Land sobre #Acelerar

por Erich Luna

Comentario de Land sobre el Manifiesto (tomado de aquí):
Thanks for the Accelerationist Manifesto — I enjoyed it. As you might expect, some quibbles (in rough order of importance):
(a) Is there really an effective and sympathetic audience for this kind of program? Assuming that the only accelerating processes for which we have historical precedent have involved some kind of ‘exploitation’ (directing energies into self-reinforcing productive systems, rather than leisure consumption), how realistic is it to envisage a left-accelerationist alliance? Would this not require that the labor resources which are to be channeled into accelerating growth subjectively embrace the intensification and economization of work? This strikes me as politically implausible, in the extreme.
(b) The acceleration / speed distinction is not very precisely described. Impressionistically, it suggests that capitalist ‘speed’ lacks some kind of qualitative openness relative to a ‘left acceleration’ — that it is too narrowly channeled. Without seeing more clearly what this missing quality might be, it is hard to respond precisely. My suspicion is that it involves a romantic attachment to some conception of productive ‘liberation’ beyond that captured by the capitalist index of economic value (which in turn reduces to the self-reference of auto-excitation, or production-for-production). Since the capitalist formula tends to capture mathematically-pure acceleration (self-referential growth) with great exactitude, it is hard to see what it is missing. (Do the Left Accelerationists really think they can drive the production trend harder? That sounds like the early-Soviet and Maoist illusions that markets slow things down.)
(c) Is ‘collective self-mastery’ being conceived as an immanent goal of economic evolution — in Marxian fashion? No reason is given here for embracing it. Perhaps it is supposed to be self-evident, or the Left political identity is taken as a given, which then upgrades itself through accelerationist theory, without discarding prior moral commitments. In any case, it seems extraneous to the immanent accelerationist principle, which is intensification of practical self-reference on the part of the productive machine. Optimization for intelligence is intrinsically accelerative, can the same be said of ‘collective self-mastery’? Why would such ‘mastery’ be directed towards driving the process harder? Process and goal seem to be entirely disconnected.
(d) ‘Neoliberalism’ is undefined, and given that it means everything from intense laissez-faire capitalism (when used critically by ‘Bolivarian’ Latin Americans) to mildly market-reformed New Deal social democracy (when used affirmatively by Clinton-era Democratic Party sympathizers in the United States) it is difficult to know what to make of it. The implicit idea that we are presently in a post-Keynesian epoch strikes me as preposterous. This vocabulary is a tribal rallying cry, rather than a serious contribution to political-economic analysis.
(e) Does the preliminary eco-panic do any theoretical work? It looks like an awkward fit, to say the least.
(f) “The future must be cracked open once again, unfastening our horizons towards the universal possibilities of the Outside.” — My PhD supervisor warned me against ‘must-aphysics’ and I’ve tried not to forget it. If it ‘must’ through some naturalistic destiny, OK (great). If ‘we’ ‘must’ ‘do it’ it sounds like silly soap-boxing. Waving guns at people might earn a ‘must’. Waving a politico-theoretical manifesto at them really doesn’t …