capitalism inherently contains the seeds of its destruction.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Nietzsche's idea of "accelerating the leveling process of European man" has also been cited as an inspiration, suggesting a deliberate push towards societal change.
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari: In their influential 1972 work Anti-Oedipus, these French philosophers explored the concept of "deterritorialization" within capitalism, viewing it as a force that constantly revolutionizes itself. They famously mused on a "revolutionary path" to perpetuate capitalism's tendencies, a passage central to later accelerationist thought. Their concept of "desiring-production," which sees human desire as an "inhuman flow of productive energy," also influenced the movement.
The Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU): Emerging from the University of Warwick in the 1990s, this philosophy collective, led by Nick Land, became a significant force in developing accelerationism. Drawing on posthumanism, cyberpunk, and cyber-culture, the CCRU, including thinkers like Mark Fisher, profoundly shaped the movement.

After the CCRU's dissolution, Benjamin Noys coined the term "accelerationism" to describe this trajectory. Since then, different interpretations have emerged, leading to the distinct "left" and "right" variants we see today.

The Spectrum of Accelerationism: Left vs. Right

Accelerationism is not a monolithic ideology; it comprises a "constellation of positions" that often differ significantly in their goals and methods. The most prominent division is between its left-wing and right-wing variants:

Left-Wing Accelerationism

Left-accelerationism, championed by figures like Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams (authors of the "#Accelerate: Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics"), aims to harness technological and economic growth for progressive ends, such as equality and emancipation. They critique both capitalism and the perceived failure of the traditional left to envision a viable post-capitalist future.

Key concerns for left-accelerationists include:

Climate Change: Confronting impending cataclysms from global climate change.
Financial Crises: Addressing financial crises and the increasing privatization of public life.
Automation: Navigating economic upheavals created by increasing automation.

Left-accelerationists argue that existing infrastructure and technologies are not merely capitalist tools to be destroyed, but "a springboard to launch towards post-capitalism." They seek to "repurpose" the material platform of neoliberalism toward common ends, believing that "any post-capitalism will require post-capitalist planning." They are interested in using capitalist quantification techniques, engineering, and advanced computational tools to accelerate the modern left.

Right-Wing Accelerationism

Right-wing accelerationism, in contrast, embraces rapid growth and chaos with often nihilistic or reactionary goals. While it can include pro-capitalist visions of unbridled technological development, particularly since the late 2010s, it has become primarily associated with white nationalist and Christofascist ideologies.

Right-accelerationists advocate for the collapse of liberal democracy, often hoping to establish a white ethnostate. Their methods can involve both violent and non-violent actions to sow chaos and heighten political tensions, with the explicit goal of inciting a "race war" or civil war. They believe that an act of mass violence by a single individual or small cell can trigger their desired societal breakdown. This dangerous strain often draws on texts like James Mason's Siege and promotes conspiracy theories, disinformation, and hateful propaganda.

Right-wing accelerationism views equality as a threat to a "natural social order" based on inequality. They see phenomena that spur public anxiety, such as COVID-19, as catalysts for recruitment and societal collapse.

Techno-Accelerationism: The Digital Catalyst

A significant dimension of modern accelerationism, particularly on the right, is its intersection with technology, often termed "techno-accelerationism" or "effective accelerationism" (e/acc).

Techno-Optimism: Effective accelerationism is fundamentally techno-optimist, advocating for unrestricted technological progress, especially driven by artificial intelligence (AI), as a solution to global problems like poverty, war, and climate change. Proponents aim to propel human civilization "up the Kardashev scale" by maximizing energy usage and advancing technological capabilities.
Rejection of Regulation: This movement often opposes regulation, arguing that a free-market, competitive approach will lead to the best outcomes. They dismiss those who question their narrative as "doomers" or "decels" (decelerationists).
Authoritarian Leanings: Critics argue that effective accelerationism, despite its techno-optimist facade, harbors an authoritarian impulse, seeking to subordinate human dignity to a technological imperative framed as inevitable. They suggest it aims to replace democratic deliberation with technological determinism and market fundamentalism.

Techno-accelerationists believe that AI will lead to a "computationally enforced authoritarian government and rigidly hierarchical social and economic relationships," which they see as an inevitable and optimal outcome. This ideology suggests that technology can rapidly overturn traditional political divisions that "stall or block movement in their preferred direction."

Criticisms and Controversies: The Dark Side of Speed

Accelerationism, in its various forms, faces significant criticism and controversy:

Unintended Consequences and Dystopia: Critics warn that accelerationism's emphasis on rapid, destabilizing change can exacerbate existing inequalities and lead to severe ethical dilemmas. There is no guarantee that accelerating chaos will lead to a desirable outcome; it could just as easily result in a "cyberpunk hellscape" or a more oppressive system.
Lack of Agency and Human Cost: Some argue that accelerationism removes human agency, leaving people "fully exposed to [capitalist] tendencies without the means for intervention or resistance." The idea of "creative destruction" often translates into indifference to "human casualty and suffering on the scale of multiple failed states or even an almost entirely collapsing civilization."
Reinforcing Capitalism: A central critique, particularly of left-accelerationism, is that by intensifying capitalist dynamics, it might inadvertently reinforce the power of capital rather than transcending it. Italian Marxist Franco Berardi, known as "Bifo," argues that acceleration merely "augments the power and dynamism of capital" and does not necessarily lead to its collapse.
Vagueness and Obfuscation: Critics lament the movement's frequent vagueness about the specifics of the transitional society it envisions, and some prominent accelerationist thinkers have been accused of obfuscating their ideas.
Association with Extremism: The adoption of accelerationist rhetoric by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, who use it to justify acts of mass violence and terrorism aimed at inciting race wars, is a major source of concern. This militant accelerationism highlights the extreme dangers inherent in advocating for societal collapse.
Ethical Concerns: The underlying assumption that "a high degree of suffering for the general populace is justified to bring [desired goals] about sooner" raises profound ethical questions.

Is Accelerationism a Viable Path?

The question of accelerationism's viability is hotly debated. While proponents believe that disrupting the status quo is necessary for genuine change, skeptics argue that societies tend to fight fiercely to preserve their existing structures. The historical record offers few clear examples of such a strategy leading to the intended, positive outcome; instead, it often results in more nationalist or authoritarian regimes.

The core "accelerationist hypothesis"—that accelerating production cycles make capitalism unstable, and that inherent potentialities within capitalism will necessarily deploy themselves—is challenged by the argument that "capitalism is resilient because it does not need rational government, only automatic governance." Moreover, the belief that technology will automatically overcome social conflict, without careful planning and democratic oversight, is seen as naive.

For those advocating for a better future, accelerationism presents a stark choice: embrace the risk of rapid, unpredictable change with the hope of a breakthrough, or pursue more incremental, controlled evolution. The growing influence of accelerationist ideas, especially in digital spaces and among tech elites, suggests that this debate about the speed and direction of societal change will only intensify.

Conclusion

Accelerationism, in its varied forms, offers a radical perspective on societal transformation. From its theoretical origins in challenging capitalist dynamics to its contemporary manifestations in both left-wing political aspirations and dangerous right-wing extremist violence, the idea of "speeding up" change resonates deeply in a world grappling with complex challenges. While its proponents envision a path to a radically different future, critics highlight the profound risks and ethical compromises inherent in such a high-velocity approach. Understanding accelerationism is crucial, not only to grasp a powerful, albeit fragmented, ideology shaping modern thought, but also to critically assess the forces driving—or threatening to dismantle—our future.

Blog.

Accelerationism: Speeding Up Societal Change