Let's Talk Accelerationism

[Heretek]

Since the board has been abysmally devoid of anything worth reading, here I am attempting to get people into some heated discussions. Maybe actually discuss past a page or two.

So we've all heard by now that Trump is pretty much unopposed in the Republican nomination, seeing as how he's the only candidate left. So him vs Clinton/Sanders. Not that there's a 'good' option here, voting in the electoral system is pointless anyways. However, I have seen a number of leftists make the argument that they would vote for Trump if he was against Clinton, "in the hopes his insane policies create a revolutionary situation." Their arguments, however, are not exactly invalid.

Historically, with the rise of the Nazi party and their power, the communists also gained popularity, being the only real other party to have even a chance at power. In Middle Eastern dictatorships, the hard-line attitude has caused much dissent in the populace and encouraged union strikes and protests, overthrowing some of these in favor of western republics. ISIS's militancy and threat have caused many to flock to the banners of ostensibly leftist groups such as the PKK and the YPG.

On the flip side, however, the Nazis historically crushed the communists to dust, and the movement wasn't revived until it was artificially inserted under Stalinism. The consequences of the fall of the regimes in the Middle East have led to the surging of organizations like ISIS, religious fanatics most certainly opposed to the left, wanting to "restore things" or "make 'them' pay." And ISIS-esque actions have led to a surge in support for radical right wing policies in many governments, like those of Europe and in particular almost all of the Republican candidates, such as fascist marches, closed borders, shooting mobs of refugees, advocation for Western revival, and blatantly imperialist militarism and international attitude, "ban all Muslims, build a wall, blame the immigrants, make them pay for it, etc."

Of course, some of these things will never happen. The US, for example, can't speak for Europe, relies on immigrant labor to be underpaid and keep the entire agricultural industry afloat.

My views have me basically against accelerationism, but I'd like to discuss it, or see a discussion, amongst the forumites here on Revleft. Would a radical right movement assist the left? Should we force, or allow, conditions to worsen so militancy against the current order rises? Or are we doomed to be crushed if this happens, perhaps the final death rattle of the Left? Socialism or barbarism, as they say.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Regarding the historical rise of Nazism, or fascism generally speaking, it's true that any communist resistance to this was crushed. However, it's also true that no "moderate" party stopped its rise, either. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but there were "mainstream" politicians who didn't take long to jump on the fascist bandwagon once its momentum became apparent.

It would be dangerous, and wrong, to act to accelerate reactionary movements in order to push workers toward revolution. Even if the temptation to organize "national liberation" movements to reinstall liberal regimes as an alternative could be resisted, the success of any genuine socialist movement resulting from this would take a huge stroke of luck.

Yet, we should not try to turn back the wheel of history within the existing system. If the pattern of capitalist development today, in modern conditions, is leading to fascism, then the current system is not worth trying to save from itself by way of reforms. As conditions worsen and capitalists and their bourgeois states ramp up reactionary activities, workers should focus on building alternatives. We can't have a blueprint detailing everything about a future socialist society, but it would be necessary to do more than simply tear down existing structures and then, dumbfounded, look at each other and ask ourselves, "Okay, now what?" Those alternatives may include current non-profit structures insofar as those structures lose any dependency on coordinating with the existing for-profit system at large, or they may be entirely new ones built from scratch. In either case, they represent the kernel of something to fight for, while capitalism is of course something to fight against. It's easy to see how popular anger toward the status quo is such a potent force, and so it's easy to get caught up in the significance of this as a factor in socialist revolution. Such anger about the way things are is, however, not enough in and of itself to build socialism, and hence not enough to truly overthrow the status quo. Not to mention that only an uncompromising socialist movement could successfully distinguish itself from the pseudo-leftist alternatives and their language.

So, no, a radical right movement would not assist the left, but would be a reaction to any serious advances made by socialist workers. We should not force conditions to worsen, but any attempt to resist that using existing capitalist political or legal structures is bound to fail because those lend themselves far better to fascism than to a new socialist system. While defeatism is hard to resist, no, we aren't completely doomed. Revolution would and will have a cost, however, and as long as we're conditioned to A) not properly understand the costs of continuing under the current system and B) be myopically averse to the short-term costs of revolution, it is going to be a struggle to make it happen.

[Alet]

I (and certainly others, too) have discussed this topic several times here with some users, who, as far as I know, are not active anymore. It always disappoints me to see how self-proclaimed Marxists can come to conclusions similar to: "I'm voting for Trump because the material conditions -" and so on, although I do know very well that Marxism has been distorted and there are very few people who actually have notion of it. It's simply despairing that "Leftists" use Marxian phrases in a way that leads them to things like "accelarationism", which has dangerous, and without any doubt reactionary implications. If you support reactionary scum, no matter how good you think your intentions are, you should be condemned for it and feel lucky that there is no radical Left to punish you for such stupid decisions, yet. There are really people who believe that "the stronger the reaction, the more likely a revolution" because of some magical forces, i.e. material conditions? Go tell this the persecuted communists later and look what you have created. God, this is so abominable. If you support reactionary scum, no matter how good you think your intentions are, you belong to them, simple as that. This is not up for discussion.

How exactly would Trump's "insane policies create a revolutionary situation"? What qualifies "insanse policies" in the first place? No matter how "insane" Trump is, he nevertheless appreciates the support of a host of people. Therefore, his "insanity" doesn't mean anything as far as his popularity goes. Doesn't this terrify you? He can say whatever he like and people continue to admire him. That is because this whole phenomenon is not about Trump as an individual, he is "only" the representative of a reactionary movement. What's infinitely more important than what reactionary parties (regarding Europe) or individuals (as it is in the US) are is what they actually stand for. This is what those pseudo-Marxists don't understand: The result of the elections, i.e. if Trump will become president or not, doesn't really matter. It will not change the fact that their reactionary basis, their momentum, is already a very real and dangerous one. An Antifa group in Germany stated that the real danger of the AfD is not their potential to be in power but that they paved the way for a fascist discourse, and they are certainly dead on. They don't even need state power to have an influence on society, that is, politics. Up to the present day, the party has to deal with ideological internal conflicts, starting with Bernd Lucke right through to AfD-Saar (the affinity between them and forthright radicalism) and Frauke Petry (her insistence on economic liberalism). But does this really matter? Weren't the governments, both federal and national, forced to adopt more right-wing policies? Doesn't the party, at the very least its image, raise the hope of numerous discontented people? Aren't people today generally inclined to despise leftism and apologize for police brutality and so forth? They certainly are.

You see, my point is that not the right-wing parties and Trump themselves are a threat to us but their very movements. It is important to emphasize that: Neither voting for Clinton alone nor supporting the reaction will bring an end to the threat we are facing. Society is already involved in this political change, so how do you expect Trump to facilitate a socialist revolution? Socialism is a matter of will and organization, it is a matter of humans actively striving for it. And by will and organization I explicitly mean something that is not "determined" by "material conditions". This is the mistake our 21st century Marxists make. They assume that historical materialism is an inevitable path of history in the sense that "production determines will and therefore a socialist revolution is unavoidable in capitalism". This gross distortion of Marxism is similar to evolutionary psychology and neurological determinism - it is pure superstition, reactionary in nature, and simply inconsistent as far as Marxist theory as a whole is concerned. For example, for us Marxists, the point of science is to change something (practical truths, etc.) - can one be conscious of those "material conditions" and their purported determinist effect on our consciousness in order to influence this very effect? If not, how do you justify voting for Trump? If yes, how do you fucking justify voting for Trump instead of getting shit done and disseminating historical consciousness among discontented proletarians?

Class struggle and nothing else is our answer to growing reaction. If you support them in order to use it as an excuse for your inability to actually engage in politics, you are not a communist at all. There are no "material conditions" which mediate your will and take the political work out of your hands. The notion that somehow Trump's presidency is going to make people organically favor socialism is just silly, and furthermore hypocritical: Trump is the answer to conditions which gave birth to the discontent of people (the dying middle class, and so on), that's the reason for his popularity after all. Those people turn to Trump because the Left failed to show them an alternative. No, socialism is not a matter of "material conditions", but of active engagement and ideological controversies. A strong reactionary movement will not facilitate our political tasks - quite the contrary, it will impede them. As to Nazi Germany, the KPD gained popularity long before the NSDAP were in power. The Nazis were a threat and, when they came to power, an impediment to them, and in no way assisted the communists. Everything they have achieved was the result of their own will to strive for socialism and to fulfill their duties. The Weimar Republic was dead, or dying at least, and the communists managed to organize discontented people not because of "material conditions" but because of active political engagement.

It simply puzzles me how one can think this way. How could a fascist movement possibly support a left one where there is no organization and no will? The only organical development you get, if you sit back and watch, is the movement of Trump, of the AfD, of the FN, etc. You won't "achieve" socialism by influencing "material conditions" as if society were a laboratory and your ballot card is the experiment. Socialism requires organization and there is no excuse.

[RedSonRising]

A Trump presidency would just create a false unity between leftists/progressives and mainstream liberals in a "stop Trump" movement. Having someone like Hillary in office allows us to expose the democratic party as an extension of the ruling class. So would a Bernie presidency facing countless political obstacles despite his policies resonating with much of the youth.

The alternative scenario is a kind of civil war, should Trump exercise every tool at his disposal to intensify deportations and "brand" Muslims and incidentally galvanize violent white supremacists. But more likely he'd be a disastrous buffoon who blunders his way through his term, only mildly exacerbating the racist and imperialist nature of the state.

[Heretek]

I'm not saying a trump presidency would directly change anything, unless he truly does use every possible means to wreck the US hegemony. I'm in agreement with the thought of him being a 'gateway." Isn't a fascist, per se, but his very platform and existence encourages such organizations to become more open and militant. Accelerationism is toxic, as far as I'm concerned, and should be opposed.

To take a line from liberal pundits, "extremism is common in times of hardship. It will pass and everything will go back to normal." This is what I believe most of accelerationist proponents ascribe to, given how there have been hints of leftism before, but swept away with the economy of the country rebounding (not just in the US). So their theory is to create a perpetual time of hardship, and hope people will turn more to the left than the right, or that after they realize nothing gets better under the right-extremism, turn to left-extremism. Naturally this is flawed, based solely on historical examples to say the least. I can't see their reasoning, as basing things on such flimsy pretexts as hope is doomed to fail. But this thread was intended to be more... Two sided.

Maybe the thought is less wide spread than I thought, or the board is so dead not even they can be bothered to respond

[ComradeAllende]

Historically, with the rise of the Nazi party and their power, the communists also gained popularity, being the only real other party to have even a chance at power. In Middle Eastern dictatorships, the hard-line attitude has caused much dissent in the populace and encouraged union strikes and protests, overthrowing some of these in favor of western republics. ISIS's militancy and threat have caused many to flock to the banners of ostensibly leftist groups such as the PKK and the YPG.

First off, I'm not quite sure that there's been quite a large outpouring of support for the PKK and the YPG; Western media outlets may cover them more extensively, and Western powers may be giving them arms and supplies to hold off ISIS (although U.S. support for Turkey sort of negates that), but we're nowhere near the levels of transnational solidarity that was seen during the Depression and the Spanish Civil War, possibly because there are no major leftist organizations through which such solidarity may be ignited and channeled. If see International Brigades forming and shipping volunteers en masse to Rojava, then we'll talk. Second, the rise of fascism tends to strengthen existing movements that are perceived to be emancipatory and progressive for the working-class; it did not spur a response to Stalinism in the 30s, and I doubt it will lead the modern Left to reorganize on its own. Now, we will see an increase in general interest and openness for socialist and radical left politics (I'm glad to see my peers talk openly about "socialism", even the weak-tea social democracy of the Sanders campaign), but whether or not that will be translated into actual support and political/social momentum depends on whether or not we can offer a compelling political alternative to standard identity-politics liberalism or "hip" right-libertarianism.


My views have me basically against accelerationism, but I'd like to discuss it, or see a discussion, amongst the forumites here on Revleft. Would a radical right movement assist the left? Should we force, or allow, conditions to worsen so militancy against the current order rises? Or are we doomed to be crushed if this happens, perhaps the final death rattle of the Left? Socialism or barbarism, as they say.

In my view, accelerationism can only work if there is a strong Left alternative to mainstream politics; since that's not the case, I don't expect much. Maybe a few advances in the direction of social democracy here in America, but not much else. At least not unless we hit a major economic catastrophe, which by my reckoning of the business cycle should be coming within the next few years (and even then, the Right has a better chance of leveraging that into political power).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Would a radical right movement assist the left?

I would argue that, if that movement is anti-fascist and anti-austerity, then it just might.

Some nationalist "anarchist" argued during SYRIZA's rise to power that the left should race to overtake the establishment "left" before certain right-wing elements overtake the establishment right, and then enter into a front with those right-wing elements. So far, we're not seeing the left building mass movements in order to enter into a Communitarian Populist Front (http://www.revleft.com/vb/entries/19192-Communitarian-Populist-Fronts-History-and-Current-Events), but the theoretical framework for going beyond the class-collaborationism of Popular Fronts and the sheer hypocrisy of United Fronts (https://commexplor.com/2015/02/08/syrizas-new-style-popular-front-a-commentary/) (my comments, not the blog's author).

If the radical right movement is anti-fascist, anti-austerity, and still behind the establishment right once the left overtakes the establishment "left," then it could assist the left. UKIP is not ANEL. Front National is not ANEL. AfD is not ANEL. "Trumpism" is not ANEL.


Should we force, or allow, conditions to worsen so militancy against the current order rises?

The Anatomy of Revolution is still the most authoritative perspective on the subject. Dashing rising expectations gives way to militancy, not worsening conditions. Even the Long Depression gave rise to Europe's worker-class movements not because of an immediate crash, but because of its duration.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

stuff I agree with

Alet is right here. While it's true that Trump might help provoke a more activist response, this is no guarantee of a socialist revolution in the long or short term. Supporting Trump out of the assumption it will accelerate the rise of revolutionary social movements is like playing a game of Russian Roulette. There is simply no guarantee of progress from it, and there's a chance people will end up dead as a consequence.

The analogy to the rise of fascism is valid here. The Nazi party and Italy's Fascist Party in no way created an opportunity for the Left in Italy and Germany - at least not until after a hugely destructive war (which also incidentally benefited the US, UK and France). The Nazis were effectively able to repress the Communist and Anarchist left as well as the Social Democrats without any trouble, and go on to lead over an economic and military boom before they led to its destruction by starting an unwinnable world war.

The only sense in which the notion that Trump may "accelerate" anything is due to the assumption of his incompetence. The policies he proposes at times are so bizarre and contrary to the established interests that they will actively undermine the system he leads. However, that assumption is based on the belief that he will do what he is suggesting. On top of that, were he to do these things, not only would the human cost be significant (say, deporting 12 million Mexican workers and their family members), but the instability it creates can be as beneficial for the far right and the "establishment" as the Left. Recently, Donald Trump suggested defaulting on the US debt. That would wreck the global economy, and cause a great deal of social and geopolitical upheaval, but why do we assume we, the working class, women, marginalized ethnic groups etc would be the beneficiaries of that? It might cause a recession which European Communists could take advantage of, or perhaps figures like Marie Le Pen will be better positioned to do so. His incompetence is also only relevant if it is not overridden by establishment advisors who understand the global economy on a more systematic level, which is unlikely.

That being said, if he were actually elected, it would be imperative for Leftists to agitate as hard as they can and exploit opportunities he creates. There is far from any guarantee that it would actually achieve anything, however, and the political and social response might as well be a deepening of reactionary tendencies, as much as an opportunity for a fairly weak Left. Dialectics doesn't work like a swing - Trump pulling society to the right does not necessarily cause a proportionate swing to the Left.

[ckaihatsu]

[Trump's] incompetence is also only relevant if it is not overridden by establishment advisors who understand the global economy on a more systematic level, which is unlikely.


This one sentence is an outlier compared to your overall point, that:





Dialectics doesn't work like a swing - Trump pulling society to the right does not necessarily cause a proportionate swing to the Left.


In other words we might see the capitalist establishment 'center' as having a 'centripetal inertia' -- your 'establishment advisors', or the 'financial-industrial complex' -- that *stabilizes* the state regardless of who the figurehead happens to be at any given moment.

I'll go so far as to say that many presidential hopefuls *are* starry-eyed (in whatever direction), and *do* earnestly want to 'reform' the state apparatus with their presence and policies, but the *system* will always have an institutional instinct of *self-preservation* (of the empire), so that radical-reformist efforts in either direction will get 'moderated' back towards the 'centrist' status quo (JFK and RFK would be good examples here).

In graphical format:


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism



http://s6.postimg.org/3si9so4xd/110211_Ideologies_Operations_Left_Centrifug.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zc8b2rb3h/full/)

[Alet]

Which policies will actually be established while Trump is president, not to mention their effects, is certainly speculation. But this is not that important right now. Even if the deportation of 12 million Mexicans was structurally impossible, there would be no reason to believe that Trump is not being serious. He is definitely genuine but constrained by the limitations of realpolitik (just as it is with every "populist") - and if he isn't genuine, I have no doubt that at least his supporters are. My point is that even though such deliberately radical, hyperbolical statements might be unrealistic they are nevertheless an essential part of their very ideology - and that's worrying enough.

Of course, I'm not only referring to Trump here, the same applies to the aforementioned European parties.

[Thirsty Crow]

So we've all heard by now that Trump is pretty much unopposed in the Republican nomination, seeing as how he's the only candidate left. So him vs Clinton/Sanders. Not that there's a 'good' option here, voting in the electoral system is pointless anyways. However, I have seen a number of leftists make the argument that they would vote for Trump if he was against Clinton, "in the hopes his insane policies create a revolutionary situation." Their arguments, however, are not exactly invalid.

The argument is completely bankrupt.

First and foremost, what people would do in the limited privacy of their polling booth is neither here nor there. The real issue is would they publicly argue for Trump in this case - first among family and friends, in their loose network of communists with whom they talk about stuff, and then in their party or organization. And ultimately, this would seem to entail a vocal support for a position that would see an ostensibly communist organization backing Donald Trump.

All of which would be futile and impotent still, but there's a line to be drawn between idle chatter and how communists interact with each other and working class people.

I don't think the situation in Germany is even remotely similar with respect to anything that it might serve as a justification for this idea. The idea is simple really and needs no historical justification - the masses need to be crushed hard and endure misery for social revolution to be a viable goal. It's a mantra of middle class ideologues.