thank you Marc. I hadn't read the manifesto - I was on my ipad earlier and it did something weird with the url and didn't load the page - it's working ok on my computer now though.
ok after reading this more, perhaps I am more aligned to accelerationism than I first thought. lots to think about in any case. I don't know enough about the economics parts of it all to comment much on those from the manifesto: >> 2.. "What has instead occurred is the progressive elimination of the work-life distinction, with work coming to permeate every aspect of the emerging social factory" I agree that this has happened. I feel it personally in my life at least >> 3. "Capitalism has begun to constrain the productive forces of technology, or at least, direct them towards needlessly narrow ends." I can see their point here too - it seems our tech advances are for consumerist gains/profit. why can't those clever qants be put to work solving medical problems or helping to prevent poverty instead of making internet search and ads algorithms more efficient. >> 7. "Technology and the social are intimately bound up with one another, and changes in either potentiate and reinforce changes in the other." yes, agree, both need to be there not one/tech on its own >> 12. "We do not believe that direct action is sufficient to achieve any of this." I see their point with this and agree, though I think direct action can be useful as one tool in your toolkit/box. seeing mass protests overseas has been encouraging to see how people in other countries are thinking on certain issues. and I think it can help you think you are helping to affect change. >> 13. "What is needed — what has always been needed — is an ecology of organisations, a pluralism of forces, resonating and feeding back on their comparative strengths." agree with this. nodes in the network. I think of this like network routing rules - some are default, some are quicker, some are slower. and hopefully you don't get stuck in a closed loop & can't get out to the wider wan >> 17. "We need to construct wide-scale media reform." that would be nice. I think it might be a generation away though. perhaps once the major players' leaders leave things might start to change more. getting people in power to give up their power isn't an easy thing to do. >> 19. "A positive feedback loop of infrastructural, ideological, social and economic transformation, generating a new complex hegemony, a new post-capitalist technosocial platform." having the feedback loops, yes - like cybernetics' mechanisms. I think we do need this to be able to adjust as we go & know what's working and what's not. I think it would need to be a key/integral part of the mechanism, not an after thought, otherwise it could hinder decision making. via Marc: >> I view my relationship with Accelerationism as something one would not choose to live with, but have come to terms with. this is a good way of thinking - I guess we have to do this with all 'ism' as we're living / coming to terms with the effects of Capitalism On 1 May 2016 at 21:57, marc garrett <marc.garre...@gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > > > Have you read ‘#ACCELERATE MANIFESTO for an Accelerationist Politics > > by Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek ‘? - http://bit.ly/1W0jyD0 > > > > The above is linked among other reading materials suggested on the > Furtherfield page ‘We Need to Talk About Accelerationism’ - > http://bit.ly/1Uk8HU2 > > > [snip] > > > > I view my relationship with Accelerationism as something one would not > choose to live with, but have come to terms with. > > > >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
