What do you think?
Rate this book
#ACCELERATE: Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics
Accelerationism pushes towards a future that is more modern, an alternative modernity that neoliberalism is inherently unable to generate.
"24. The future needs to be constructed. It has been demolished by neoliberal capitalism and reduced to a cut-price promise of greater inequality, conflict, and chaos. This collapse in the idea of the future is symptomatic of the regressive historical status of our age, rather than, as cynics across the political spectrum would have us believe, a sign of sceptical maturity. What accelerationism pushes towards is a future that is more modern — an alternative modernity that neoliberalism is inherently unable to generate. The future must be cracked open once again, unfastening our horizons towards the universal possibilities of the Outside."
"24. The future needs to be constructed. It has been demolished by neoliberal capitalism and reduced to a cut-price promise of greater inequality, conflict, and chaos. This collapse in the idea of the future is symptomatic of the regressive historical status of our age, rather than, as cynics across the political spectrum would have us believe, a sign of sceptical maturity. What accelerationism pushes towards is a future that is more modern — an alternative modernity that neoliberalism is inherently unable to generate. The future must be cracked open once again, unfastening our horizons towards the universal possibilities of the Outside."
8 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2013
4 people are currently reading
400 people want to read
About the author
Alex Williams
4 books4 followersAlex Williams is a lecturer in the sociology department at City, University of London. He is the author of Hegemony Now (Verso 2017, with Jeremy Gilbert) and Inventing the Future (Verso 2015, with Nick Srnicek)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
November 11, 2021
Perpetually deconstruct and reconstruct your political position; worry about the politics of aesthetics; and read fancy books. Congratulations! You have been directly teleported to the heart of the Academy. Thank you for choosing Persistently Bored Cultural Malaise Airlines. Come again soon!
This manifesto is all okay as long as you don't ask how exactly is the Accelerationist Aesthetic Supreme supposed to rupture the abstract and spill forth into the concrete. How exactly is The Plan supposed to marry The Network? Sounds like something out of an American lava lamp Buddhist's wet dream. Perhaps Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work would be enlightening. But till then, I have satiated myself with this otherwise stimulating manifesto and its abstract peepee air castles. And as we all know the world exists to entertain me, so consider me entertained.
2.5
This manifesto is all okay as long as you don't ask how exactly is the Accelerationist Aesthetic Supreme supposed to rupture the abstract and spill forth into the concrete. How exactly is The Plan supposed to marry The Network? Sounds like something out of an American lava lamp Buddhist's wet dream. Perhaps Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work would be enlightening. But till then, I have satiated myself with this otherwise stimulating manifesto and its abstract peepee air castles. And as we all know the world exists to entertain me, so consider me entertained.
2.5
December 22, 2017
1. (Agree) Capitalism’s dystopic imagination of climate catastrophes, privatization of everything under the sun (and likely the sun itself), world wars for resource, ….and Elon Musk’s Terminator A.I.
2. (Agree) Left needs to socialize high-tech; techniques include full automation to decrease work, universal basic income
3. (Still unpacking) How? This manifesto proposes an “accelerationist politics” solution for the Left and critiques sectarian “folk politics” of “localism, direct action, and relentless horizontalism”. What is interesting is that a direct action/horizontalist/anarchist like David Graeber also strongly supports socializing high-tech…
Time to comb through accelerationist’s full-length book “Inventing the Future”, and compare with Graeber’s “The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy”.
2. (Agree) Left needs to socialize high-tech; techniques include full automation to decrease work, universal basic income
3. (Still unpacking) How? This manifesto proposes an “accelerationist politics” solution for the Left and critiques sectarian “folk politics” of “localism, direct action, and relentless horizontalism”. What is interesting is that a direct action/horizontalist/anarchist like David Graeber also strongly supports socializing high-tech…
Time to comb through accelerationist’s full-length book “Inventing the Future”, and compare with Graeber’s “The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy”.
Read
July 21, 2019There is really very little that is 'left-wing' about this manifesto that describes itself as such. It's basically: 'more technology! don't look backwards... forwards! neoliberalism is hindering productivity and progress... onward to post-capitalism! we need technology! ..... the left has these errors; *lists a few* ! uh...so... yeah... accelerate!'; it's not left-wing if there's not a single concrete plan of 'left-wing' action proposed lol.
They dedicate a total of one, four line, paragraph to discussion of class and proletarian identity. Within it they extremely briefly describe a need to "knit together a disparate array of partial proletarian identities"; yeah, that could be an interesting line of thought, but they really don't meet the bare minimum criteria to constitute an idea. Nor is there a single mention of the means of production or private property. Marx and Lenin are given a couple of passing mentions, as is Deleuze + Guattari and Nick Land; indeed, Land is perhaps the foremost point of reference here, although the high coefficient of deterritorialisation that at least made Land interesting is missing. This isn't to say, of course, that new ideas and doctrines must always be explicitly indebted to the past; more that if one isn't going to clearly draw upon the vast reservoir of political theory available, they better be providing something incredibly singular or at least coherent. #ACCELERATE misses the mark on all fronts.
The problem is that once all 'left-wing' elements have been removed, all that's left is some strange techno-neoliberal admixture - the very thing that the authors decry. For all of their critique of neoliberalism and calls for 'post-capitalism', by eschewing any and all critique of capitalist structures - private property, alienation of labour, surplus value etc. - they end up right back where they started, with nothing more than vaguely futuristic neoliberalism. I mean, hell, there are even points when they go full auth-right: "The overwhelming privileging of democracy-as-process needs to be left behind. The fetishisation of openness, horizontality, and inclusion of much of today’s ‘radical’ left set the stage for ineffectiveness. Secrecy, verticality, and exclusion all have their place as well". If this is your theoretical starting point, I hate to imagine the disfigurations and mutations that would occur in reality.
They dedicate a total of one, four line, paragraph to discussion of class and proletarian identity. Within it they extremely briefly describe a need to "knit together a disparate array of partial proletarian identities"; yeah, that could be an interesting line of thought, but they really don't meet the bare minimum criteria to constitute an idea. Nor is there a single mention of the means of production or private property. Marx and Lenin are given a couple of passing mentions, as is Deleuze + Guattari and Nick Land; indeed, Land is perhaps the foremost point of reference here, although the high coefficient of deterritorialisation that at least made Land interesting is missing. This isn't to say, of course, that new ideas and doctrines must always be explicitly indebted to the past; more that if one isn't going to clearly draw upon the vast reservoir of political theory available, they better be providing something incredibly singular or at least coherent. #ACCELERATE misses the mark on all fronts.
The problem is that once all 'left-wing' elements have been removed, all that's left is some strange techno-neoliberal admixture - the very thing that the authors decry. For all of their critique of neoliberalism and calls for 'post-capitalism', by eschewing any and all critique of capitalist structures - private property, alienation of labour, surplus value etc. - they end up right back where they started, with nothing more than vaguely futuristic neoliberalism. I mean, hell, there are even points when they go full auth-right: "The overwhelming privileging of democracy-as-process needs to be left behind. The fetishisation of openness, horizontality, and inclusion of much of today’s ‘radical’ left set the stage for ineffectiveness. Secrecy, verticality, and exclusion all have their place as well". If this is your theoretical starting point, I hate to imagine the disfigurations and mutations that would occur in reality.
May 19, 2021
Typical of the left-accelerationist genre, which is not a compliment.
February 20, 2019
This manifesto is quite similar to Srnicek and Willaims Inventing the Future for better and worse. Many of their points are at least very much so the same with the addition of accelartionism thrown in. There is no call to action outside some very vague and hyperbolic demands for reforming the media, creating a non-sectarian, non-centralized and pluralistic front to push for these. The leap from demand into action is nowhere to be found and their political concept is unrealistic to say the least. How can a myriad of organizations work together for such goals without centralization? Srnicek and Williams seem to rely solely on the trust of the masses to clear things out here it seems.
There is also no accelerationist politics being put forward in this supposed manifesto, only a brief mention of Nick Land which makes the title very misleading. All in all its a short and easy read and cuts straight into both the strengths and lacks of Srnicek and Williams theories. They argue for their demands a bit better in Inventing the Future but nevertheless does not attempt to solve these crucial issues. All in all this text is very inconsistent and would have fit more as a Jacobin article than a manifesto.
There is also no accelerationist politics being put forward in this supposed manifesto, only a brief mention of Nick Land which makes the title very misleading. All in all its a short and easy read and cuts straight into both the strengths and lacks of Srnicek and Williams theories. They argue for their demands a bit better in Inventing the Future but nevertheless does not attempt to solve these crucial issues. All in all this text is very inconsistent and would have fit more as a Jacobin article than a manifesto.
May 12, 2017
If you
1. Think something's fucked up with the world right now, and
2. Can't think of a better future
you need to read this.
1. Think something's fucked up with the world right now, and
2. Can't think of a better future
you need to read this.
May 26, 2025
The introduction is okay and I thought the initial diagnosis of neoliberalism failing to address any real challenges was accurate but not new. The criticism of the left's inability to meaningfully push for change I (sort of) agree with in sections like:
"Instead they expend considerable energy on internal direct-democratic process and affective self-valorisation over strategic efficacy, and frequently propound a variant of neo-primitivist localism, as if to if to oppose the abstract violence of globalised capital with the flimsy and ephemeral “authenticity” of communal immediacy." Pg.1
The second section is pretty indicative of a stylistic failure of both writers, that is, being extremely verbose and flowery without saying something meaningful such as:
" We may be moving fast, but only within a strictly defined set of capitalist parameters that themselves never waver. We experience only the increasing speed of a local horizon, a simple brain-dead onrush rather than an acceleration which is also navigational, an
experimental process of discovery within a universal space of possibility."
Which was just vague and not really defined even in the section that is dedicated to explaining their goals. I'm not sure that I agree with the claim that Marx or Lenin were accelerationists but I agree in them recognizing the need to appropriate technological development. Which, again, is not a new claim.
The claim that "an accelerationist politics seeks to preserve the gains of late capitalism while going further than its value system, governance structures, and mass pathologies will allow" has me a little suspicious though I must admit.
Everything after is fairly unimaginative and vague, Section 3 points 16/17/18 make a point of stating what needs to be done but in a fashion that isn't compelling and seems contradictory to their argument against direct actions (which I also disagree with to an extent).
Point 19 and 21 could have been discarded and the manifesto would be stronger for it. Those points were considerably unclear and nigh sales-talk.
Overall, unimaginative, overly verbose, not nearly enough discussion on the how over the why. I agree that it is about a 3/5 or so.
"Instead they expend considerable energy on internal direct-democratic process and affective self-valorisation over strategic efficacy, and frequently propound a variant of neo-primitivist localism, as if to if to oppose the abstract violence of globalised capital with the flimsy and ephemeral “authenticity” of communal immediacy." Pg.1
The second section is pretty indicative of a stylistic failure of both writers, that is, being extremely verbose and flowery without saying something meaningful such as:
" We may be moving fast, but only within a strictly defined set of capitalist parameters that themselves never waver. We experience only the increasing speed of a local horizon, a simple brain-dead onrush rather than an acceleration which is also navigational, an
experimental process of discovery within a universal space of possibility."
Which was just vague and not really defined even in the section that is dedicated to explaining their goals. I'm not sure that I agree with the claim that Marx or Lenin were accelerationists but I agree in them recognizing the need to appropriate technological development. Which, again, is not a new claim.
The claim that "an accelerationist politics seeks to preserve the gains of late capitalism while going further than its value system, governance structures, and mass pathologies will allow" has me a little suspicious though I must admit.
Everything after is fairly unimaginative and vague, Section 3 points 16/17/18 make a point of stating what needs to be done but in a fashion that isn't compelling and seems contradictory to their argument against direct actions (which I also disagree with to an extent).
Point 19 and 21 could have been discarded and the manifesto would be stronger for it. Those points were considerably unclear and nigh sales-talk.
Overall, unimaginative, overly verbose, not nearly enough discussion on the how over the why. I agree that it is about a 3/5 or so.
September 8, 2022
tiene algún punto que está bastante bien pero no pasa de ahí la verdad
May 26, 2025
A lot of bold claims and calls to action, but no real meat behind it all.
Some of the broad strokes painted here are inoffensive, if not agreeable. Yes, I would concur that neoliberalism has largely run its course and that the amorphous blob of the Western Left should embrace the tools of the 21st century. However, you can only rehash these observations so much before people (including me) respond with a 'yes, and?' Instead of just stating 'we need visionaries!', maybe you could try your hand at being one instead.
I find these sorts of texts just really don't give a shit about the logistics required to enact their vision in material reality. I know, I know; it's only a manifesto. But I've been 'around the block' for this sort of stuff nearing a decade now, and not much fruit has been bore from these endeavours. We're not even at square one, I would argue we've regressed from the starting points that Williams and Srnicek started at when they first wrote this. I don't think I need to read the full text that these two would subsequently collaborate on to get the picture that they would much rather pontificate about the future they want to see, rather than really struggle to work towards it. It's the same picture painted by the hilariously naive 'Fully Automated Luxury Communism', now supplanted by that wretched 'Abundance', which we should all strive to move forward from.
I do think you can still derive some value from this, specifically by contrasting the time this was initially published (May 2013) to now (May 2025). I'm not sure if I care enough to follow up with these authors, but I would be curious if they would feel thoroughly disproven or more assured of their beliefs after an increase in polarization amongst the West, the continued 'disruption' of public services wrought by private interests, and the apparent rise of 'artificial intelligence'. Other than that, I would safely recommend you skip this over instead. I only read this for the reading group I've decided to try, and if I'm being frank, I think we could have picked something else if we wanted to take a look at 'accelerationism'.
Some of the broad strokes painted here are inoffensive, if not agreeable. Yes, I would concur that neoliberalism has largely run its course and that the amorphous blob of the Western Left should embrace the tools of the 21st century. However, you can only rehash these observations so much before people (including me) respond with a 'yes, and?' Instead of just stating 'we need visionaries!', maybe you could try your hand at being one instead.
I find these sorts of texts just really don't give a shit about the logistics required to enact their vision in material reality. I know, I know; it's only a manifesto. But I've been 'around the block' for this sort of stuff nearing a decade now, and not much fruit has been bore from these endeavours. We're not even at square one, I would argue we've regressed from the starting points that Williams and Srnicek started at when they first wrote this. I don't think I need to read the full text that these two would subsequently collaborate on to get the picture that they would much rather pontificate about the future they want to see, rather than really struggle to work towards it. It's the same picture painted by the hilariously naive 'Fully Automated Luxury Communism', now supplanted by that wretched 'Abundance', which we should all strive to move forward from.
I do think you can still derive some value from this, specifically by contrasting the time this was initially published (May 2013) to now (May 2025). I'm not sure if I care enough to follow up with these authors, but I would be curious if they would feel thoroughly disproven or more assured of their beliefs after an increase in polarization amongst the West, the continued 'disruption' of public services wrought by private interests, and the apparent rise of 'artificial intelligence'. Other than that, I would safely recommend you skip this over instead. I only read this for the reading group I've decided to try, and if I'm being frank, I think we could have picked something else if we wanted to take a look at 'accelerationism'.
Read
December 10, 2024silly
February 20, 2025
Es muy interesante la postura de de poner al capital a la defensiva y a tener que “justificarse”, a cambiar el foco en cuanto a la subversión de las condiciones existentes
Read
May 8, 2025Le critiche riportate nel manifesto sono assolutamente condivisibili: è vero che c'è un'assenza di prospettiva futura, un "deficit d'immaginario" nella sinistra. La controproposta, però, è molto astratta e non mi sento di condividerla, perché ci vedo sfiducia nel popolo ed elitismo. Ho apprezzato molto la postfazione di Valerio Mattioli, che ricostruisce il percorso teorico che ha portato al manifesto e offre diversi spunti di approfondimento
April 17, 2024
Trying to post and log books on here more lol
Anyways, I've read this a few times already - to think that you can control, and optimally utilize/improve upon both information and technology for a counter-capitalist movement of any sort totally misses the central theses that make Fanged Noumena so undeniable. It is not capitalism that has it's limits, it's not technological growth that is rife with stagnation, it's us - we're the fetters, the dredges of an antiquity that must be overcome. Concurrently, we're also an antecedent condition of production - tools used by market flows to create a future via the agents of total futurity itself. Retro-causality has its flaws logically, but like Lovecraft, land was able to peer into the edges of a weird base materialism that allows for all of this (in Thirst for Annihilation, this is understood as libidinal materialism - a pre-ontology).
They don't adequately deal with this idea in my opinon. Also, the idea that capitalist crises are points of possible revolution is of course and old school Marxist talking point, but regulationist economics must be dealt with here if you're going to go through that route.
There are problems with how they deal with hyperstition as well. I read hyperstition as a destructive force, a call to the old ones - Y2K creating market flux, the Necronomicon, market speculation... how are we supposed to use this for our own benefit here? It's not clear to me...
Anyways, I've read this a few times already - to think that you can control, and optimally utilize/improve upon both information and technology for a counter-capitalist movement of any sort totally misses the central theses that make Fanged Noumena so undeniable. It is not capitalism that has it's limits, it's not technological growth that is rife with stagnation, it's us - we're the fetters, the dredges of an antiquity that must be overcome. Concurrently, we're also an antecedent condition of production - tools used by market flows to create a future via the agents of total futurity itself. Retro-causality has its flaws logically, but like Lovecraft, land was able to peer into the edges of a weird base materialism that allows for all of this (in Thirst for Annihilation, this is understood as libidinal materialism - a pre-ontology).
They don't adequately deal with this idea in my opinon. Also, the idea that capitalist crises are points of possible revolution is of course and old school Marxist talking point, but regulationist economics must be dealt with here if you're going to go through that route.
There are problems with how they deal with hyperstition as well. I read hyperstition as a destructive force, a call to the old ones - Y2K creating market flux, the Necronomicon, market speculation... how are we supposed to use this for our own benefit here? It's not clear to me...
November 8, 2017
An attempt at an outline of left accelerationism.
October 28, 2022
Testo del 2013, aiuta a capire le basi dell'accelerazionismo e il pensiero di autori come Mark Fisher, ovviamente oltre a quello dei due titolari del Manifesto, il cui Inventare il futuro (2015) sviluppa le tesi per l'approccio a una nuova sinistra. Come tutti i manifesti, qui il linguaggio è sintetico ed evocativo, risulta interessante risalire a questa rielaborazione del pensiero di Nick Land in ottica propositiva e orientata allo sviluppo della società. Dalla critica alla sinistra "folk" alla tensione all'automazione e alla riduzione/eliminazione del lavoro, è già tutto qui contenuto.
June 1, 2025
2.5/5
I mean, I don't hate it. But I don't have any reasons to like it either. It's short and at least very explicit about what form of politics I'm supposed to envision within the author's realm of thought. Yet, it somehow seems less like going beyond our capitalistic hellhole and more so - coopting the dominant machineries for ourselves and still persisting on the structure's goals. This is my first exposure to any writing, strictly speaking, on accelerationism. So, my main conception of accelerationism was - increasing the rate of speed of a system pushing us towards decay and doom while masquerading itself as the most beneficial of all systems, so it might collapse under its own immature and mistaken ideas. You'd obviously want to, then, be part of the system in order to drive it beyond any saving (pushing it off the metaphorical edge of the civilizational mountain). But, in wanting to pave the way for a "post-capitalist" reality where the accelerationists usher in all the technological innovations they couldn't have under the capitalist society's limits (which seems interesting considering we all to an extent believe our current capitalist society has no limits or constraints), it doesn't consider that the capitalists have taken us to that point of tech oligarchy and supremacy, only to further their own profit driven motives.
Then again, I might be climbing up the wrong tree and totally missing the point the authors are putting forth. I'll return later to assess my claims and thoughts
I mean, I don't hate it. But I don't have any reasons to like it either. It's short and at least very explicit about what form of politics I'm supposed to envision within the author's realm of thought. Yet, it somehow seems less like going beyond our capitalistic hellhole and more so - coopting the dominant machineries for ourselves and still persisting on the structure's goals. This is my first exposure to any writing, strictly speaking, on accelerationism. So, my main conception of accelerationism was - increasing the rate of speed of a system pushing us towards decay and doom while masquerading itself as the most beneficial of all systems, so it might collapse under its own immature and mistaken ideas. You'd obviously want to, then, be part of the system in order to drive it beyond any saving (pushing it off the metaphorical edge of the civilizational mountain). But, in wanting to pave the way for a "post-capitalist" reality where the accelerationists usher in all the technological innovations they couldn't have under the capitalist society's limits (which seems interesting considering we all to an extent believe our current capitalist society has no limits or constraints), it doesn't consider that the capitalists have taken us to that point of tech oligarchy and supremacy, only to further their own profit driven motives.
Then again, I might be climbing up the wrong tree and totally missing the point the authors are putting forth. I'll return later to assess my claims and thoughts
November 30, 2021
I am convinced by left accelerationism. This might be because of bias and what I've previously read, but I think the manifesto does a good job of arguing for it. Until it doesn't, that is, which is why there's not more than three stars.
It could be criticized for being to narrow in scope, only limiting itself to left accelerationism, but I'd say its too broad and ends up embracing liberal "progressivism" which I was sad to see. Maybe it's just the tankie in me. But then it becomes even worse by the authors accepting modernity. When Fisher talks about how capitalism has hijacked the concept of modernity and modernisation I can get behind that because modern can refer to that which is limited by premodernity on one side and postmodernity on the other, but it can also mean contemporary and adapted to new conditions. Williams and Srnicek limit themselves to the first meaning of these two and fully embrace the enlightenment which I think is a huge mistake and is precisely the thing we should try to move away from.
So in short, the manifesto accelerates alright and I very much like that, but then it slips and falls straight on its face which is a shame.
It could be criticized for being to narrow in scope, only limiting itself to left accelerationism, but I'd say its too broad and ends up embracing liberal "progressivism" which I was sad to see. Maybe it's just the tankie in me. But then it becomes even worse by the authors accepting modernity. When Fisher talks about how capitalism has hijacked the concept of modernity and modernisation I can get behind that because modern can refer to that which is limited by premodernity on one side and postmodernity on the other, but it can also mean contemporary and adapted to new conditions. Williams and Srnicek limit themselves to the first meaning of these two and fully embrace the enlightenment which I think is a huge mistake and is precisely the thing we should try to move away from.
So in short, the manifesto accelerates alright and I very much like that, but then it slips and falls straight on its face which is a shame.
March 31, 2023
Poco più di un opuscolo ed eccessivamente astratto, offre comunque qualche spunto se non altro interessante, oltre ad un'estesa bibliografia (e discografia??) per approfondire l'argomento; in particolare il successivo "Inventare il futuro", degli stessi autori, del quale questo manifesto sembra essere una semplice introduzione.
Il libricino si limita di fatto ad esporre il condivisibile disappunto nei confronti delle sinistre che, in nome di populismo e "folk politics", si sono nel tempo allontanate dall'innovazione tecnoscientifica, abbandonandola alle forze liberali che l'hanno poi chiusa nei limiti dell'"economically viable", recintandola a suon di brevetti ed asservendola unicamente alla produzione di Capitale a discapito del benessere generale.
Viene quindi proposta una sinistra nuova, "accelerazionista", il cui compito principale è detenere l'egemonia culturale sul progresso tecnoscientifico, accelerarlo liberandolo dai limiti e dai vincoli imposti dal capitale e mettendolo al servizio della comunità. Il come purtroppo non viene specificato.
Il libricino si limita di fatto ad esporre il condivisibile disappunto nei confronti delle sinistre che, in nome di populismo e "folk politics", si sono nel tempo allontanate dall'innovazione tecnoscientifica, abbandonandola alle forze liberali che l'hanno poi chiusa nei limiti dell'"economically viable", recintandola a suon di brevetti ed asservendola unicamente alla produzione di Capitale a discapito del benessere generale.
Viene quindi proposta una sinistra nuova, "accelerazionista", il cui compito principale è detenere l'egemonia culturale sul progresso tecnoscientifico, accelerarlo liberandolo dai limiti e dai vincoli imposti dal capitale e mettendolo al servizio della comunità. Il come purtroppo non viene specificato.
March 10, 2025
Liked the first bit. Agreed with some of the critiques of neo-liberal movements but the actual manifesto/ideas presented were silly and self-sabotaging and unrealistic in its vision. Big words used to present big and impossible and possibly dangerous ideas (accelerated technocracy — pretends it wouldn’t happen that way but it would). Discredits small scale organizing but extremely vague and unrealistic in any ideas for anything better. Uses deluze to point towards a society that I think deluze would laugh at. Idk man. The more I write this the less I like it I think lol
March 26, 2021
Condena claramente el neoliberalismo, la tendencia anarquizante y temerosa del poder de gran parte de la izquierda, sin embargo a mi parecer no expresa fehacientemente los medios para superar el atolladero al cual nos ha llevado el neoliberalismo.
Es interesante el punto de que la izquierda tiene que apoderarse de los estudios cibernéticos , lo cual es destacable. Como todo manifiesto, busca ser más vehemente que lógico o sumamente descriptivo. Realmente fue una lectura insólita para mí.
Es interesante el punto de que la izquierda tiene que apoderarse de los estudios cibernéticos , lo cual es destacable. Como todo manifiesto, busca ser más vehemente que lógico o sumamente descriptivo. Realmente fue una lectura insólita para mí.
March 15, 2020
An enticingly libidinal call to action, with little detail on how to achieve the lofty goals stated. A starting point meant to seed the idea and do little else.
How do we move from A. (neoliberal late-capitalism) to B. (post-capitalism), as propounded in the book (pamphlet)?
How do we move from A. (neoliberal late-capitalism) to B. (post-capitalism), as propounded in the book (pamphlet)?
January 24, 2021
While the whole text has a petit-bourgeois aura (specially in the technocratic tendencies and the absence of praxis), it is nonetheless interesting.
Good lecture to be reminded of the system we are in and the new dynamics that are emerging.
Good lecture to be reminded of the system we are in and the new dynamics that are emerging.
October 25, 2023
algún punto piola y ciertos conceptos interesantes pero back at it again con separar la izquierda loco. qué te importa la izquierda "localista"? no puede convivir con el progreso global? con la creación de un nuevo paradigma? en fin, 2.5/5
November 24, 2024
Importante. C'è bisogno di una teoria di sinistra globale che riesca a portare elementi nuovi. Integrato ad Inventare il futuro, questo piccolo phamplet riassume i punti chiave del libro.
Quello che conta è saper far uso delle nuove dinamiche nate nel capitalismo, a partite dall'economia. È impossibile prescinderne.
Quello che conta è saper far uso delle nuove dinamiche nate nel capitalismo, a partite dall'economia. È impossibile prescinderne.
April 30, 2018
Sounds great but HOW?
March 24, 2019
Seems like a starting point that could be trimmed in some parts but needs more detail in others.
October 16, 2020
Racconta dell'idea accelerazionista, le Macchine che forniscono reddito agli uomini che possono dedicarsi ad altro.
January 4, 2022
We will be happier by working less. Accelerate capitalism defects to make it collapse and reconstruct a better future.
January 12, 2024
Enjoyed this read a lot. It’s terrible, really terrible, and in a really fun way. The passage on funding made me laugh out loud
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews