The Manifesto of Left-Wing Accelerationism — the salvation of humanity or yet another modernist phantom?

100 YEARS AHEAD

Contemporary left-wing discourse is almost indistinguishable from what it was a hundred years ago. Just as then, it is divided into two broad categories: horizontal and vertical, democratic and authoritarian, evolutionary and revolutionary.

This dichotomy is as old as the hills; its roots lie in the debate between ‘utopian’ and ‘scientific’ socialism. I read *The Manifesto* alongside Orwell’s *Homage to Catalonia*. The difference between them is smaller than it seems at first glance.

• True, Orwell’s work was written almost a century ago. The ‘Manifesto’, on the other hand, is relatively recent.
• Yes, *Homage to Catalonia* is autobiographical, whilst the *Manifesto* is futuristic.
• Yes, Orwell criticises left-wing modernism in its Stalinist form, whilst *The Manifesto* criticises Orwell and his contemporary followers.

Another analogy that came to mind after reading *The Manifesto* is Soviet cosmo-communism, something halfway between Yefremov and Bulychev. More like the latter, in fact – with its emphasis on humanism and scientism.

The world proposed by *The Manifesto* is the world of Alisa, Pasha, Arkash and Verter’s Gromozekia. A techno-optimistic utopia where humanity has overcome global problems and lives in harmony with nature and the cosmos.

The same technological optimism, galactic integration, and the absence of money and wars.

But — let’s get to the point.

***

‘DOUBLE BLOW’

The ‘Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics’ was written in 2013 by the British philosophers and political theorists Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams.

Its essence lies in positing two lines of thought: it is both a response to right-wing accelerationism and a scathing critique of a section of the contemporary left.

More precisely, its authors sought to address two issues:

1. What should be done about a technological future which, in their view, should serve the interests of humanity rather than capitalism?
2. How can the left be made to believe in a new ultra-modernist project?

The reason requiring a rethinking of the left, capitalism and the planet as a whole, in their view, is obvious. It is the brink of catastrophe on which modern civilisation stands. And the blame for this, of course, lies with neoliberalism, which is incapable of coping with these challenges.

At the same time, according to the authors, the ‘left’ is in a state of paralysis. They regard all forms of social democracy, on the one hand, and anarchism, on the other, as ‘incorrect left-wing’ positions.

Undoubtedly, the ‘Manifesto’ is a communist—even Bolshevik—project, whose authors are traditionally dissatisfied with both the evolutionary Social Democrats on the right and the anti-authoritarian anarchists on the left.

Their position differs little from that of their 20th-century ideological predecessors: one more leap forward, and humanity will enter a new (and, according to Marx, final) stage of development – communism. To achieve this, one need only believe in yet another modernist project, unite around it, expropriate technology, devise the correct ‘plan’ and break out into space.

There are three pillars on which this ‘planetary Leninism’ rests:

1. The expropriation of technology, the development of which, according to the authors of the ‘Manifesto’, is held back by capitalism.
2. The reformatting of planetary infrastructure using these technologies. This will form the basis of a post-capitalist, or communist, formation.
3. The construction of a modernist springboard, which in the 20th century catapulted nation-states out of the quagmire of traditional culture, and in the 21st century will propel part of humanity out of the stifling planet Earth.

As noted above, this is being hindered by the right, who, like Nick Land—the author of the concept of ‘right-wing accelerationism’—confuse ‘speed’ with ‘acceleration’. And neoliberalism, which, they are convinced, ‘merely creates the illusion of modernisation’, whilst in reality it operates within the framework of the same old assembly-line Fordism, only with gadgets instead of cars.

Apart from the neoliberals, all the OTHER left-wingers are to blame, especially those who reject hierarchy and planning as necessary conditions for a modernisation breakthrough. First and foremost, they target those they accuse of a penchant for so-called ‘grassroots politics’—advocates of direct democracy and other anarchists.

These ‘grassroots leftists’ believe that success requires a combination of ‘networks’ and ‘planning’, but, to be honest, it smacks strongly of historical Jesuitism to me. It seems the Bolsheviks promised something similar to the Makhnovists, the Spanish Communists to local anarchists, and so on.

Everyone knows how the ‘ecology of organisations’ of that time ended.

***

‘UNDER THE MICROSCOPE’

Let’s take a closer look. Specifically: what goodies do the authors of the ‘Manifesto’ offer, provided it is put into practice? For the sake of the experiment, let me remind you that their historical predecessors’ slogan was ‘Land to the peasants, factories to the workers’. To what extent was that put into practice? You know the answer yourselves.

THE PROBLEM

The world is undergoing a systemic crisis, which they define as including climate catastrophe, resource depletion, financial crises and the erosion of democracy.

Srniček and Williams are convinced that the combined impact of these issues is so fundamental that it calls into question the experience of 20th-century politics and its potential to tackle crises.

At the same time, according to the authors of the ‘Manifesto’, capitalism has already created the technologies that will enable humanity to move on to the next stage and, to paraphrase the early Pelevin, towards ‘Complete and final liberation’.

But capitalism is blocking this transition, and it is accelerationism, in its left-wing, organised form, that must drive it forward. The difference between its right-wing and left-wing versions is that, in the former, capitalism is an autonomous, self-improving phenomenon that operates according to its own independent laws, and whose movement resembles an avalanche in the mountains: you can watch it, but you cannot stop it.

In the second, it is like the dragons from Terry Pratchett’s novels, which, despite their fire, can and must be controlled; they can be trained and socialised, and can be of use to the city.

THE SOLUTION

In their view, the solution is simple: more science. More automation. More AI. More cybernetics. More planning. But not for the sake of profit, but for the sake of society.

That is precisely why we should not fight against such hallmarks of modernity as computers, algorithms, models, big data, automation and so on.

We must adopt the slogan ‘post-capitalism must be even more modern’ and expropriate them (I wonder, what is the difference between the privatisation of technology by one group and its expropriation by another?).

We should then move towards automation, and thus along the slippery slope of Keynesianism — towards a reduction in work, an increase in leisure time, and similar allusions by the anarcho-primitivist Zerzan to a ‘three-hour working day in the Palaeolithic’.

The lack of progress towards automation, the introduction of a basic income, and the liberation of time and creative energies depends on the left’s ability to overcome postmodernist maladies and once again believe in a single, archetypal left-wing project common to all — THE REVOLUTION. Only this can overcome the self-destructive inertia of neoliberalism and restore faith among all progressive forces in victory over global capitalism.

At the same time, the Left must learn to manage complex systems. This is probably one of the most interesting points in the ‘Manifesto’. Figuratively speaking, it is very reminiscent of the postman Pechkin and his concept of happiness—namely, the phrase about the bicycle.

It’s the same here. Why did we fail to cope with the economic challenges of the 20th century and consistently fail at, or subject to a crushing re-evaluation, all the ‘left-wing projects’ of the 20th century? Because we didn’t have a bicycle! (read: modern technology). It was precisely this lack that prevented us from being productive in the field of social engineering – or indeed, even in such a branch of it as the planned economy.

That is why a true, modern, revolutionary leftist carries Srniček and Williams’ *Manifesto* in one pocket, and in the other – a degree in cybernetics, mathematical analysis or at least some decent programming stack.

But a good education and a passion for revolution are not enough. We also need a new hegemony. A proper, Gramscian, cultural hegemony that will not only allow us to expropriate technology from its owners, but also – no more and no less – to COMPLETE THE ‘ENLIGHTENMENT’ PROJECT!

Or, to be more precise, that version of it featuring the three pillars: rationalism, universalism and progress. And they rest on a foundation called ‘planning’.

To summarise:

• Replace factories with modern technological platforms,
• Replace the factory owners with the modern owners of these platforms,
• Replace the historical communists with the authors and adherents of the ‘Manifesto’,
• Take the platforms away from their owners and hand over control to the adherents of the ‘Manifesto’.

And as a result, their correct application (of factories back then, and of platforms now) should not only save but also bring happiness to humanity.

This déjà vu is very much like a rehash of something humanity has already been through. Namely, that the redistribution of the monopoly on the means of production (factories back then, platforms now) from one social group to another constitutes productive social engineering.

Especially in a situation where there is a whole 20th century of failures behind us and, apart from the promise to ‘hand over the factories…’ and so on, nothing else.

There have been more than a dozen extremely bloody attempts to put this principle into practice — and yet another promise to do it gently. I wouldn’t believe it. But my critique of this approach follows below.

***

CRITICISM FROM THE RIGHT

It is very heterogeneous. In fact, just like the right itself.

Libertarians, for example, pretend not to understand how one can hate capitalism whilst loving its results — technological progress.

Although, it seems, the answer here is obvious, and I gave it a few sentences earlier. It is not a question of hatred, but of repackaging the old idea of expropriating the means of production for one’s own benefit.

Because talking about the common good is one thing, but the historical predecessors of the ‘manifesters’ were unable to spread the butter of control onto the sandwich of self-organisation. It was not simply that they were unable to do so, nor merely that they did not try – they outlawed and destroyed the very seeds of self-organisation that existed in Ukraine and Spain.

Moreover, no proponent of the Austrian School or those further to the right understands how the economy can be calculated in practical, rather than merely declarative, terms. Assurances that modern technologies differ greatly from those of a century ago have been heard, but have they been taken on board? No. If only because there are no living examples of a large-scale economic system functioning under a planned economy. And those that have existed in history have demonstrated their failure — both in humanistic terms and in the long run.

Conservatives, however, are frightened not so much by the intellectual abilities of the latest modernisers as by their encroachments on the system of existing social institutions.

For a conservative, any system is a collection of institutions that may be better or worse oiled, but which function fully.

Therefore, any interference with it — even at the level of tightening the screws or implementing some sort of reform — is already a managerial sin.

And dismantling it is a catastrophe of cosmic proportions. Such as, for example, the dismantling of one of the pillars of the Western institutional system – private property. And it is precisely this that the ‘manifesters’ are encroaching upon when they speak of expropriating capitalism’s technological achievements.

Strictly speaking, this is a point that almost no one understands, apart from the adherents of the latest form of Bolshevism. And whilst there is still talk of ‘collectives’, ‘trade unions’, ‘syndicates’ and similar means of curbing the abuses of the capitalist system, there is no such talk when it comes to expropriation. If only because our management culture lacks the algorithms needed to manage these very large-scale systems.

• A rural co-operative is one thing. Google is quite another.
• It is one thing to reach an agreement with 20 colleagues; it is quite another to do so with nearly 200,000.
• It’s one thing to sell the produce of 20 farmers; it’s quite another to ensure the livelihood of 200,000 workers, preferably outside the market.
• It’s one thing when I take it; it’s quite another when it’s taken from me. And anyway, why should the fact that something profitable is taken from someone make both them and their workers happy—and, more broadly, future generations?
• It’s one thing when my managers are in charge, but quite another when a revolutionary group has nationalised my life’s work, my vision and my mission, and believes it can manage all of this better?

After all, if we’re being serious: why should I cede my hegemony to anyone? Social, cultural, political?

And the culmination of this confrontation is the critique of left-wing accelerationism from a right-wing perspective.

The main arguments are as follows:

• A failure to understand the nature of capitalism: right-wing accelerationists view capitalism as more than just an economic system. For them, it is something like a symbiote that lives within the planetary organism and benefits both parties. They do not believe it can be ‘tamed’ and are critical of attempts by the left to restrict it through social programmes.
• Humanism as an obstacle to development: according to followers of Nick Land and similar ‘Dark Enlightenment’ thinkers, the human factor is superfluous to the processes of the technological singularity and may hinder it.
• Egalitarianism and democracy are evils. Like their left-wing counterparts, those on the right pay considerable attention to hegemony, the basis of which they see as two parameters that differ not only from those of the left but also from those of liberals: a critique of egalitarianism, of all forms of equality, and of attempts to achieve it.
  Instead, they propose a whole continuum of aberrations – ranging from banal market competition and social hierarchy to social Darwinism, racism and so on – arguing that democracy hinders progress. Its institutions are too fixated on realising various inclusive fantasies, in particular social guarantees. This allegedly slows down progress, by which they mean the unchecked development of capitalism and its offshoot – the technological singularity.

***

CRITICISM FROM THE LEFT

Criticism from the left is, first and foremost, criticism from a postmodernist perspective.

Anarchists see no ‘liberation’ whatsoever in processes of centralisation, planning and similar forms of statism. Moreover, their entire history is a brief history of collaboration, followed by crushing repression at the hands of the historical predecessors of the ‘manifesters’. It is therefore hardly surprising that their criticism is long-standing and mutual.

Anarchists reject the need to strengthen society’s vertical structures, whilst supporters of the ‘Manifesto’ consider the horizontal ones to be too weak.

Furthermore, they quite rightly see in the ‘Manifesto’ not only an underestimation of self-governance as an evolutionary option, but also a new form of ‘Leninism’.

Eco-socialists (or at least some of them) point to so-called ‘Prometheanism’ — in this case, an unconditional belief in the progressive nature of technology. This is unlikely to lead to a reduction in the planet’s burden through a decrease in both production and consumption.

In other words, the authors of the ‘Manifesto’, like any other modernists, think in terms of productivity and growth, whilst the stabilisation of civilisation and its transition to sustainable ecological forms require a reduction in the economy, albeit a gradual one.

Let us approach the issue from another angle. What would Lyotard, for example, say in this situation?

‘...Yet another grand metanarrative that promises liberation, a universal future and historical progress...’

Foucault would probably have asked: who exactly will be doing the calculating, modelling and planning? For knowledge, as we know, is power. And power is at odds with the concept of liberation. Big data itself, for all its impersonality, is a source of knowledge—and therefore of power.

Derrida would say that ‘you are once again seeking the centre’, whilst Baudrillard would say that ‘technologies produce not reality, but simulacra’.

All of them, in one way or another, would be wary of terms such as ‘control’, ‘planning’, ‘modelling’, ‘optimisation’ and so on.

For a very prosaic reason: the twentieth century began in exactly the same way.

But the most serious criticism is the accusation of neo-modernism.

And it goes something like this:

‘...We have seen similar projects in the 20th century. Stalinism, Maoism, Khojaism, the Khmer Rouge, and so on. They all shared one common feature — an extremely bloody nature. A huge number of victims from one section of the population—all for the sake of modernising the lives of another.

Therefore, despite all the calls and promises to create an inclusive, humanist project and bring the Enlightenment to a close, they look like yet another iteration of something we must absolutely NOT return to.

If we are left-wingers, humanists and progressives...’

And there is nothing more to add here. Because it is one thing to set out yet another ‘planetary crusade for happiness’ across a dozen and a half pages; it is quite another to provide the actual mechanisms for its implementation.

There are few promises to be more precise in the calculations.

There is little understanding of who exactly constitutes the ‘revolutionary subject’, or who will be the architect of this ‘bright future’?

It is one thing to nationalise the key assets of ‘platform capitalism’, and quite another to make them more useful to humanity.

My assessment: the idea is interesting, but, firstly, it is outdated; secondly, it is utopian; and thirdly, like all its predecessors, it will begin with talk of stations on Mars and end with unmarked graves in the Gulag.