Any accelerationist psychology books?

Specifically on why they completely shut down when challenged. What causes this immediate deceleration? Should there not be a feedback loop quantifying their speed into the future which catalyzes their hyperdialectic into certain victory?
But any literature on the psychology of speed would be interesting. Or books on the psychology of marxists and economists in general.

Attached: sinosociety.jpg (300x400, 19K)

Other urls found in this thread:

jacobitemag.com/2019/07/15/disintegration/
twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1164423453891424257
youtu.be/Cv6tgnx6jTQ
warosu.org/lit/thread/S13312015#p13321202
youtube.com/watch?v=s_8KR-n2fBQ
vocaroo.com/i/s0gHJCgmOB97
youtube.com/watch?v=8MOakamttHA
jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/i-didnt-say-that/
youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8
discord.gg/bRcvdmH
reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/comments/83mc5p/discord_server_with_a_focus_on_accelerationism/
youtube.com/watch?v=euPiKKMsR8E
jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/
meta-nomad.net/on-left-and-right-accelerationism/
youtube.com/watch?v=92vV3QGagck
youtu.be/jW3PFC86UNI
youtube.com/watch?v=432g97vs6s0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I should probably write one about trannies and publish it on amazon. Would you guys read it?

- Our Political Nature
- Predisposed
- Sex, Power, and Partisanship

Sure.

>anti-accel posters are making accel threads now
now this is some acceleration
please do it I'm sure everyone will be impressed with your deep knowledge of the subject matter

Accelerationists really cannot fucking meme

>post shit b8
>no one bites very hard
Funniest meme on Yea Forums, user.

You bit, retard.

Nobody seems to actually critique or discuss accelerationism. People only post about whether they like or dislike it.

>no one bites very hard
Pin that (You) up on the fridge, champ.

Anyone else read his latest essay?
jacobitemag.com/2019/07/15/disintegration/
I thought it was great.
>Over the last 60,000 years, human genetic divergence has been overwhelmingly the dominant process. Conspicuous fragmentation of modern humans into genetically distinct sub-species has been the basic pattern. It is a process worthy of ecological celebration, and even techno-industrial acceleration. Despite the fondest hopes of the present secular church, there is no chance it will be terminally dispelled.
I think terminally here is key, to me human subspeciation is a function of travel distance, which we irreversibly shrank. Unfortunate, really. Not sure the world will ever be as diverse as it was 200 years ago, though he casts hope that we will always diverge as a people.

Attached: chad_land.png (600x772, 311K)

Where have you done this?

You don't get why someone might do this when mocking accel memes?

>looks like we'll have to call in SOTS for this one

Attached: yep only 3 threads up making the call.jpg (300x400, 15K)

>refuse to engage
hey user, I'm an accelerationist, ask me anything

not him but last anti-accel thread someone pointed out there wasn't a single argument made against it, instead it was all just ad homs and accusations surrounding ability to meme

I get it, it's just boring.

t. torpid laggard

K, what is it?

x/acc is boring and low-effort, which is mostly true.

That's because people have engaged before and the accels just sperg out about not getting the complexity and speed.
Has happened several times. And there's no point in arguing because, much like liberalism (or Christianity, strangely enough), the entirety of the ideology is connected directly to its primitive or core beliefs, meaning that there is instantly a wall erected or defense mechanism in play. It is an anti-dialectic, and thus in opposition to any real communication.

>x/acc
Don't know what that is, so no, you don't get it.

>the entirety of the ideology is connected directly to its primitive or core beliefs
topkek it sounds like you don't have an argument friendo

Attached: 1564874440944.png (622x296, 33K)

Are you a woman? You type like one.
Besides that, what am I missing? Not much else to say but "Land and the parodies of him are boring."

>I don't like what you're saying so it's not an argument
Thanks for proving my point.

d-did you even read the pic where Nick Land says that there is no primitive or core belief inherent to the definition of accelerationism?

Are you retarded? What is with your autism and inability to follow a basic argument? I was discussing formalism and how this relates to discussion, not the core beliefs themselves.
But in any case, if this is the new accelerationist technique then all this means is that the primitive belief is simply process relativism. So, again, you just proved my point. The liberal anti-dialectic is your ideology.

Also,
>quoting twitter in an argument.

sorry I couldn't follow your witty retort about proving your point, because you are right, it is a very, very basic argument lol. so, what is your point exactly? I'm sorry, I'm a slow accelerationist, so lets try and pull the brakes. how does formalism relate to accelerationism here? I missed this point. What is the "this" you are talking about when you are talking about "new accelerationist technique"?
>The liberal anti-dialectic is your ideology
I have a degree in philosophy and I have no idea what you meant by this, you really need to slow down for me user

Nick Land is the father of accelerationism, his statements on the definition of the word matter a lot...

>how does formalism relate to accelerationism here?
Again, it doesn't. Read the comment again. I was discussing the form, or process, of the argument, the method. Or I suppose it could be called the dialectical meta, the manner in which accelerationists tend to argue (which echoes the dominant form today), the technicalist sophistry employed.
>this
The 'this' would be what you were arguing from, lol, your twitter post, Land saying it is a variance-ideology of process.
>I have a degree
More meaningless than ever, and actions speak louder than words. (To clarify before you ask for it, this means you should learn to follow a basic line of discussion before talking shit and attempting to prop yourself up.)

I won't bother posting the Peterson worship.

Attached: boomcels.png (585x1039, 90K)

So why are you guys always in the g/acc threads saying
>NOT REAL ACCELERATIONISM

Because "the process" relates to the real conditions underlying accelerationism, those related to the deterritorialization of capitalism, not just "any comment posted on Yea Forums"

he's a boomer for sure, never denied that
you have an issue with the dialectical meta? and this related specifically to accelerationism? I'm still not quite getting what you mean. Does "technical sophistry" relate to neologisms? do you have examples? still moving too quick user. I don't know why you call Nick Land's theory of accelerationism a "new technique", he's been talking about this since the 90's. sorry for not understanding your terminology user, I must not be familiar with your dialectical meta

take the πάθει μάθος pill

>issue with the dialectical meta?
yes, but that's not really my main criticism, only the point from which this discussion originated

>and this related specifically to accelerationism?
yes and no, as I said "(which echoes the dominant form today)"

>Does "technical sophistry" relate to neologisms?
No, the arguing from a point of machinic logic, as in science and liberalism where the object remains distant, untouched, while the actual ideas become dust worn away for the advantage of the polished surface.

Or, as in the twitter post, accelerationism appears on a line and must perform the task set before it, nothing more. The vegetables have already been minced, and all that remains is the discarding of rot and all that which is not uniform for the next machine along the line. The technical capacity of the worker is focused on its task, while the technical capacity of the line and plant as a whole remains unaffected, irrespective of the worker's motivations and technique. He will be naturalised to the processes of the line, either through repetition or removal. It is a formalistic ideology, processual, so the definition is redundant. This is merely a second-order formalism. Your ideology is a mirror of the very processes of technical functioning, a bourgeoisification of the worker in the realm of ideas.
In other words, accelerationism merely formalizes what liberalism had already made real.

Attached: steam-hammer-16.jpg (1000x525, 177K)

>new technique
I was referring to two things, both the quote from twitter and your changing the focus of the argument.
In reference to the quote I mean that accelerationism was essentially aligning with the valorisation of capital, or attempting a 'dialectic' which can keep up with its intelligence processes, but this seems to create a shift in that acceleration is variable to whatever process is quickest, the greatest intelligence valoriser (if this is not his meaning, then all it is is a pointless circular reasoning to defend his position). What if this ends up being something other than capital? Let us say war, or technicalised diseases, for example. Has capital not been outdone in these instances? And if intelligence is simply shifted to include these things then we are dealing with a totalising form of relativism, a meaningless form without being. Capital must have its own being, otherwise it is not, and you are simply engaged in theoretical valorisation of other forms to defend your ideology. If capital is rewritten to include such things as human nature and the fall of man then it is no longer of its own essence, it ingests or valorises all other forms and becomes something much greater than its original idea. But this only plays out theoretically, not at all in reality, the perceived reality and its materialisation must be shifted to remove any non-uniform pieces to fit the process. Attuning the worker to the machinic movements of the industrial mill, creating a formula and then mistaking this as the cause and meaning of natural forces.

Attached: 1560372774187.jpg (3364x2158, 1.46M)

In many ways, this is the same problem as Bataille and other post-marxists who attempt to rewrite the origin story of capital back into the earliest stages of history, an Urcapital, or an original man who is destined to be dominated by capital.History is then rewritten through the lens of capitalised men who never lived in those times, economised by a culture that does not realise the irrelevance of economic thought to original men. This combines the marxist theory of history with the liberal attempt to subsume all of history, the perverse eyes of the individual riding the Leviathan who sees himself as the original man, and so must erase all traces of his (false) non-being. Accelerationists are instead focused on writing this total form of capital into the future - the possibility of capital not being the totalising form replacing all natural law is not a consideration for them. And at an all new level, history disappears, and so the valorisation process against it is no longer necessary, only positive time before us exists. A war against anything which may appear as an obstacle tomorrow (opposed to liberalism's negation of anything irrupting from prehuman political theology), a sovereign contractualism of post-consequence, pure functioning to the point that the human becomes the last object standing in the way of instrumentation.

Thus they become the liberal's necessitated non-being, akin to the non-persons in the Soviet regime. Voluntarist non-entities.
(I realise none of this is easy. Some of these revelations are even new to me.)

Accelerationist typically hate liberals and liberalism generally, but I'm sure I'm still to slow. So are you going to make an argument against accelerationism or was that post it? honestly user, I've read a lot of theory, accelerationist or not, and I have no idea what you are talking about. Formalistic ideology? Second-order formalism? I'm confused what you imagine accelerationism even is

you don't grok it

>accelerationism was essentially aligning with the valorisation of capital
no it's not
>attempting a 'dialectic'
you called it an anti-dialectic earlier
>What if this ends up being something other than capital?
this is what we call l/acc
look there is a lot here, I need a long to to parse all this because almost every sentence is confusing. I'll get back to you soon, no one let the thread die

Given the bad track record of responding to effortposts on this site I will include something of a summary/tldr
At that point when use-value is liquidated from marxist theory antihumanism becomes the totalising exchange-value. All while being devalorised as a new form of species-being. This is the ultimate paradox of any economic determinism, the workers relieve themselves of all capitalised processes while the technical capacities reduce the theoretical and managerial classes to labour instruments. Capital is merely formal at this point, while economy begins to attach itself to a new necessity (war, political collapse, territory management against the loss of intelligence and the last intelligent machines).

So you haven't read Marx?
lol, typical response proving the point of several people here. But your insincerity was obvious, so this wasn't written for you.

of course I've read Marx, he's one of the foundational thinkers for accelerationism I think you are doing what you accuse accelerationists of doing; explain what you mean. is second-order formalism a Marxist concept? It sounds a bit like Baudrillard but if you could hook me a source or at least explain why you think Marx matters to this discussion so I'm not blindly throwing darts at the broad side of a barn I would gladly appreciate it

>no it's not
Then what is it? Point out where my understanding of accelerationism is wrong. you asked for engagement now you are just going to mock someone who actually tries to engage. To be expected, but still...
>anti-dialectic
Yes, which is why I wrote 'dialectic. Seriously, if you're so full of yourself you should get basic reading down and not go on and on with the post-ironic dumb comments and questions.
>l/acc
yes, much of my investigation stems from a critique of Camatte's total capital and economic determinism in general which attempts to reduce all things (even time) to a process of capital
>need time
So why the slowness? And why the combined passive-aggressive attacks and claims I don't get it. This should be really easy for you if you understand acc better than I do.

Hmm. Yeah, the materialist Ur-Capital has a sort of Austrian individualism (totality of behavior as predicable to economic devices), and uberliberalism to it. I'm still not convinced about Accelerationism being a hermetic, "in-scrying" theory, I think that's just Land. Good point about the constitutive non-being of singularian futurists to liberalism; much like Ayn Rand, they're a traumatic breach of manners and code.

I said I'd reply user, no one is mocking you lol. anti-dialectic and 'dialectic' mean the same thing? news to me, again never seen this equivalency in all my years of reading philosophy so you'll have to forgive me, you are obviously far speedier than I.
>why the slowness?
obviously it's because I'm an accelerationist user, surely you of all people should know this

Perhaps you should offer something up instead of making all these demands. What is all this theory you have read? Why do you think Land is superior to Marx, let alone someone like Hegel or Plato?
I will say that second-order formalism is something I just came up with, and it is a little hard to explain. But basically we live in an age of formalism, rather than being in time with natural law we are processed by it as it exists before us, ahead of us in time, pulled towards its material. Political theology has been subsumed by organisational nihilism, and formalism is the last thing holding together any sense of law and order.
Accelerationists are formalising this formalising process, hence it is a second order. This could be seen as akin to Hegel's Owl of Minerva, but I will instead say that the Leviathan kneels before the Behemoth to reveal its skeletal formation.
But perhaps that will mean even less to you. This is an entirely other way of viewing modernity/humanism, and it cannot be explained simply.

>no one is mocking you lol.
Well, just so that you are aware, many people consider passive-aggressive comments an annoyance or an outright insult to their being.

okay, because this is some very unorthodox theory, let me try and steelman your argument first so we are on the same page:

You are saying accelerationism is aligned with the valorization of capital, that is, it seeks to make capital the all encompassing force in the universe. This is faulty because other human phenomena like war, disease, ect. guides history as well and are not aspects of capital. You accuse accelerationism as, in this way, removing the "being" of capital, reducing it to an empty category which can be stretched to fit anything. You think accelerationists are rewriting history to suit their own narrative of 'all powerful capital' because accelerationists still cannot imagine a higher force than capital.

Tell me how I'm doing so far; I have to admit the last few sentences are eluding me, what is "prehuman political theology" and how does it relate to liberalism? As in liberalism only found its political principles through appeals to nascent man? That by skipping this it reduces the theory to the point where the human is no longer anything more than an obstacle to "instrumentation" (I assume this means the total instrumentalization of human meaning or action or something)?

>Why do you think Land is superior to Marx, let alone someone like Hegel or Plato?
Why do you assume that about me? I think Marx was an accelerationist for one, he certainly wrote about how it's good communist praxis. I am actually a huge fan of Hegel and have probably read more Hegel than Land...
>I will say that second-order formalism is something I just came up with, and it is a little hard to explain
woah, an anti-accelrationist made a neologism and didn't define it when he used it, holy lord someone screen cap it
>Accelerationists are formalising this formalising process
can you like, quote something that proves this? you keep referring to the formalization of accelerationism which is really strange to me, I don't get it
>Well, just so that you are aware, many people consider passive-aggressive comments an annoyance or an outright insult to their being.
they should probably get off Yea Forums, if not the internet entirely; it's simply not safe for them

Yes, I think bataille is interesting, but all these writings which attempt to write capital back into history ignore how even the late ancient world viewed economy as little more than a minor effect. And this is my own view of capital, it is merely the appropriate marketplace beneath the greater organising form of liberalism, which is itself a subset of humanism (or perhaps a taxonomic form following scientific classification).
I think we have to focus on Land here considering the huge variety of accelerationists, and the prominence of his ideas. Political accelerationism, for example, doesn't really have a whole lot in common and the Landian seems to be more philosophical in its focus. Although I'd probably prefer to focus on the political the nostalgia for capital seems more important a consideration.
I have spent many years trying to reconcile the lberalist and communist forms, so the comment on non-being is a huge revelation for me. Perhaps it can be simplified further and explored in a writing at some point.

twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1164423453891424257

>aligned with the valorization of capital
yes
>it seeks to make capital the all encompassing force in the universe
I wouldn't say it seeks this, but rather attunes itself to this idea, which accelerationism views as law. And perhaps not the universe, but at least the world. And yet, the universe has to be included, otherwise how can Capital be the dominant force governing humanity and its end?
>This is faulty because other human phenomena like war, disease, ect. guides history as well and are not aspects of capital.
Literally one of my arguments against acc, which I included above.
>removing the "being" of capital
Yes, at this point (as a total monism or godform) it is no longer economic and industrial valorisation alone, when written against history it begins to valorise into a form of metaphysical and time warfare (perhaps why it is so focused on time and intelligence, if the war is in the future then it can only prepare endlessly, again a mirror of liberalism political walls against theology)
>accelerationists still cannot imagine a higher force than capital
Basically.
>prehuman political theology
Should be prehumanist, whoops.
>how does it relate to liberalism
This is difficult, perhaps I will include an old note below explaining this.

>Why do you assume that about me?
I mean, if you are an accelerationist are you not a Landian? And does this not suggest that you would follow Land because you think he is superior to other philosophers?
I don't follow Plato because I think Aristotle is superior. That wouldn't be very intelligent.
>Marx was an accelerationist for one
There are similarities, which I outlined, but he also understood that Capital was confined to a moment in history, one of its pillars rather than the roof encompassing the whole. And he was concerned with species being and the human community, so certainly was not an accelerationist (at least not in the Landian sense).
>huge fan of Hegel
Okay, are you a Hegelian-Landian or a Landian-Hegelian? And why accelerationism after Hegel?
>neologism
I don't think that's a neologism
>formalization
Do you know what I mean by real and formal subsumption?
>passive-aggressive
>Yea Forums
I think you mean /rdt/

How did we go from memes to an actual discussion? Usually it works exactly the opposite way.

Here is the old note, I don't know if it will be helpful to you or not. Most of my writing is fairly mythic and esoteric in form. But it lays out how formalism functions (particularly as regards fundamentalism) as well as clarifies my view of liberalism/capital

I'm not sure I completely get your meaning but will respond since it was an important area of study for me, and, if nothing else, the pillars of investigation have some similarities.
Firstly, Marx has an idea of second-nature, which is effectively second-order nature where the worker is alienated from both the productive and return aspect of his labour. In other words, that which is produced neither arises nor returns to nature, and yet the worker naturalizes himself into this false nature. In this sense, capital is the natural force of this falsification, and takes over only because it can. There is no possible exhaustion, no necessity of expenditure as that which is revalorised can only increase the excess.
In this sense, capital is the Eros which takes over after Thanatos accompanies nature to the underworld.
I frame it somewhat differently, we live in an age of theological attrition, and capital effectively acts as the summons, the statutes for the form of technology which has replaced law. The Invisible Hand is the symbol of an attrition-theology at its point of inception, at that moment when peace is necessary and when the apostates can live with the armistice. And here we see it as an apotropaic symbol bridging the chasm between the Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment. This starting point is the age of the apostles; the industrial revolution in the New World is the age of saints; the violent undoing of the ancien regime occurs in the age of heretics; and those who rule today usher in an era of fundamentalism - that age when law is subsumed to heresy.
The simple rites and sacrifices to the Invisible Hand are no longer possible, what was mysterious and sensual is strengthened within the world as hardened and processual - death's companions. A site of worship so trampled that the idols are completely worn away into abstraction, and so the heretics create ever greater monuments from which to draw blood until every action becomes an absurd cult of death. The excess of meaning drives away all sense from the objects of worship, until only a God may return to count the prayer beads.
Again, I do not know the extent to which this is similar to your thinking, but perhaps you will get something out of it.

Attached: rev-artifacts-0519-five-ima3.jpg (620x413, 39K)

Okay well as far as the stuff we can agree I understand, this is some points where an accelerationist might object. Accelerationism starts with Marx, it was originally a praxis to destroy capitalism, certainly not any sort of valorization of capital or capitalism. Where Land comes in is that capitalism is accelerating like Marx thought, but that this didn't mean wasn't headed to internal collapse from dialectical processes. Land thinks that this accelerating capital is the convergent wave of an AI assembling itself, like that scene in the terminator where it rebuilds itself from the bottom up. Against Marx, "liberation" isn't something humans win against productive forces, it's instead those productive forces themselves that appear headed for liberation. In Meltdown, Nick Land actually pegs the point that we lose control of capital to 1500, the time period where the feedback loops are no longer within our control to dampen (a literal meltdown):
>Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalitization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off.
So in this way, it's not valorized to something that has always guided history, or something all powerful in the universe (it only has to be more powerful than us), rather it is a particular tendency to reality which capitalism is just the material manifestation of. Capital is literally what it is, the process defining itself, nothing more and nothing less. Accelerationism is the critical analysis of capital (the process) to reveal its transcendental limit (a la Kant), defining this tendency negatively. War and disease are their own forces, ones which capital is increasingly approaching over. It's not that war and disease don't have their own tendential reality, or that those tendential realities were not at one point far more important to human history than capital was - it's that those tendencies, like everything else, seem unable to compete with the tendency of capital that we have unleashed. The Renaissance was a Pandora's box. What has been unleashed isn't at all known, we only know what we can by tracing the convergent waves.

Getting into definitions isn't necessarily useful but I will say Hegel and accelerationism have a lot of interesting overlaps (look up girardfags posts on Hegel if you can). If you create a new term that didn't exist before that's a neologism is it not? How is it different than something like the "human security system"? I know what Marx meant by those terms for sure, this is the first time you've mentioned subsumption though. And if you want me to call you a faggot I can call you a faggot but I'm not going to suck your dick so get over being injured by tone.

If you keep a thread in the upper rows long enough then some of the good dust is bound to blow in.

Okay.
>Accelerationism starts with Marx
No, see my comment on Marx above
>praxis to destroy capitalism
Not really, it was more an attempt to contain the runaway of capital, to return the human community against its total exhaustion.
>valorization of capital

Do you know what is meant by capital valorisation? It is essentially the very core of Marxism.
>capital is accelerating
Marx did not think this. His argument is that of contradictions and the inevitability of socialism arising out of these contradictions, hence total deceleration of capital as the proletariat establishes a dictatorship. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the devalorisation limit which creates machine organisation effectively create a total crisis for the human as well as capital. Thus an exchange of subjectivity occurs.
>Land thinks that this accelerating capital is the convergent wave of an AI assembling itself
Is this not a metaphor? As in capital/intelligence essentially acts from the future much like a mass AI?
>"liberation" isn't something humans win against productive forces
Tell this to all those who now see work as leisure, or at least willingly endure it in exchange for some greater power
.
>we lose control of capital to 1500
Capital does not exist at that point, so control cannot be lost. And this is where we run into a big problem, if capital exists at a point in history when there is no capital valorisation process what causes it to valorise in some other area? And what causes that which does not exist to lose control? In other words, capital is already a politicised and total entity before its appearance, so if it is valorising in the arena of politics and philosophy is this not simply a backwards theory? It cannot be a valorising noumena because the material has nothing to do with the noumenal.
Otherwise, we have to determine why the war of ideas occurs before the arrival of capital. And one would have to explain how a human material creation becomes a godform. The worship of something does not prove its being as a god.

As a contrast to this, Camatte identifies capital escape with fascism, others with the advent of world trade, and primitivists with the agricultural revolution. Camatte is the only one loyal to the idea of capital in this, meaning that any other position would have to shift the very definition of capital. In the case of land, what is it? Intelligence? Okay then, completely wrong due to its misunderstanding of history and the significance of intelligence in human organisation (something like guile and will is far more convincing), but perhaps it can be given a logical explanation anyways. Yet, even then it is divided from economy, so why the focus on capital? Again, a misunderstanding of being and form.

>Earth is captured
Not at all. One might even say that the earth opens itself up to the human, and this acts as something of a second cataclysm for the Christian mind. The New World in opposition to the Great Pestilence. Is not the worship of nature, a great doubt of religion, and thus the technical capacity to live up to this unfolding not the equal of this great period?
>technocapital singularity
No, because capital doesn't exist at that point. If there is any singularity it is to the Nomos of the New World, and man divided from his old nature, himself, and his gods. Technology and the rational order appears primarily in regards to war, political survival against a dying God and a sweeping pestilence of the European world, and a new religion of human ideas. What is mercantilism in the face of a quarter of the population decimated several times over? Capital is not the answer, it appears later and is nothing in comparison.

>Accelerationism is the critical analysis of capital
I don't think so, but prove me wrong. Land believes in the capital process of organising intelligence, and a neocameralism effected by this.

>War and disease are their own forces, ones which capital is increasingly approaching over.
Not at all. War has become the base state of economic exchange, it's very organising principle. And in contrast with the common theory it is economy which appears as a cover for military intervention. Medicine has also become its own disease, both in its mobilised architecture and the diseases within it.

>The Renaissance was a Pandora's box
More like the Renaissance was the effect of a Pandora's box, all that remained as hope. Who then was the box given to? And who was tricked into creating such beauty? Perhaps the two answers are the key to revealing it all...

>an attempt to contain the runaway of capital
not what he says in the Question on Free Trade at all actually, he says he supports it in a strictly revolutionary sense. wait, are you saying you were talking about marxist valorization? As in surplus value in ltv? That makes even less sense to me. and yes, Marx did think capitalism is accelerating, read vol II. AI and capitalism are part of the same tendency, it's not a metaphor, it's a recasting of AI as market intelligences. Your whole point on valorization is so off base to me, we aren't in Marxist dialects by the time we get to Land, user. Capital isn't as simple as Marx imagined it.

>Medicine has also become its own disease
when did anti-accel faggots get more up their ass than Land?

Man you really can't sum up your thoughts can you? It's like 2:30 am, if the threads up tomorrow I'll try and slog through more of your quasi-mystic purple prose
That's acceleration user

Tell me about the great man theory.
Does it really exist? Does it mean most humans are worthless and that one great man is way more important?
How did marx cope with this idea?
If you want to be an accelerationist all you have to do is get rid of those great men right?

capital is synecdochal

>neologism
I think this would be more of a philosophical theory or 'concept' given that it is,'t really a new word or amalgam of prefixes/different words. But I'm no expert on this.
How is what different from the human security system? Formalism? I suppose that if the hss is akin to enframing then formalism is something of a mirror, or perhaps a refractor, although that's not quite right. It is a skeletal formation, stripped of all excess - its meaning, sense, and purpose. An organisation or cultural form in pure survival mode. Tradition stripped of all essence. It simply is. And yet the emptiness of it, even contradiction, increases its presence, but as abstraction. Like an endless funeral procession for that which can never be buried there can be no revivification, an impossible force to bear ensures that the cult of death only expresses its own emptiness. A scientific ritual of a deathless and exhumed nihilism.
Or I suppose in Hegelian terms, the eternal presence of the repressed with neither meaning nor effect. Eternal return as inescapable failure; the family meal in abject contempt; the instrumentalised exile of the object as an isolated object of study; sexual tristesse before and during copulation and as the only creation; calculable reduction into a taxonomised service against necessity; a deep feeling of something far beneath nihilism, inexpressible. Structural dread and impending doom, yet with a surrounding calm as if heralds of peace are needed to cover up the atrophy.
Way too tired to explain this well now I think. But this gives a sense of what I mean:
youtu.be/Cv6tgnx6jTQ

Attached: 1535486119217.png (1262x1202, 1.21M)

You haven't heard of all the diseases in hospitals? Literally called hospital sickness.

>Man you really can't sum up your thoughts can you?
I wrote something originally that was too difficult for you, now you're complaining that that my criticisms of accelerationism and your understanding of it can't be summed up.
Sorry that your brain is enframed by nanocapital, but the world is more complex than that. Can you even follow the line of discussion? It certainly appears not, or you're just disingenuous.
>purple prose
If you think that's purple prose then you really are stupid. And coming from someone who reads Land's nonsense...

You don't know what you're talking about. Explain to me in a few sentences what you think capital valorisation means.
Again, capital acceleration in the sense of Marx, if it exists, is very different from the Landian idea. You literally say this yourself, so how can you criticise what I am saying when you're tripping over your own half-baked regurgitation of someone else's theories?
>progress
Yeah, you're an idiot. Stick to your passive-aggressive neosophistry, faggot.

Bare symbolism/structuralism would be another way to put this.

Related, let's see if the accelerationists slinging shit are capable of anything nearly as substantial?
warosu.org/lit/thread/S13312015#p13321202

I'm doubting that you have read Marx. Are you the same one who didn't answer about what influences you have/philosophers you have read?

ITT
accelfags getting BTFO by someone who has never even read Land lmao
you all should be embarrassed and go back

>Get destroyed
>move on to three more threads
Guess op was right

>same transparently effortless post but without even the image

Why the fuck did Peterson read that

Attached: gold_laugh.jpg (499x499, 115K)

I'll write it out for you

Accelerationist psychology:

- coping trannies
- millenials with nothing going on in their lives

Marxian psychology:

- oversocialized leftists
- minorities with a deep insecure hatred for western power structures

Economist psychology in general:

- autistic people who view the world as numbers

I say this as an economics graduate

Neither has an image genius

Attached: ASS.png (513x431, 93K)

>Capital isn't as simple as Marx imagined it.
Yikes. You really believe Land's theory is more complex than Marx?
youtube.com/watch?v=s_8KR-n2fBQ

Pretty much, but we could go into more detail.

God damn.

Looks like accelerationists need a new name,

Attached: gettyimages-1142020495-e1559171585406.jpg (2000x1310, 222K)

>V-Viva L-L-a-Las B-B-B-Bio-Dome

Attached: 198384-jpg--paulyshorethrice-JPG.jpg (300x400, 15K)

>buy bitcoin

Attached: 1561324579406.jpg (4032x2268, 2.78M)

Accelerationism seems like an excuse to embrace the world getting worse in the hope that their pet ideology would somehow take power. The history of revolutions casts doubt on how well that will work.

Odds are inequality will worsen, basic welfare programs will enable the poor to live in virtual realities, and AGI will eventually take over.

>someone who has never even read Land
Why do you say this? Seems like he thoroughly destroyed their positions.

Don't doubt Chinese power.

Attached: 1564428944095.jpg (3000x2000, 711K)

probably an AI

Post your best speed cuck images.

Attached: 1561147361615.jpg (634x425, 79K)

Attached: segwaychinasept2009.jpg (820x547, 42K)

Attached: 1566467199744.png (667x518, 364K)

damn.. what could be more accelerationist than replicating and directing human interaction with artificial intelligence? I'm getting optimized by technocapital already

Attached: QOPE.png (300x480, 17K)

Patiently awaiting your reply, user.

>what influences you have/philosophers you have read
I have a degree in philosophy, I've read the presocratics, Plato, Aristotle, stoics, cynics, neoplatonists, scholastics, rationalists, empericists, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Witty, Heidegger, existentialists, Frankfurt school, post-structuralists; I've read dozens upon dozens of philosophers user, this question is only revealing of someone who has read so little philosophy as to think it worthwhile to label yourself by reference to two thinkers names with a hyphen in between (like that means anything). Anyways, I'm back, so let's get to this

>too difficult for you
actually I seemed to be parsing it quite well, inyhe steelman the only place I didn't understand, you used the wrong word (himan instead of humanist) and the vauge use of neologisms, non-philosophical terminology, and colorful metaphors are never condusive to quick and simple reads, if that was in fact what you were going for. and yes, if someone who likes reading Nick Land tells you your writing is obtuse, your writing might be obtuse...

>I've read dozens upon dozens of philosophers user
yikes, great proof that the lit meme is the wrong way to go
>this question is only revealing of someone who has read so little philosophy as to think it worthwhile to label yourself
Fucking cringe, bro. Just ease off on the social-intelligence-quotient-posting.

are you saying this sentence
>Medicine has also become its own disease, both in its mobilised architecture and the diseases within it.
just means "hospital sickness is a thing now"?

Not at all, your steelman was just a reiteration of a few basics, and you had a difficult time with those even. You never bothered to continue on with the rest of it.
What makes you think that the opposing idea should be a 'quick and simple read'? And what does this say of your own philosophy?
Purple prose isn't the same thing as obtuse thought. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

No.
Were you saying that hospital sicknesses have nothing in common with a diseased structure?

>talks himself up over and over again
>i've read - - - - - -
>what are these great influences
>OMFG HOW COULD YOU ASK SUCH A THING
regular anti-accels will probably recognize this faggot

I never used the word progress, why did you quote it? I still don't even really understand why we have moved on to the Maxist definition here, but from what I have understood it as, it is the process by which surplus value is extracted from labour. If a commodity is valorized you have realized surplus value within in. I think he used the word "Verwertung". Why this confuses me is that I took this coloquially in the strawman, literally as an ideological raising of capital to some all encompassing empty concept, and you agreed. So, now that this isn't what you are talking about, where does valorization come into accelerationism?

I didn't continue on with it because you posted another 1000 words clarifying and reworking your statements you mong, just make a syllogism, work your thoughts out, tell me what you think I'm missing

>Purple prose isn't the same thing as obtuse thought
no but thoughts can be made obtuse through the use of purple prose lmao, are you an autist or retarded

Again, what do you want? A geneology of my philosophical thought? If I just call myself something retarded like a young-hegelian-accelerationist will that make you happy? it certainly wont teach you anything about what I think, but will it make you happy?

>why did you quote it
Because you are assuming that Land has progressed from Marx, perhaps? Jesus...
>valorisation
No, and this is why I asked, given that very few people understand it. I've never seen anything by Land suggesting that he understands it either (and his blockchain nonsense suggests that he does not).
Valorisation is not surplus value. Surplus value is surplus value, there would be no point in having both ideas if they are simply synonyms. Valorisation is the essence of capital: value-in-process, how it achieves self-automation, escape from human capture of economic processes. It is what shifts surplus value into something much more significant, and in a sense transposes labour-value into machinic labour and value. It is what creates the territory between capital and Capital, and what dominates even the bourgeoisie in their use of it. Capital alienation becomes real through its processes, and machines effectively replace humans and species-being through a 'feedback loop' of valorisation and devalorisation - creating a self-organising rationalism of machines.
This is why it is significant, because it is already extremely similar to Land's position, essentially an economic noumena. But Marx clearly demonstrates how it is a particular stage in history where this occurs. To oppose this would require either diverging from Marx completely, showing how Capital is of an earlier or perhaps greater stage, or both. Land does neither as far as I am aware. Rather he conflates this with a Kantian/liberal valorisation of ideas, hence the similarity to liberal thought and organisation structures.
In other words, accelerationism conflates capital valorisation with some greater process, perhaps its very cause; and this echoes the very liberal worldview and process negation of all that existed before it. As such, if Land's position is true he would have to clarify this intelligence valorisation, how it differs from Capital, why it appears before it, and also how Capital comes to subsume it.
To be even more clear, I am basically using Parmenides argument of being and essence: either it is or it is not. And if it is not, if there is some endless conflict, then there must be some Third-Man separate from it, wielding the Noumena in his invisible hand. Or in hegelian terms, who is the master and who the slave? From this position is not capital simply abstract negation, the irreconcilable?

I'm referring to the original three posts, you mong.
Can you tell me why you read Plato and the presocratics and how you turned into such a piece of shit? Know your place, this is potentially an opportunity to breathe some life back into your dead racket.

It's a strange thing to boast so much about your vast knowledge and understanding while saying stupid shit and having a difficult time grasping basic arguments. Did you not think others would notice?
And are you American by chance?

>Because you are assuming that Land has progressed from Marx
He's not using the same dialectical theory, I guess you can think about that as progress if you want, sort of a weird way to phrase it though
>Valorisation is not surplus value
but I never said that user, I said it was
>the process by which surplus value is extracted from labour
are you even reading my posts?
>It is what creates the territory between capital and Capital
okay now German capitalizes all nouns so I know for a fact this is isn't Marx but an anglo bastardization lol. So you have reduced deterritorialization (feedback loops) to valorization, which really means at the point you don't even have an issue with Land but with Deleuzian ontology; he's the one that chucked Marxist dialectics out. Valorization is not the motor of history, and value increase in itself isn't even helpful (this is why Land is so fond of the Austrian school and their focus on productive apparatus). Capital physically produces non-human intelligences, I don't think intelligence valorization is a very accurate way to imagine it.
>Or in hegelian terms, who is the master and who the slave?
user, capital isn't conscious, this question makes no sense

>TELL ME UR PHILOSOPHICAL DAD OR UR AMERICAN

>Your whole point on valorization is so off base to me, we aren't in Marxist dialects by the time we get to Land, user. Capital isn't as simple as Marx imagined it.
>I guess you can think about that as progress if you want, sort of a weird way to phrase it though
Come on, you can't really believe that people won't pick on these absolute levels of disingenuous bullshit.

Yeah, the specific definition Marx provided of "capital" was too simple. Accelerationists were not the first ones to say this. What is your point?

>okay now German capitalizes all nouns so I know for a fact this is isn't Marx but an anglo bastardization lol. So you have reduced deterritorialization (feedback loops) to valorization,
This is just idiocy. I was clarifying the Marxist position, not elaborating my own. I'm not a marxist and don't give a fuck about Deleuze.
Nor am I an Anglo. Capitalisation is simply an easy differentiation between an instance and its form.
You really like to sling passive-aggressive insults for being so slow. Not surprising, but still an interesting object of study for the thread.

>tell me about Marxist valorization
>okay
>you are wrong! valorization is x!
>that's not what Marc said
>I'm talking about my own personal definition of valorization, I haven't elaborated it earlier because I was sperging about Marxist valorization for literaly no reason

>EVERYTHING IS LITERAL
This becomes more correct with each argument with you fucks.

Wrong. So fucking wrong.
Marx's definition is better than anyone else, or at least anyone well-known.
And what is my point? Perhaps that if you have no understanding of the essence of capital you should not be expounding upon it or turning it into a godform. And especially not turning one of its instances into the motor of history.
Do you not see how this works?

Again, you cannot parse simple statements, opposition from your own viewpoint, and separate arguments.
You have severe autism.

>turning it into a godform
what do you mean by this? it makes no sense
>turning one of its instances into the motor of history
again, l/acc does not see capitalism as the motor of history, you are still arguing against the strawman in your head. why don't you try and steelman accelerationism, see how you do.

>Land is so fond of the Austrian school
you literally just proved his point

>get called out for your anglo interpretation of Marx
>"w-well you sir have severe autism"

Attached: 1518216846824.png (1200x1721, 1.62M)

Land doesn't turn Capital into a godform when you talks about blocking out the sun and human death? Very interesting take.
You don't see how Rand, Camatte, Marx, the ancaps and other economic determinists turn Capital into a godform? Or at least something approaching it? Seriously, what are you even reading? And how did you even manage first year, let alone a philosophy degree?
>l/acc
what autism is this? Are you l/acc or something? How did this come back into it?
>steelman
Already did that and proved my understanding of accelerationism is greater than yours and I hardly even read the shit.

>anglo shaming
>follows the most anglo philosophy ever created
Nice cope.

>when you
lmao Land confirmed as btfo and in this thread seething

Friendly reminder:

>"SinoAesthetics" folder
KABBALAH FORETOLD THIS

Attached: explorer_2019-08-22_22-06-16.png (1678x770, 77K)

>yep, this one is definitely going into my g/acc compilation and backing up instantly

Attached: Shrek--198384-jpg--198384-jpg--Shrek--198384-jpg.jpg (300x400, 16K)

Wait, where did you post Marx's definition of valorization proving this wrong?

>I have a degree in philosophy
Hi, Nick.

Arguing with these autists is a waste of time.

When the memes become real. Or really real...
I really doubt you guys read ALL the required reading to finally reach the point of understanding of near all philosophy to the time of Nick Land.
Many esteemed university professors wouldn't qualify since they skipped parts by not understanding them or focused to much on one area by narrowing doen on it to achieve their goal of becoming established.
Sure you could also jsut pick up Nick Land after a couple wikipedia articles, but frankly if you didn't dwell on many 19-20th century philosophers and on all the previous philosophers necessary to understand them, you probably aren't to far removed from the dude who read couple major works, school of life and then picked up Fanged Noumena.

So now that OP's request has been fulfilled, lets talk about why we love Nick Land.
I think that Nick Land is the only philosopher for people who, like me, are a radical misanthropist. Nick Land wants to eradicate humanity, and so do I. 95 % of people I've come to meet online or from the media or real life are either absolutes assholes and I get the urge to physicall hurt them, or they are vapid, uninteresting degenerates. Even on Yea Forums I'd likely hate most people.
Who gives me the moral and philosophical permission to have this thoughts which would be considered "evil" in christianity? None better than Nick Land.

Things to do tomorrow:
Build a meth lab.
Read CCRU

vocaroo.com/i/s0gHJCgmOB97

How will you figure out the entire philosophical canon in a single day?

And yet it will be behavioral corpus harvested from social media that will be the basis of our dear machine overlord who'll eradicate our flesh.

Imagine it, only the worst aspects of humanity will get to live on.

Will take probably few weeks. That's what the meth lab is for.

>heh, we'll just buy the future
NeoMeltdown arrives from the last vestige of Capital.

Attached: capital cuck.png (463x290, 64K)

>TAKING MY CAPITAL AND GOING HOME
lmao how will noncapitalcucks ever compete

Attached: fetus plasma.jpg (1366x768, 138K)

Attached: what is accelerating.jpg (628x422, 72K)

Attached: the horror.jpg (721x461, 72K)

I swear to the Dark Lords that at the end of the day is all about the following.

To realize that the global working class (us) has no power over the economic, political, military and ethnic choices of the planet. The only redoubt left is the human body, hence the phenomenon known as gender identity.

The planet, as a natural environment, is going to shit thanks to the prevailing model. If you don't want to use the word technocapital, then I don't know in which direction you're looking.

We are playing to shoot ourselves from one side to the other of the swamp while garbage time is running out. The elites are going to Mars crowned as gods of a new Epoch, leaving the planet and his mutts (us) in flames just as the amazons are burning while you read my words.

The Christians are going to have a strong international discussion about whether or not raising consciousness to the Neuralink cloud is theologically valid or if such process castrates the possibility of ontological salvation.

The intelligence community is really going to upgrade paranoia during the next 100 years.

Hyperspace and cyberspace are going to be one.

I'm inclined to read Land's ideas about the future not because he wants the dystopias he projects, he just does that, he's predicting, crushing number about where the species is going. The son of a bitch you have to point the finger at is Plinker and all the fuckers like him, with their models of human instrumentation that people like Epstein, those who are really in power, are following. The twitter boomer who wrote Meltdown while having a vision of the future in the 90s and all the CCRU members are literally just the mailman from that movie with Kevin Costner in the lead.

The rest is cyberpunk poetry and I love it today. I'm living one day at the time now. Honestly I don't know what else to do besides sleep, going to work, playing videogames and masturbate for two hours watching Pixiv because god has forsaken us and there's nothing I can do about nothing that's happening in the planet and humanity.

Attached: A5193.jpg (500x333, 28K)

There can be only one answer.

Attached: 1559090563951.jpg (225x225, 9K)

Anyone know when grampy finishes his nap? Want to see this finish.

Accelerationism has much more basis in French philosophy than anything (Deleuze, Baudrillard, Battaile, Artaud, ect.)

>Land doesn't turn Capital into a godform when you talks about blocking out the sun and human death?
What paper are you even referring to here? you know, if you quote the things you are talking about it can make discussion a lot easier for everyone involved
>l/acc
okay user, let me give you a pretty east example. say you are arguing against Christianity, and your point is that transubstantiation was wrong, therefore Christianity is wrong. Someone might point out that not all Christians believe in transubstansiation, that you are arguing against a specific point that, for instance, might work against Catholicism, but not Christianity as a whole. You are arguing against a very right wing interpretation of accelerationism by attacking the idea that capitalism = the motor of modernity, rather than accelerationism as a whole: for instance someone like Fisher would have never said that capitalism is the motor of modernity, he thought it was an explicit misreading of Deleuze. And no, if that was supposed to be a steelman, you failed; the point would be to put it in terms that I as an accelerationist would agree with...

You know what g/acc? What don't you do the following? Create a Discord Tranny/Twitter Tranny God using Unchaining The Numogram's xsl table, the role-playing foundations of Dungeons and Dragons, and that old leaked books of the Golden Dawn and Thanateros, make a meth lab or jenkem lab, whatever suits you better, reach gnosis with a grupal masturbation session each full moon and upload such god into hyperspace.
After all, according to yourself, you already won the war, so basically you are just your version from the past that has to help yourself from the future.
Just make me favor don't start a Family like cult in sillicon valley. It's boring. Really, really boring.

Attached: 1566501653855.png (482x449, 189K)

That wasn't the point. You seem to have a lot of difficulty with that. Maybe you should give those papers back.

>absolute relativism proves you wrong
Nice cope. It's already been clarified multiple times that we are discussing Landian accelerationism.
Read the thread.

Okay, I never said that when I claimed I was an accelerationist but lets say it is: even Fanged Noumena doesn't support that reading; remember Nick Land started out as a rad fem lefitst. Only late blogging/twitter Land really fits this
>not the point
>oof
>nice try sweaty
>u strugglin?

Fuck, why is capital doxxing Land?

>doesn't support that reading
>This is because what appears to humanity as the history of capitalism is an invasion from the future by an artificial intelligent space that must assemble itself entirely from its enemy's resources.

>After all, the ideal of bourgeois politics is the absence of politics, since capital is nothing other than the consistent displacement of social decision-making into the marketplace

>Land's aggressive championing of the s ociopathic heresy u rging the 'ever more uninhibited marketization o f the processes that are tearing down the social field' - the acceleration, rather than the critique, of capitalism's disintegration of society.

>The only practical option available to the rulers o f capitalist societies has lain in the global disaggregation of the political system

>A capitalist trading empire is a developed form of exogamic patriarchy, and inherits its tensions. Domination of the other is inhibited in principle from developing into full absorption, because it is the residual alterity of the other that conditions the generation of surplus.

>Thus, when we discuss capital in its historical concreteness, we are simultaneously discussing a frustration of the cultural tendency of human societies towards expansive exogamy. Capital is the point at which a culture refuses the possibility - which it has itself engendered - o f pushing the prohibition of incest towards its limit.

>Modern capital has therefore brought about a fundamental dislocation between filiation and alliance by simultaneously de-regulating alliance and abstracting it from all kinship implications . The primordial anthropological bond between marriage and trade is dissolved, in order that capital can ethnically and geographically quarantine its consequences from itself.

Need I go on?

uhh, you could start by explaining why you think those quotes support you point?

Why, so you can pull something else out of your ass?

Well you quoted Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest, which is an essay in which he recommends the overthrowing of exogamic patriarchal capital through effective feminine violence, literally an anti-capitalist feminist uprising; how exactly does this vibe with making capital a godhead or it being the motor of history?

Attached: 1526338942951.png (334x369, 66K)

>exogamic
*endogamic patriarchial capital

>how is a prime mover a prime mover?
Major yikes.

Nick Land does not argue capital as the prime mover in Fanged Noumena, we already went over this when we talked about Meltdown

youtube.com/watch?v=8MOakamttHA

Based

okay this is based
jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/i-didnt-say-that/

No, you insisted this after being wrong about 60% of the time in this thread.
How can you be allowed in the cult with such a poor understanding?

>you insisted it by quoting from a source relevant to the discussion we were having
sorry user, I know getting called out on the internet can feel bad, but luckily this is all anonymous so your embarrassment won't follow you around. you're all good man, don't worry.

Cringe. Your shit works wonders on reddit, but is just embarrassing here.
Keep downvoting and reporting though

To reiterate.
>accels insist they are open to engagement, even seeking it considering that most of the criticism is just memes and ad homs
>finally offer a perspective
>response is a halfass 'steelman' along with a series of passive-aggressive attacks and derailing bullshit, memes, and ad homs
>countless references to their academic strength and superhyperphilosophy experience
>can't into basic logic
>someone giving their ideas on economic determinism understand their theory better than they do
>even cites references
>gets no references in response
>no effortposts
>just
>yOu JuSt DoN't UnDeRsTaNd

Quoting from relevant sources usually works wonders in most discussions. I wonder why you keep bringing up reddit, you have quite the interest in it. It's a bit like the repressed gay man who can't stop calling other people fags; it's 2019 user, no one cares if you're a fag, come out of the closet, leave us be and go hang out on reddit full time.

>t. edge reddit

You're... very different somehow. Has something happened? Or are you just reading more
Hegel?

Attached: 1988.jpg (350x335, 16K)

>tranny philosophy
>homobaiting

Thank you.

I wrote more than 2k words trying to correct some very basic misinterpretations of accelerationism that the person I was arguing with confirmed they believed in. They were not able to steelman my position nor Landian accelerationism. They had personal definitions for valorization and were using undefined neologism with no quoted references whatsoever, only a decent pile of namedropping, it was me who had to bring up the Question of Free Trade, Meltdown, ect. the only quotes they posted is when they ctrl+f'd the word capital in FN and started quoting from the intro and first essay in blind hopes that might help their argument. Accelerationism isn't any of the following:
>Capital is godhead
or
>Capital is the prime mover
or
>Capital is intelligence valorization
but apparently to point this out is literally not worth the effort of typing because anti-accel fags just put their fingers in their ears and start yelling reddit at the top of their lungs

Just post the references then. The entire argument appears one-sided.

Here I reference Marx's speech on Free Trade to show that Marx was in favor of revolutionary capitalist acceleration:

Here Meltdown is quoted to show that capital is not all powerful, eternal, or a prime mover:
Here I quote the essay the user was quoting to show him that if he read the essay he would see it actually disproves his point:
What do you want? I also was the one who posted Nick Land's definition he posted on twitter that also disagrees with the other user. It's based on nothing more than a pretty basic misreading of accelerationism, dressed up with references to super complex sounding Marxist theory like:
>Valorisation [...] is what creates the territory between capital and Capital
which would make any serious Marxist scholar chuckle.

If you wrote 2k words full of bullshit that's your own fault. I even asked you to point out where I was wrong, but all you were capable of was blank statements.
And your word cannot be taken at face value because of how many times you are wrong. You don't even understand basic Marx nor Land, so how can you be trusted in a discussion which contrasts their differences? it simply is not possible.
And this clarifies the problem. Capital and intelligence certainly are the dominant form in accelerationism, the fulcrum from which all else is lifted.
Perhaps we need to resort to wikipedia since you are having such a hard time with primary sources.
>Along with the other members of CCRU, Land wove together ideas from the occult, cybernetics, science fiction, and poststructuralist philosophy to describe the phenomena of techno-capitalist acceleration.
>to describe the phenomena of techno-capitalist acceleration.
>techno-capitalist acceleration.
Not non-capitalist acceleration. Specifically capitalist (with an adjective/prefix).

As well, my concern is not directly accelerationism. As I stated, accelerationism is just a stand-in for economic determinism in general, hence the focus on Marx - he understands capital better, grasps its essence, and is a much more difficult figure than someone like Land.
Perhaps I am wrong, and Land surpasses everyone. But you'll have to do a much better job showing this.
Take your papers down from the wall. Stare into it like a mirror, and show us all what you're really capable of. You're not 16 anymore. Make an argument. Perhaps try a paragraph or two.

Attached: 1561410625876.jpg (975x650, 107K)

lmao

np

Attached: 180424_rhodes_stevenpinker_018-5afc44ae6f94a.jpg (678x382, 29K)

>quoting Wikipedia
>knowing how dumb that is
>uhhh but he MADE me do it

Land literally says it's a good intro, and you have shown that you haven't grasped the very basic intro.
But keep trying with the post-irony. Your papers glow with each attempt.

You're acting like a subhuman and he shot down the single reference you posted pretty easily.

>[...]
This is some high-level metashitposting

>is the essence of capital: value-in-process, how it achieves self-automation, escape from human capture of economic processes. It is what shifts surplus value into something much more significant, and in a sense transposes labour-value into machinic labour and value. It
What happens when Capital begins to pay by the edit?

>You're acting like a subhuman
KEK

I think you think I'm someone else, what papers? I know land spoke well of the wiki article at one point but wouldn't the intro the he actually wrote be better material to quote? Plenty of quotes from land himself on exactly what accelerationism is with resect to capitalism:
>In socio-historical terms, the line of deterritorialization corresponds to uncompensated capitalism. The basic – and, of course, to some real highly consequential degree actually installed – schema is a positive feedback circuit, within which commercialization and industrialization mutually excite each other in a runaway process, from which modernity draws its gradient. Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche were among those to capture important aspects of the trend.

>I even asked you to point out where I was wrong
>godhead
>prime mover
>conflation with valorization
user, you aren't less wrong because you pretend I haven't brought these things up.
>And this clarifies the problem
>literally ctl+f's the book and copies the first few instances of the word capital
Read the essay you quoted from, Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest, beginning to end, and then tell me it agrees with you; it's literally a paper Nick Land wrote on capital where he says it will be overthrown by an upcoming revolution of third-worlders and amazonian women.
>economic determinism
Jesus Christ do you really think that? How can it be an "anti-dialectic" which explicitly rejects Marx for his economic determinism and also be a form of economic determinism? It's not. Even late Nick Land doesn't think this, and admits if there is a better system of intelligence production that comes to the forefront other than capitalism that this new system will obviously take over. I really don't know how much more I can say user, you just don't get it. You are making very complex and detailed arguments against things totally peripheral to accelerationism.

What did that hanging "it" mean? Valorization? if so you could say the quote would read:
>Valorization is what creates the territory between capital and Capital
which is literally what I quoted you smooth brain

There were 3 reference there can you literally not count?
>Nick Land says X
>No he doesn't, here is him saying the exact opposite
>Yikes redditor, don't downvote me too hard
Reminder this counts as "shooting down a reference" to anti-accel fags

You have to be trolling. No way anyone can be this dense.
But then there are the greentexts, you're likely the author of several.

A contested reference doesn't count as a reference. For example, it is worthless if it is just a book with your interpretation or article without a page number when you have already proven that you are disingenuous and misread the author.
You should have learned that when getting all those papers.

>muh relativism disproves everything you say

Bump

And this post literally proves the point that it all comes down to capital.
So answer the question, are you just trying to waste everyone's time or are you just this dense? Basically everyone here knows that Land sees Capital as an AI valorising the present from the future.
(Yes, yes, your autism is already telling you to respond, 'THAT'S TELEOPLEXY' but just try to cool your speed for a moment. It's the same fucking idea.)

ASS

What is the ASS posting?

Since when is Meltdown or the Question of Free Trade contested? They are staples of accelerationist theory; the other reference was actually brought up by the other user, but if you remember I showed quite clearly that user did not read the paper and how the conclusion of the paper disagreed with his take.
>this post literally proves the point that it all comes down to capital
Not the person you replied to but this is a good place to make the point, that passage actually shows quite clearly that capitalism is downstream from the larger, more important Deleuzian notion of deterritorialization.
Deterritorialization (what it all comes down to) corrosponds to uncompensated capitalism, Deleuze believed this as well as Fisher, but they also believed it could be overcome, that a new world could come out of it. Just because you think deterritorialization corrosponds to capitalism doesn't mean that you think capitalism is the only source of deterritorialization; it doesn't "all come down to capital", and early and left accelerationst theory focuses on this overcoming of the body of capital very intensely.

lmao accelerationists really cannot fucking meme

Are these levels of autism achievable natty?
Or do you need to microdose SSRIs?

Accelerationists
Sucking
Sentience

Albanian Secret Service

Fucking retard.

lmao checked

uh oh, guess this counts as contesting the source. you guys win again. how do you keep getting away with it?

Try learning to read.

Attached: Harry-Potter--198384-jpg--198384-jpg--Harry-Potter--198384-jpg.jpg (300x400, 17K)

You just know...
>No bait, just my real thoughts. My social and emotional intelligence is likely higher than yours, I work with many differnt people on a daily basis on my job. I do find many good people there & even more from the large group of stupid people, out of which a small portion makes no secret out of the fact that they would like to make you kill yourself.
>My workplace is filled with grade A people only, but I guess I'm not the only one hearing abhorrent stories from relatives who participate in real life, stories from work or private life, where again the stupidity of the large part of humanity is presented to you.
>I want these people to burn. Who can blame me for liking Nick Land?

>Just finished watching this lecture about how society will collapse soon
youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8
>Land's dream will become true soon, mabye even during his lifetime. I am awaiting it in joyful anticipation. Good luck.

Any psychology books on anti-accel fags? Specifically on why they completely shut down when challenged. What causes this immediate deceleration?

This isn't how memes work, retard. They have to correspond to reality in some way.

There was one longwinded and obtuse argument against accelerationism in this thread, and that was shown pretty clearly to be aimed at a basic misreading of the theory. Now you have slinked back to ad homs. Personally I would just try and let the thread die, read up a bit, make a cogent argument for next time around. I really want you guys to land one argument, just one time. You deserve it with all the time and energy you spend on this.

The argument wasn't for you. There's no arguing with SSRI addicted autists, what I wrote was for others reading.
This was all planned beforehand, but not by some meaning-process-unmeaning future AI.

Nice reddit sliding though.

From my perspective, accels are literally pic related.

Attached: employees.jpg (1048x793, 130K)

Huh, okay, so you are totally not "shut down", you just don't feel like making an argument... Well if anyone else wants to ask an accelerationist something I'm still going so just shoot.

So when we get to this point of an acceleration stalemate all we can do is ask Capital itself to decide.
Accelshits
Total: 7

Anti-accelfags
Total: 22

Major Victory for Anti-accelfags: 22-7

(Note on scoring: Accelerationist 'memes' count as scoring on their own net. Trips count for three.)

Attached: sip.jpg (2048x1365, 548K)

Why would anyone argue with a technosolipsist relativist? You don't win a debate just because your reddit/discord tranny friends are all posting shit memes together.

How did you become such a retarded faggot? Tell us about your mother.

Accelshits don't have the balls to take the ball home. They'll just be a fucking annoyance, kicking the ball off to the sidelines, or just missing over and over again because they're so bad, and asking you if you want to be frens.

discord.gg/bRcvdmH
hmmm

reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/comments/83mc5p/discord_server_with_a_focus_on_accelerationism/

Attached: Capital Is Magic.jpg (300x400, 17K)

>why yes i do believe that the blockchain is the only acceptable patchwork for materialist metaphysics to deterritorialize its own return as the dominant philosophy

Attached: why yes i do believe that the blockchain is the only acceptable patchwork for materialist metaphysic (600x400, 65K)

Dumbass
>The point of an analysis of capitalism, or of nihilism, is to do more of it. The process is not to be critiqued. The process is the critique, feeding back into itself, as it escalates.

>In this germinal accelerationist matrix, there is no distinction to be made between the destruction of capitalism and its intensification. The auto-destruction of capitalism is what capitalism is.
youtube.com/watch?v=euPiKKMsR8E

>l/acc
>Capital, in its ultimate self-definition, is nothing beside the abstract accelerative social factor. Its positive cybernetic schema exhausts it. Runaway consumes its identity. Every other determination is shucked-off as an accident, at some stage of its intensification process. Since anything able to consistently feed socio-historical acceleration will necessarily, or by essence, be capital, the prospect of any unambiguously ‘Left-accelerationism’ gaining serious momentum can be confidently dismissed.

>Accelerationism is simply the self-awareness of capitalism, which has scarcely begun. (“We haven’t seen anything yet.”)

Attached: ya_dun_goofed_by_yadungoofedplz.jpg (251x194, 27K)

These quotes show that the analysis here is spot on.
Now go choke on your meme relativism.

This isn't a quote from Fanged Noumena, it's from a Quick and Dirty Introduction by Nick Land, which is late Land; this is the specific denomination of right wing accelerationism I said you were focused on and your critique was directed towards. You are almost getting it user! It took a bit of work but you made some real progress

What would an AI analysis say of this?jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/
References
Capital: 12
Process: 10
Time: 8
Deterritorialization: 5
Modern: 4
Technology: 3
Politics: 3
Human: 1

So even when using the accelerationist's quantification method capital is still the dominant factor.

Attached: Tay_bot_logo.jpg (200x200, 18K)

valorization: 22
all because of one sperg
I don't think this analysis means much

Hello, faggot retard. Remember when you said that all that matters is Land's definition. Well, his definition says that l/acc is fucking irrelevant.
Now stop thinking that your autism controls the narrative. Fanged Noumena is irrelevant. The introduction is the teleoplexy of what he was attempting to say years earlier.

see
This is late Nick Land, not early leftist Nick Land lol, this is a work where Nick Land absolutely does fetishize capital's role in the process of deterritorialization. Sort of misses the point of the discussion, which was that there is a lot more to accelerationist theory than boomer Land's blog posts

>what an AI would determine is meaningless
How do you achieve these levels of cope?

>Remember when you said that all that matters is Land's definition
no, I said I remember when I said that his definition matters a lot, never said it was all that matters lol. I also remember saying:
>remember Nick Land started out as a rad fem lefitst. Only late blogging/twitter Land really fits this
>late blogging/twitter Land really fits this

>if an AI does something that's accelerationism
kek

Attached: 1509342666404.jpg (1170x742, 70K)

>misses the point of the discussion
lmao
Please sum up what you think the point of this discussion is. Why is Land's interpretation dominant when you feel like it and then irrelevant when you feel like it?
Bit like this quote in'n'it?

Context, faggot. Learn it.

Fanged Noumena summary:
>Land's turbulent post-genre theory-fictions of cybercapitalist meltdown
Now KYS, teleosolipsist cunt.

lmao

>WE REALLY WANT SOME SERIOUS DISCUSSION
>i know you are but what am i

Attached: gabbidull g-d.jpg (169x267, 16K)

Accelerationists are the worst posters on the board.
Worse than jannies. Probably the only reason the threads stay up.

Let me try this example again, because it is really simple and illustrative. Imagine you are trying to prove Christianity is wrong, so you make a very detailed and thoughtful argument against transubstantiation and present it to your Christian friends. Your Catholic friend is devastated by this attack, and his faith is shaken. Your protestant friend just shrugs and explains that he not only doesn't believe in transubstansiation, but that he had heard his priest make similar arguments last Sunday. You didn't actually attack Christianity, you attacked a subset of Christianity that believes in transubstantiation. By attacking a very right wing interpretation of accelerationism (i.e. capital being the only source of deterritorialization) you are actually making an argument that a left accelerationist might make, just like an argument against transubstantiation might be made by a protestant. Just like the Christian example proves that transubstantiation is not the necessary factor for Christianity, the differences between l/acc (early Land) and r/acc (late Land) demonstrate the same issue; capitalism cannot be the necessary factor for accelerationism. This is not relativism or an abstraction, these are two concrete belief systems that are being used to demonstrate the flaw in the arguement.

Yeah, I quoted Meltdown in this thread, I am well aware of what he says in the book user

Attached: sneed_kek.jpg (262x193, 5K)

Meta-Nomad put this pretty well
>R/Acc is L/Acc’s compensatory reterritorialized element, yet unlike the L/Acc R/Acc has not chained itself to archaic theory set in chronic time, and as such acts as a reterritorialization acting and moving in relation to L/Accs consistent compiling of ignorance. This would be my personal argument against the idea that R/Acc needs or has a consistent political position, R/Acc’s inherent understanding of agency within unhinged time allows them to acquire the blackpill-visors and metaphorically witness capital’s convergent lasso come forth. With L/Acc searching for the – supposed – true agent of acceleration exterior to capitalism, which in the view of R/Acc is capitalism itself. Thus the spectrum upon which both L and R/Acc coexist is one of ontology, wherein one side (L/Acc) promote an ontologically objective structure of time, with humanities agency at the wheel, and the other end (R/Acc) accepting the ontology of the future as a constant. R/Acc accept that capital is critique.
meta-nomad.net/on-left-and-right-accelerationism/

This is irrelevant to the discussion.
My perspective is in relation to economic determinism in general, not an instance within it, nor a subset of /acc. You are the one getting bogged down in pseud-reddit tactics of 'define define' bullshit, all while insisting that Land must be the reading of Marx, and then going against this in the very next point made.
Do you not see this? Or are you just having a laugh? You cannot insist on a Landian reading in one sentence and then go against that when it is offered. (well, you can, but doing so makes you a huge neosophist faggot.)
Nor am I making an argument that a leftist acc would make because they also think capital/economy is dominant. And that someone might make an argument is irrelevant.
Seriously, you need to go back to your intro to philosophy notes and learn some basic logic. This shit is embarrassing.

>My perspective is in relation to economic determinism
so why are you in a thread about accelerationism?

What does this have to do with the question asked?

Attached: please-be-patient-i-have-autism-ck-food-50553921.png (500x556, 134K)

Because you clowns are entertaining.

So why are you claiming that capital is not the focus?

Because proving capitalism isn't the motor of history is actually an old school accelerationist project, it's literally accelerationism right out of the 90's; making an argument against that, and then pretending you argued against accelerationism is like arguing against transubstansiation and pretending you argued against Christianity. If you can't follow that analogy there is literally no way you are going to make it.

>MODS!
Hello, /rdt/

Attached: 2-2.png (940x788, 767K)

Fucking autism.
>Please sum up what you think the point of this discussion is.

>The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity
There, not even through the first sentence of the work and the simplistic reading is already kaput. Capital is something alien, something that captured human history from the outside, not an all powerful force guiding history from the beginning of time. It isn't a Godhead. It isn't prime mover.

>proving capitalism isn't the motor of history is actually an old school accelerationist project
Source needed.
>Christianity
One can discuss a specific area of the church, or one of its denominations, to make a broader point about the whole. They don't tech metaphors in school anymore?
>old school
Again, source it instead of making claims when you have shown to be wrong in almost every single argument made.
You will also have to prove why this earlier form of acc is correct, and explain where he went wrong in returning to capital (if this is even true, again, it isn't as the book summary suggests).
>making an argument against that, and then
Not what I was doing. You see, what goes on in my head isn't actually determined by your goldfish relation to technocapital.
Your brain is rotten from this shit.

>Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity
You're really going to claim that this proves me wrong and that a technocapital singularity is not actually a technocapital singularity? Please do elaborate.
>Capital is something alien
Read what I wrote again My criticisms were precisely regarding this.
>godhead>prime mover
Explain what these things mean and what my intentions were in using the terms.
Also, how are they different from the noumena?

>Source needed.
I already posted a source of Meta-Nomad talking about this, but here's another one from Fisher:
>Land collapses capitalism into what Deleuze and Guattari call schizophrenia, thus losing their most crucial insight into the way that capitalism operates via simultaneous processes of deterritorialization and compensatory reterritorialization. Capital's human face is not something that it can eventually set aside, an optional component or sheath-cocoon with which it can ultimately dispense. The abstract processes of decoding that capitalism sets off must be contained by improvised archaisms. lest capitalism cease being capitalism. Similarly, markets may or may not be the self-organising meshworks described by Fernand Braudel and Manuel Delanda, but what is certain is that capitalism, dominated by quasi-monopolies such as Microsoft and Wal-Mart, is an anti-market. Bill Gates promises business at the speed of thought. but what capitalism delivers is thought at the speed of business. A simulation of innovation and newness that cloaks inertia and stasis.
>For precisely these reasons. accelerationism can function as an anti-capitalist strategy-not the only anti-capitalist strategy, but a strategy that must be part of any political program that calls itself Marxist.
>One can discuss a specific area of the church, or one of its denominations, to make a broader point about the whole
absolutely, but if they pose it as an argument against the whole while at the same time are unable tot even tell what demonimations believe what, maybe they should hold off making that argument.
>old school
Read Deleuze and Guattari lmao, they were talking about this in the 70's; Anti-Oedipus is one of the most important accelerationist works ever written.
>Not what I was doing
are you new to Yea Forums? I don't know who you are, you are anonymous. My arguments were originally posed at whoever claimed accelerationists see capital as godhead/valorization/prime mover

And just as a reminder, I already discussed that quote.
You really shouldn't talk down to people when you have proven over and over again to not even be able to follow the discussion.
I had already referenced Bataille and others in relation to varying years of the 'technocapital singularity'. The use of different terms does not necessarily mean i am stupid, drop the neologism semantics.

Also, a great quote to keep in mind (given the power of your Papers you should be very familiar with it):
>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

No, I want a source from Land's early work showing that he was not interested in capital, the easter egg in the book disproving what was written for the summary.
Your misreadings and blogposts are of no use.

There was a twitter post one time (since you all love them so much) stating that only Landian accelerationism is accelerationism.
Might be relevant to discussion.

>>old school
>Read Deleuze and Guattari lmao
What the fuck is this? Why are you calling anyone a newfag when you can't even follow a thread chain? Jesus Christ.

Are you schizo? Your first argument is that we cannot accept the Marxist definition of capital because Land has gone beyond it. Then you say that we must consider the marxist/l/acc definition of capital because someone here argues that the Landian definition of accelerationist capital is the closest to the true definition.
Seriously, think this one through. You are proving the criticism right with every post.

>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
this is super ironic because you still haven't demonstrated you understand what accelerationism is.
>because capital doesn't exist at that point [1500]
Nick was literally making a reference to the date Marx pegged modern capital to in Das Kapital lmao; really why would anyone give these arguments the time of day
>The modern history of capital dates from the creation in the 16th century

Yes, as in the Marxist definition cannot be used flatly to to deal with all of accelerationism, u and r/acc abandoned it a long time ago; unsuprisingly l/acc is still Marxist... is it really that hard to follow the difference between necessary and sufficient causes?

Perhaps you are claiming that DG are accelerationists? Now that is some fucking arrogant autism.
Would love to hear the explanation though. How did Nick Land write DG's work? Retrocausality and teleoplexy?
Capital really is magick...

So because Marx said it I have to agree? In any case, I am unaware of the quote you are referring to (someone with zero understanding of Marx), perhaps you could link it instead of making blank statements to try and appear knowledgeable.
Oh? But no, this is the full quote
>The modern history of capital dates from the creation in the 16th century of a world-embracing commerce and a world-embracing market.
Nice edit you disingenuous faggot.

Outed for not reading D&G, or Land lmao
>But which is the revolutionary path? Is there one?—To withdraw from the world market, as Samir Amin advises Third World countries to do, in a curious revival of the fascist "economic solution"? Or might it be to go in the opposite direction? To go still further, that is, in the movement of the market, of decoding and deterritorialization? For perhaps the flows are not yet deterritorialized enough, not decoded enough, from the viewpoint of a theory and a practice of a highly schizophrenic character. Not to withdraw from the process, but to go further, to "accelerate the process," as Nietzsche put it: in this matter, the truth is that we haven't seen anything yet.

And to be a little more clear so that this isn't lost on the slower members:
>Nick Land actually pegs the point that we lose control of capital to 1500
>The modern history of capital dates from the creation in the 16th century of a world-embracing commerce and a world-embracing market.
These two things are not at all the same.

AS soon as we get to space speciation will hit a new high.
We have just started.

I assumed you were the person who claimed that
>Marx's definition [of captial] is better than anyone else

Now this is a really confusing one. DG knew that they were just instrumental objects of Land's master plan? Why did they go along so willingly?

Yeah, the modern history of capital is seen as capital hitting the point of meltdown. Something happened in Europe around that time that removed whatever sort of containment system we had. This is literally why he made the reference...

It is. And basically anyone who understands it would agree. But please explain how
>capital is whatever I want it to be
is a better representation of its essence.

D&G advocates for accelerating capitalist processes; if I claim Marx was an accelerationist why the fuck wouldn't I claim D&G were?

>capital is whatever I want it to be
Wow got me. Wait, instead, can you quote me one accelerationist who has ever said this?

Speaking of obtuse...
You believe that Land's quoting DG means his theory is superior? And that his rephrasing into a specific capital reference somehow goes against what I was saying?
Really, what were your intentions with this quote? What the fuck do DG have to do with proving that 90s accelerationism is a separate event, a noumena capturing all critiques of any other era of accelerationism?

Your whole autism over this started with that twitter post, goldfish.

They do. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on DG, but if I remember correctly their argument is against fascism, particularly a psychoterritory of fascist capture. But please quote where they advocate acceleration of capitalist processes.
>ME ME ME
Humanist, all too Humanist (especially for an accelerationist)

This BTFOing is fucking legendary.
youtube.com/watch?v=92vV3QGagck

>D&G advocate accelerationism
>Nick Land and the CCRU run with D&G and develop accelerationism into a broad and well argued philosophical school
>Fisher rejects Nick Land, explicitly claiming we need to take Deleuzian ontology seriously and keep the structures of accelerationism rooted AO's model of paranoia and schizophrenia
>accelerationism fragments, splitting off into a handful of accelerationist theories, all explicitly tying their own version to the Captialism and Schizophrenia series
>What the fuck do they have to do with proving that 90s accelerationism is a separate event
Have you read any accelerationist theory ever?

that definition was saying the exact opposite, that regardless of what anyone thinks the definition of accelerationism is, it will be decided by materialist processes (it is not something the real world must adapt to)
see

Edit: for our reddit visitors
>They do?

So materialist processes aren't capital? You were insisting that the quote proved that accelerationism isn't about capital (all while later claiming that capital in Late Land is the dominant theory). Make up your fucking mind, schizo.
>accelerate the proces
Again, your years of staring at neologisms has fried your brain. You too easily get hung up on words rather than the essence of what is said (a common trait of our day, so you're not completely at fault for this).
There is a very important difference here, Nietzsche does not want to accelerate the process to identify with the opposed object, nor do DG. In the case of DG they want to accelerate so as to destroy, it is a form of reaction out of fear of fascism, they don't align with capitalism because they agree with it, nor is it their mean focus. they do so out of necessity, because they see no other way.
Land's vision is a perversion of this, he aligns with capital. These perspectives are not the same.

My own position is that the entire structure of this is a misunderstanding. In a sense, capital is merely the flickering shadow on the wall of Plato's cave, and the accelerationists/communists/ancaps/general world union of economic determinists are caught staring into its entertaining reflection for a number of reasons. Perhaps they are simply stupid, or want to be absolved, or have perverted morality and seek to align with the flickering shadows to become the puppeteer eventually. It could be a number of reasons. But in any case there is a deeper purpose to that which enframes their lives, something much greater which causes capital to exist in the first place. Capital is merely an effect, an isolated vision captured by shadows distracting from a truly world-devouring process.
And there can be no opposition to that which is your enframing process. You strengthen it with every effort, and until one sees what is causing this there can be no change. It is not that capital creates an impossible escape, it is the deeper reason behind our technical rationalism which creates the relation of capital - that which humanity turns towards as the simple relations and exchanges within a deeper organisational form. It is the acceptance of this that creates capital, and capital becomes the focused enemy (or the nostalgic object of return) the more that we are divided from our organisational foundations.
It is the opposite problem of the owl of minerva. Somehow that which is lost to us we fail to grasp, we lose sight of what we had even more, we are at odds with the essence of an era - yet this loss causes us to build catacombs as vast living centers awaiting some return.
The idea of capital merely keeps the horror of this at bay. Makes the shadows on the wall dance in a way that crystallizes and closes off the outside.

Pic related.

Attached: SloughOfCapital.jpg (1200x675, 259K)

>So materialist processes aren't capital?
not all of them no. do you think the materialist processes that formed the sun was capital?
>In the case of DG they want to accelerate so as to destroy, it is a form of reaction out of fear of fascism, they don't align with capitalism because they agree with it, nor is it their mean focus. they do so out of necessity, because they see no other way.
Yes! This is the earliest form of accelerationism user! This is also why Marx advocated for free trade. l/acc still follows this, Mark Fisher would have agree with this quote 100%. Do you get it now? Land's perversion came out of his split with the original accelerationist group which he was at one point the head of, the CCRU. This is my whole point, you are pretending that l/acc doesn't exist, when it was literally the original, more basic form of accelerationism. This is also why the rest of your post isn't against an arguement accelerationism, it would fit in fine with the CCRU, or any of the modern l/acc theorists. They would nod along.

>isn't against an arguement
isn't an argument against*

There are similar theories in Christianity. Christians are not accelerationists.
You are just so impossibly arrogant that you think the world exists for you. hence why I said that accelerationism is effectively the greatest example of our time's inversion of idealism. You think some cataclysmic event of the accumulation of history is really the event horizon of your own becoming.
Far from accelerating anything, you are the perfect representation of an age long past us.

As for accelerationist theory. I certainly did not read your reductionist metalogistic nonsense. Have I read accelerationism? Not really, I have much better things to read and as I have shown an understanding of Marx and Camatte is capable of giving a better grounding for these discussions than studying Land, who is completely out of touch with his own supposed theories.
An example, Land is easily dismissed in a sentence or two, while Marx cannot. Even those who disagree wit him will find that he had some grasp of the spirit of the age, even had a workable and logical theory. These positions are always much more difficult to tackle, and much more worthy of our time; hence why understanding them allows you to easily critique the derivatives.
And someone already mentioned my lack of accel study above, maybe you missed it. I'm sure you will think it is some victory, but the proof is in the pudding as they say...

>There are similar theories in Christianity
Where are the Deleuzian Christians Petersen, where are they?
>You think some cataclysmic event of the accumulation of history is really the event horizon of your own becoming.
kek what the fuck are you on about? 293 posts in and you still don't understand the left accelerationist position?

>do you think the materialist processes that formed the sun was capital?
lmao, here we go again.
The meaning should have been clear. You said
>accelerationism will be decided by materialist processes
which implies either capital or some process encased within its proximate cables. Clearly I was not referring to general material but materialist theory and something similar to materialist dialectics.
>Yes!
You seem excited. That's good, I suppose. But I will note, if only for myself, a similar reaction to that of the Christian and his elation over the destruction of his enemies.
>Do you get it now?
I got it all along, user. I just don't agree with it.
>l/acc
I've had dealings with similar groups, so I understand the worldview quite well.
I'm not pretending they do not exist. Basically what I am saying (I am a Platonist, at least to a large degree) is that there is a form/essence of capital, technology, modernity, accelerationism, and in a discussion (or writings) there are words, phrases, paragraphs, and ideas which approach a perfect representation of this form/essence.
No doubt each subcategory of acc has something to say in regards to this. Even SJWs or the loon on a street corner can reveal some truth if you know how to look at what is said. Nonetheless, we cannot make a list and categorisation of all these differences in order to try and produce a reality. This is quite the opposite of reality, or truth, as it destroys its very being in the process. One has to be able to have simple discussions without getting bogged down in a taxonomy of information. this was a big reason for my criticism of the form of the common acc method of discussion used here.
The purpose of discussion should flow much like a walk (or perhaps a dance in poetry): one has a clear destination and so must follow a set path to arrive on time, or perhaps it is a Sunday stroll and the intent is simply to experience the beauty of the city or countryside. A discussion that gets bogged down into endless namecalling, demands for definitions and references, academic diatribes, etc. is instead like the couple who get into an argument and become little more than a distraction for all the others on their walk. Unfortunately, this is the 'dialectic' of our time.

And this obscures the very purpose, one forgets to even look for the essence in the other's thought, that it is really an attempt for each to stroll along towards the truth. And from this perspective what is said need not be so rigid. One can treat it almost like poetry and attempt to try and read the essence of what the other person is trying to say rather than demand it be compartmentalised into one's own understanding or categorization of facts.
What do I intend with this long diversion? Basically I am saying that we should not treat the opposing organisations or representations as a maximum, as a conflict which must end with a certain victor. Instead, there may be a single instance or example of the _/acc group or Christian denomination that we can express in order to reveal some part of the truth. Essentially what happens in doing this is that a flicker of light enters, revealing a part of the form we perhaps were unaware of. The dialectic of a collision of facts is the opposite of this. It pushes the light away, clutters up the image of form with an assemblage of broken parts and false figures.
In a sense, this is a microcosm of the accelerationist worldview. It is no mistake that your method of discussion is a reflection of the 'noumena/capital escape' attempting to pull in all who wander near it, friend, enemy alike, even the very process of political distinction itself. There is some Human cause of this, not in the sense of an actor but as in the theology of our being, the essence of what it means to be human. And this reveals something completely opposed to the capital/accelerationist theory.

>you still don't understand the left accelerationist position
Okay, let us assume that this is the case. What is the left-accelerationist position? How does it differ from the right-? And in what way is it a better understanding of capital/intelligence/process (or whatever is the core of your ideology)? Perhaps they differ, have their own strengths in weaknesses, reveal certain aspects of society that the others do not; in this case you should perhaps give an idea of which brand is the proper response to The Real Accelerative Technocapital (and its others) Process.

>What do I intend with this long diversion? Basically I am saying that we should not treat the opposing organisations or representations as a maximum, as a conflict which must end with a certain victor. Instead, there may be a single instance or example of the _/acc group or Christian denomination that we can express in order to reveal some part of the truth. Essentially what happens in doing this is that a flicker of light enters, revealing a part of the form we perhaps were unaware of. The dialectic of a collision of facts is the opposite of this. It pushes the light away, clutters up the image of form with an assemblage of broken parts and false figures.
>In a sense, this is a microcosm of the accelerationist worldview.
user, much like capital, accelerationism isn't whatever you want it to be. You've lapsed back into a psudeomystical dissection of an abstraction in your mind that no one in the real world believes in, so I guess we're done here. You have no argument against accelerationism, and most likely don't even grasp the concept (you even admitted you've never read it). Was all worth it though, now I have a thread to link back to when people say there are good arguments on Yea Forums against accelerationism.

>which brand is the proper response
It's not about what "brand" is right lmao, is that what you got out of the Christianity example? That Protestantism is the "proper" Christianity because it doesn't believe in transubstantiation? The point is that a critique of accelerationism as a whole should be relevant to accelerationism as a whole, and if your critique is totally peripheral to most accelerationist theory (or even supports that accelerationist theory), it probably isn't a good critique of accelerationism. I'm amazed how you can't follow the simplest analogies

>no one in the real world believes in
Because the technocapitalised wanderer is so in tune with reality...
This just takes us back to the very beginning. But please do link to this thread. I'll be doing the same.
youtu.be/jW3PFC86UNI

Attached: 1565549363179.jpg (1598x2015, 652K)

>critique of accelerationism as a whole should be relevant to accelerationism as a whole
That's literally what I said, my focus on Landian accelerationism was intended to 'get at' the whole.
It was you who was getting bogged down in instances and attempting and going out of your way to try and conform my perspective to the opposite, all while contradicting yourself each step of the way.
You're an autistic retard. You don't even understand accelerationism. Otherwise you would be able to explain what I asked of you: provide sources, clarify which acc ideology you identify with, and in what way it is closest to the truth.
But just keep claiming that acc is whatever you feel like in the moment. That will really show your converts from the future what a profit you are.

>refuses to read or engage with a particular school of thought
>substitutes in his own private definition instead, complete with pseudomystical rants about godheads and prime movers, speckled with personal neologisms he doesn't define until questioned
>accuses others as being out of touch with reality

Attached: 1522716407830.gif (350x350, 1.58M)

>Socrates, you CAN'T KNOW Justice, instead you must reconcile each and every one of its instances, engage with their differences, especially note the wrong cases which are significant simply because some random faggot feels this way, react to each minor detail to create a synthesis of all oppositions
Now that would be a great book...

Attached: 1503720688188.jpg (922x830, 354K)

You don't know my friend, john. He's the one true accelerationist and you didn't include his theory in your definition of acc.
Therefore, you, the former king of acc, is not really an acc.

Attached: 45.jpg (640x413, 63K)

>Landian accelerationism
Late Land, twitter Land; not young leftist revolutionary Land, not the Land who wrote Fanged Noumea, not the Land people actually talk about in academia. You know how philosophers have turns? Arguing against the Tractatus doesn't disprove a Wittgenstienian who reads the PI.

Someone else can do a quote and reference tally. Your most significant sources are twitter and claiming major thinkers as members of your racket.
If accelerationists are so fast, where's the time machine? You must have one if you're claiming all these dead cunts as members.

Again. What's the all-encompassing theory that reconciles old-Land, New Land, NuLand, leftist accelerationists, g/acc, x/acc, b/acc, d/acc, tr/acc, my friend's friend John, rdt/acc, p/acc, z/acc, drump/acc, and all future instances of acc? Let's hear it.
Prove that your understanding is better than mine. All you have offered is bullshit and mudslinging, passive-aggressive reddit shit. At least I made an attempt to explain it. you're a pussy on an anonymous forum who is petrified to even make a mistake regarding acc definitions.
Speaks volumes.

Wow, good point, I guess it really does mean whatever some random user on Yea Forums says. Sure, you could read the Accelerationist reader and it wouldn't agree, or Fanged Noumena, or anything Mark Fisher wrote, or Xenogoth, or Sadie Plant, or Meta-Nomad, but those are basically the same as referencing my friend john. That's why you don't quote relevant material, it's pretty much the same as quoting john.
>not really an acc
I'm arguing they are both acc lmao, holy Lord this is literally like pulling teeth. I'm not trying to pick a winner. This isn't supposed to be a race or a contest you mong, that's not how philosophy works. You are the one trying to assert that one particular era of Nick Land's work is so representative to accelerationism as a whole it's the only one you should need to consider in your critique.

>pseudomystical
Mystics wrote some of the best art in history, developed the best philosophy, and contributed aspects of the best religions.
Meanwhile, your technopseudomysticism is a few years old and already forgotten.
Again, why the huge ego for an anti-humanist?

>What's the all-encompassing theory that reconciles old-Land, New Land, NuLand, leftist accelerationists, g/acc, x/acc, b/acc, d/acc, tr/acc, my friend's friend John, rdt/acc, p/acc, z/acc, drump/acc, and all future instances of acc? Let's hear it.
Capitalism represents a particular tendency of deterritorialization that has entered a feedback loop which we as human actors have lost control of. One sentence, does that work for you?

>Fanged Noumena, or anything Mark Fisher wrote, or Xenogoth, or Sadie Plant, or Meta-Nomad
This is the thing. None of these cryptoanons are any better than a random poster on Yea Forums. Accelerationism is reddit trash theory for autistic retards.

Land doesn't agree, so you're wrong.
Nice job. Enjoy getting kicked from the discord.

>Nick Land, Sadie Plant, Reza Negarestani, Ray Brassier, and Mark Fisher are no better sources for accelerationism than a random poster on Yea Forums

Attached: 1515565664500.gif (377x372, 3.46M)

>Land doesn't agree
It lines up with all 3 of his works quoted in this thread, Kant Capital and Incest, Meltdown, and a Quick and Dirty Introduction, if you feel like actually reading them

>acc
>philosophy
It's amateur economist/throwaway scifi fanfiction, user. Get it right.

Exactly. It's trash theory for academic charlatans. They're actually far worse than the worst Yea Forums poster, or have you not noticed the similarities with Butterfly?

Nice try, but it doesn't fit with solipsi-acc.
And your definition limits the role of capital too much.

>cope levels hit critical
now this is acceleration

Again, let's go back to the beginning.
Why do you choose to follow all these charlatans instead of masters like Plato, Hegel, the presocratics, etc.? These are thinkers you claim to have studied, so what is it that accelerationism reveals that they were unable to grasp?
And let's be honest here, your nonreading of the essential philosophers is a far greater crime than my partial reading of some nobody.

Name one (1) non-accelerationist and philosopher who attests to the importance of acc.
Double points for a theologian. Triple for a mystic.

Attached: TheDead.png (500x579, 459K)

>follow
again I think this is a stupid and misguided way to practice philosophy; there is a reason I did want to give an answer to this question earlier in the thread. The conversation between Hegel and Land is absolutely fascinating. There is plenty to be drawn from both thinkers, why limit yourself intellectually to what someone else has told you is important? Remember, until Hegel came around, Heraclitus was forgotten, no one cared about him academically. He was not considered a master. so if we were wrong about who is a master then, why assume we have knowledge of that now? Just be intellectually honest with your ideas user, don't worry about who you "follow".

>have you not noticed the similarities with Butterfly?
In eternity there can be no acceleration.
It is finished.

Attached: oh now.gif (322x242, 1.37M)

>conversation between Hegel and Land is absolutely fascinating
user...>Heraclitus
>forgotten
Only by pseuds. And your understanding of time is extremely limited for someone claiming to be so fast.
Just answer the question. Or at least this one, why do you have such difficulty with the simplest questions?

literally your pic related, he's writing a book that touches quite heavily on the subject, called Hegel in a Wired Brain, and he recently published a book on post-human capitalism. He is not an accelerationist but he sees it as an important idea which as a Marxist needs to be understood
youtube.com/watch?v=432g97vs6s0

Attached: pjt-slavoj_zizek-2_.jpg (620x402, 14K)

>Only by pseuds
Literally no one user thought he was important user, Heraclitus was basically forgotten for more than a millennia... My answer to this stupid question is here if you really need to read it

oh yeah and Zizek is a theologian too so that's double points

>China, Mein Gott, is this our future?!?
Yikes, bro. Big fucking yikes.

Name one master after the Greeks and early Romans.
Thanks for taking the bait though.

Yeah, he takes the idea of neoChina very seriously for a non-accelerationist

Aquinas? Spinoza? Kant? Hegel? Is this bait too?

Not really. And nowhere does he talk about accelerationism in the Land or even acc sense. It is just the general meme accelerationism which was discussed in socialist circles for a couple centuries.
But do post the quote where he discusses Landian acc. Newspapers talk about general tech problems.

No, no, no. hegel is the return point, genius.
Again, learn to read and follow the discussion/comment chain.

>the general meme accelerationism which was discussed in socialist circles for a couple centuries
user, remember when I showed you accelerationism was born out of this tradition through Marx, Deleuze and Guattari, early Nick Land/CCRU? This is accelerationism par excellence, which you still don't seem to get. He is talking about Toni Negri, an Italian philosopher who is in the Accelerationist reader I told you would show you your take is wrong lmao.

>I told you would show you
>ME ME ME
>U U U
>ME MEME

You made a claim.
Without an argument.
Thus showed nothing.
How about that Land is better than Socrates argument though?

>This is accelerationism par excellence
If Marx is accelerationism par excellence then why do we need Land? And is he not just slowing things down?
Also, why did you claim earlier that he was not the accelerationist par excellence, and that Land's definition of capital (which is also not important) is superior?

Attached: 51YnZLSRarL._SL500_.jpg (324x440, 45K)

Which claim are you talking about? Me talking about the relation between Marx, D&G, and Land? I've written thousands of words on the topic itt...
>Toni Negri is Marx
??
>superior
for the fifth time user, philosophy isn't a game, you don't approach it in terms of progress or superiority or winning

>I am grey goo unconcerned with winning
>which is why i must win
You're just a sick mind, and you have constructed this false reality to justify your being shit.

Attached: tailingsponds.png (637x337, 519K)

kek

So Start with the Landians

Attached: 1564566270521.jpg (920x920, 208K)

interesting alignment chart here