Draft talk:Accelerationism

Bias

This page is terribly biased. Acceleration is at least naively rational and the objectives herein are unsupported. ^{— Unsigned, by: 97.120.13.55 / talk}

"Well then get your shit together. Get it all together, and put it in a backpack, all your shit, so it's together. And if you gotta take it somewhere, take it somewhere. You know? Take it to the shit store and sell it. Or put it in a shit museum, I don't care what you do, you just gotta get it together.

Get your shit together."^{— Unsigned, by: 97.120.13.55 / talk / contribs}

This article needs some expansion, it may be in use by a few people on the left but they are generally on the fringes. I've seen it used much more by people that would clumped under the alt-right or NRx. 106.68.164.92 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: upsetting a game board analogy: When the game has already been lost, but the winner insists you keep playing that same game for eternity, then upsetting the board is a pretty rational thing to do. ^{— Unsigned, by: 27.100.21.23 / talk / contribs}

The problem with accelerationism IMO isn't that it's irrational (RW tends to make the mistake that "rejection of the status quo" equates to "logical invalidity"; politics is the expression of power in society and naturally people dissatisfied with the status quo or the establishment of power will reject that establishment; that's not inherently irrational; liberalism for instance started out as an extremist fringe within politics and early liberals were more than willing to engage in violence to enact systemic change, and no one here calls liberalism irrational), but the issue of harm reduction. Accelerationists as a rule reject the concept of harm reduction, which they view as conceding to the status quo and hampering the project of systemic change. This has less to do with pseudoscience and more to do with ethics and/or tactics. Vee (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that the relevancy for RW is that all the real-world expressions of the idea are anti-democratic authoritarian/fascist types. Bongolian (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what accelerationism is

This is a very poor description of accelerationism to the point of bearing no relation to it. While the idea described in the article exists and is held by a few misguided people, accelerationism is not that. Deleuze and Guattari, two French guys who wrote about butt stuff, came up with the idea of deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation. The former is the opening up of society, making it more fluid, free, lively, and creative; the latter is when that same fluidity is solidified and locked back down. 'Relative' deterritorialisation is always accompanied by reterritorialisation; accelerationism wishes to expand deterritorialisation as much as possible so that reterritorialisation does not occur. For instance, left-accelerationists point out how collaborative and cooperative projects as well as individualised forms of production such as wikis, free and open source software, and desktop manufacturing have begun to compete with and in some cases replace traditional forms of production, paving the way for the end of capitalism. The article should be rewritten, while the existing text should be moved to a subsection—perhaps 'crude accelerationism' or 'vulgar accelerationism'. 74.89.153.198 (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

seconded, will edit page soon Codefuser (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"This is especially true when the Communist Party uses some of the same antisemitic and nationalist talking points as the fascists."

excuse me what the fuck ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.34.1.182 / talk / contribs}

Given that you seem to lack any point beyond mere exclamation, you are excused. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Without a citation establishing when that happened, it's a bit of an extreme non-sequitur, I guess. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Definition

The current draft does not ever actually lay out a clear definition of what accelerationism is, it just talks about the theory behind it. This should probably be rectified ^{— Unsigned, by: 14.2.18.153 / talk}

True it's full of postmodernist theorizing, which I think actual accelerationists (e.g. Boogaloo boys) would not be able to fathom. Bongolian (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Not that they wouldn't be able to understand it, more like they won't understand it. If unwitting ignorance is bliss, willful ignorance is cursed. Vee (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)