Re: <nettime> Accelerationism, Prometheanism, and Posthumans

[Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift@gmail.com>]

On 05/04/2016 11:13 PM, Frederic Neyrat wrote:

> Excerpts from the Accelerationist Manifesto:
>
>     "We declare that only a Promethean politics of maximal mastery over
>     society and its environment is capable of either dealing with global
>     problems or achieving victory over capital."
>
>     "We believe it must also include recovering the dreams which transfixed
>     many from the middle of the Nineteenth Century until the dawn of the
>     neoliberal era, of the quest of Homo Sapiens towards expansion beyond
>     the limitations of the earth and our immediate bodily forms."

These are definitely the worst parts of the Accelerationist Manifesto 
and they're influenced in particular by the theory-fiction guru Nick 
Land. Although the term itself seems to have been coined by Benjamin 
Noys, Land is at the origin of accelerationism, via a reference to the 
Anti-Oedipus on the subversive potential of speeded-up capitalism 
('going even further with deterritorialization" etc). Land must be a 
fascinating and charismatic figure as paens to him and his Cybernetic 
Cultures Research Unit abounded - until recently, when he bacame a 
self-professed neo-reactionary:

http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land

Srnicek and Williams tried to turn the science-fiction energy in a 
different direction, toward a lucid version of renewed communist 
progress, with an updated analysis of 21st-century productive and 
governing technologies. To their credit they got rid of the word 
"accelerationism" after the manifesto, although the populist motif of 
space travel and a few other naive things remain in the book. Steven 
Shaviro has a good recap of the story here:

https://thedisorderofthings.com/2015/11/03/accelerationism-without-accelerationism

Tor me the whole phenomenon is paradoxical, or just ambiguous, like most 
politics. A large number of young and not-so-young people have found in 
the book a way to reorganize themselves politically and to start 
engaging concretely with the possibility of restructuring society, which 
is positive. They call themselves "Left Accelerationists" beause it's 
now obvious that Land is a detestable libertarian nut-job (or as he 
says, "neoreactionaries are libertarians mugged by reality," ha ha, very 
funny). I really don't know where the fascination with Nick Land came 
from, or why Srnicek and Williams felt compelled to draw on him: 
probably they saw the need for a strategic intervention in cultural 
trends, which is fair enough in my view.

It may well be that the book's materialism and its attempt to come to 
grips with contemporary conditions will prove fruitful. It's a lot 
better than plunging back into archaic Marxist cults or going into the 
let's-just-riot-in-the-street mode. Obviously I have nothing against 
Marx, or rioting in the street for that matter, but sectarianism is 
boring and useless. In the same way that Srnicek and Williams dropped 
the term "accelerationist," probably their acolytes will realize the 
arrogance of the blanket critique of so-called "folk politics" and focus 
instead on how to work constructively with the many forms of resistance 
and utopian longing that are out there in society. That's the pathway I 
was trying to indicate in my text.

best, Brian

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: