READ Ï Malign Velocities: Accelerationism and Capitalism


READ & DOWNLOAD Malign Velocities: Accelerationism and Capitalism

READ Ï Malign Velocities: Accelerationism and Capitalism ↠ El libro de Noys es un modelo de crítica dialéctica y un sofisticado relato sobre las posibilidades históricas del aceleracionismo Esta obra consigue ser fiel al mandato materialista de no engañarse a uno mismo y teje un relato apasionante sobre el forcejeo del El libro de Noys es un modelo de crítica dialéctica y un sofisticado relato sobre las posibilidades histórica. I suspect most academic books maybe books in general are just a list of excuses for personal prejudices You believe what you want and then wave your hands until you have some mildly convincing reasons why you believe what you want to believe That's particularly easy in continental philosophy Some academic books forcefully and shamelessly delve into polemics and the reader is along for the ride Other academic books are clear and precise enough that you forget you're reading some asshole with a PhD's preferences Other books aren't out and out polemics but are also shoddily reasoned so the reader is left scratching their head writing in the margins and wondering why they bothered Here's where Malign Velocities comes inMalign Velocities is a critiue of accelerationism What's accelerationism It is a complex heterogenous group of thinkers who generally emphasize speed technological progress and anti humanism Accelerationism is now hip with the youngins because of Living Meme Nick Land vaporwave thinkpieces and of course the encroaching sense of doom and futility in contemporary life Apparently Noys coined the term He describes influences and predecessors Italian Futurists Soviet poets French theorists etc He also describes different trends in accelerationism apocalypticism terminality so on His critiue amounts to the following accelerationists are apologists to capitalism even when they think they're piercing through it; they indulge in a fantasy of the Real note the capital R; and they forget or try to dismiss living labor in the productive processNoys does not furnish a single reason why you should believe any of the preceding Partly because he avoids naming his targets; partly because when he does name his target he is simplifying and misunderstanding them beyond recognition; and partly because there's no clear sense of argumentation or consistency in the chapters The first problem is simple enough; considering accelerationism is not infreuently broken up into left and right its dangerous to try and criticize accelerationism as a unified intellectual and political program When Noys is criticizing accelerationism he doesn't often say Land says x and here's why that's problematic for example The second problem does not even depend on one's familiarity with the figures he's discussing Let's take the 1970s French theorists who Noys criticizes at a theoretical level most considerably other people like Land get no noteworthy appraisal; others like the Futurists are dismissed off hand after all if they were Fascists or misogynists they can't be taken seriously for one moment right I have some knowledge of Deleuze and Guattari a passing knowledge of Baudrillard and no familiarity at all with Lyotard The sections on DG are based on a very simplistic reading of them and do not levy any worthwhile criticism; further a considerate reading of Anti Oedipus especially the passages on desiring machines working by breaking down could have informed what Noys believes is a preferable alternative to accelerationism chapter 7 Not knowing anything about Lyotard though I can still spot the sleights of hand Noys makes In the Introduction he does not present what Lyotard says of accelerationism in a satisfyingly clear way; he then talks about Lyotard views using the term sublime without any uncontroversial evidence; he then says an embrace of the sublime is a conservative trope Connect the dots Lyotard is a conservativeapparently This leads into the third problem; most chapters in this book go the following way summarize a writer; summarize a book; summarize a movie; this writer sucks because x There is no flow or consistency between any of the sections or any of the chapters that gives any credence to Noys' critiue For example in chapter 3 Machine Being Noys says he is going to show why DG actually believe in a fantasy when they think they're talking about real production Okay fine Noys summarizes a book by Victor Tausk which DG refer to in Anti Oedipus Noys reminds us again what he wants to argue about DG Noys then summarizes Gravity's Rainbow and hints at two readings a psychoanalytic one Noys is a card carrying psychoanalyst by the way so let's not pretend DG ever had a chance of a fair interpretation and an accelerationist one Noys does not explore either in detail Finally there's a few paragraphs basically saying desire is repetitive and hollow Oh okay So why are DG fantasizing Noys just says they do he does not argue for this position at all Towards that end Noys uses the very handy tactic of deploying economic buzzwords accepted by postmoden social sciences and humanities academics Neoliberalism and its twin horses of doom Thatcher and Reagan; dotcom bubble; financialization; housing crisis; stagflation; and of course the big one which is so huge and useful that it makes it into the title capitalism Pepper them in anywhere Ever notice that the CCRU started changing around the time of the dotcom bubble Weird huh Silly Nick Land he never had a chance of knowing his career would be historically situated and thus defeated by the economic machinations of stockbrokers across the AtlanticHere's some positives because on the internet you're supposed to try to make friends and respect your elders Noys gives a solid history and background for accelerationism You can learn a bit about where accelerationist ideas came from by reading this book and come up with a nice reading list Also Noys is careful enough to not take the most belligerent and wrong headed polemical critiue of accelerationism Imagine this book written by someone much less intelligent oreven worsea critical theorist And on that note I applaud Noys for trying to criticize accelerationism It is an absolutely worthwhile project to try and dispel the illusions and hype surrounding accelerationism Unfortunately this book is just too short and underdeveloped to be worth reading Noys just presents some unsubstantiated things he thinks about accelerationism as a middle of the road Socialist and summarizes a series of books you can just read for yourself Skip it or read it and defend your favorite theorist's honor if you feel so inclined

Malign Velocities Accelerationism and CapitalismEl libro de Noys es un modelo de crítica dialéctica y un sofisticado relato sobre las posibilidades histórica. I suspect most academic books maybe books in general are just a list of excuses for personal prejudices You believe what you want and then wave your hands until you have some mildly convincing reasons why you believe what you want to believe That's particularly easy in continental philosophy Some academic books forcefully and shamelessly delve into polemics and the reader is along for the ride Other academic books are clear and precise enough that you forget you're reading some asshole with a PhD's preferences Other books aren't out and out polemics but are also shoddily reasoned so the reader is left scratching their head writing in the margins and wondering why they bothered Here's where Malign Velocities comes inMalign Velocities is a critiue of accelerationism What's accelerationism It is a complex heterogenous group of thinkers who generally emphasize speed technological progress and anti humanism Accelerationism is now hip with the youngins because of Living Meme Nick Land vaporwave thinkpieces and of course the encroaching sense of doom and futility in contemporary life Apparently Noys coined the term He describes influences and predecessors Italian Futurists Soviet poets French theorists etc He also describes different trends in accelerationism apocalypticism terminality so on His critiue amounts to the following accelerationists are apologists to capitalism even when they think they're piercing through it; they indulge in a fantasy of the Real note the capital R; and they forget or try to dismiss living labor in the productive processNoys does not furnish a single reason why you should believe any of the preceding Partly because he avoids naming his targets; partly because when he does name his target he is simplifying and misunderstanding them beyond recognition; and partly because there's no clear sense of argumentation or consistency in the chapters The first problem is simple enough; considering accelerationism is not infreuently broken up into left and right its dangerous to try and criticize accelerationism as a unified intellectual and political program When Noys is criticizing accelerationism he doesn't often say Land says x and here's why that's problematic for example The second problem does not even depend on one's familiarity with the figures he's discussing Let's take the 1970s French theorists who Noys criticizes at a theoretical level most considerably other people like Land get no noteworthy appraisal; others like the Futurists are dismissed off hand after all if they were Fascists or misogynists they can't be taken seriously for one moment right I have some knowledge of Deleuze and Guattari a passing knowledge of Baudrillard and no familiarity at all with Lyotard The sections on DG are based on a very simplistic reading of them and do not levy any worthwhile criticism; further a considerate reading of Anti Oedipus especially the passages on desiring machines working by breaking down could have informed what Noys believes is a preferable alternative to accelerationism chapter 7 Not knowing anything about Lyotard though I can still spot the sleights of hand Noys makes In the Introduction he does not present what Lyotard says of accelerationism in a satisfyingly clear way; he then talks about Lyotard views using the term sublime without any uncontroversial evidence; he then says an embrace of the sublime is a conservative trope Connect the dots Lyotard is a conservativeapparently This leads into the third problem; most chapters in this book go the following way summarize a writer; summarize a book; summarize a movie; this writer sucks because x There is no flow or consistency between any of the sections or any of the chapters that gives any credence to Noys' critiue For example in chapter 3 Machine Being Noys says he is going to show why DG actually believe in a fantasy when they think they're talking about real production Okay fine Noys summarizes a book by Victor Tausk which DG refer to in Anti Oedipus Noys reminds us again what he wants to argue about DG Noys then summarizes Gravity's Rainbow and hints at two readings a psychoanalytic one Noys is a card carrying psychoanalyst by the way so let's not pretend DG ever had a chance of a fair interpretation and an accelerationist one Noys does not explore either in detail Finally there's a few paragraphs basically saying desire is repetitive and hollow Oh okay So why are DG fantasizing Noys just says they do he does not argue for this position at all Towards that end Noys uses the very handy tactic of deploying economic buzzwords accepted by postmoden social sciences and humanities academics Neoliberalism and its twin horses of doom Thatcher and Reagan; dotcom bubble; financialization; housing crisis; stagflation; and of course the big one which is so huge and useful that it makes it into the title capitalism Pepper them in anywhere Ever notice that the CCRU started changing around the time of the dotcom bubble Weird huh Silly Nick Land he never had a chance of knowing his career would be historically situated and thus defeated by the economic machinations of stockbrokers across the AtlanticHere's some positives because on the internet you're supposed to try to make friends and respect your elders Noys gives a solid history and background for accelerationism You can learn a bit about where accelerationist ideas came from by reading this book and come up with a nice reading list Also Noys is careful enough to not take the most belligerent and wrong headed polemical critiue of accelerationism Imagine this book written by someone much less intelligent oreven worsea critical theorist And on that note I applaud Noys for trying to criticize accelerationism It is an absolutely worthwhile project to try and dispel the illusions and hype surrounding accelerationism Unfortunately this book is just too short and underdeveloped to be worth reading Noys just presents some unsubstantiated things he thinks about accelerationism as a middle of the road Socialist and summarizes a series of books you can just read for yourself Skip it or read it and defend your favorite theorist's honor if you feel so inclined

CHARACTERS Ü PLANTHIREINBATH.CO.UK ↠ Benjamin Noys

Malign Velocities: Accelerationism and Capitalism ¸ Relato apasionante sobre el forcejeo del pensamiento teórico con los límites y las compulsiones del capitalis. An appropriately speedy at times even breathlessly paced intervention that critiues the revolutionary powers so often ascribed to accelerationalism I'd say it's a bit heavy on theory and light on examples but each chapter is so densely packed and forcefully argued that there's little to complain about – apart from the fact that like most Zero books including my own this one also would have benefited from some diligent copy editing CHARACTERS Ü PLANTHIREINBATH.CO.UK ↠ Benjamin Noys

Benjamin Noys ↠ 1 READ

Benjamin Noys ↠ 1 READ S del aceleracionismo Esta obra consigue ser fiel al mandato materialista de no engañarse a uno mismo y teje un. Parts of this book were decidedly a bit beyond my comprehension and took awhile for me to dig around the vocabulary I am not that familiar with but beyond that I am surprised by the well roundedness of Noys's exploration of the topic As such some uotes showing his words are better than my attempt to sum them up What we can trace between anti accelerationists and accelerationists is a strangeconvergence on nostalgia – nostalgia for a vanishing possibility of socialist slow down itself aterminal slide away from socialism versus a capitalist ostalgie that can only fill in our absentfuture with past dreams of acceleration This is a painful irony for accelerationism inparticular which stakes so much on its futurism The nostalgia is a nostalgia for forces – adesire for something anything to generate enough energy and momentum to break thehorizon of the present It is important that this is a metaphysics of forces and not force in thesingular to account for the dispersion and linking of different possible sites into a plane ofimmanence Accelerationism is constructive but the construct replicates the past in the guiseof a possible futureIf accelerationism points to the problem of labor as the ‘moving contradiction’ of capital –both source of value and sueezed out by the machine – then it tries to solve thiscontradiction by alchemising labor with the machine I want to suggest that this is not asolution We can’t speed through to some future labor delegated to the machine nor can wereturn to the ‘good old days’ of labor as ‘honest day’s work’ In fact accelerationism indicatesthe impossibility of labor within the form of capitalism This obviously doesn’t mean labordoes not take place but it means labor can’t and doesn’t perform the function of politicalsocial and economic validation capitalism implies The readiness of capitalism to abandonany particular form of labor at the drop of a hat or at the drop of the markets suggests thatlabor cannot carry the ideological weight it is supposed toIn his study of workers in post Apartheid South Africa Franco Barchiesi has detailed howon the one hand work is the condition of neoliberal citizenship and how on the other handit can’t allow for true self reproduction The privatization of healthcare insurancetransportation costs home ownership etc leaves those ‘lucky’ enough to be in work unableto survive While labor is essential for citizenship – if we think of the demonization of‘welfare scroungers’ ‘benefit cheats’ and so on and on – it also never performs thatfunctionWhat is also crucial about Barchiesi’s argument is that he notes that the revelation of this precariousness or impossibility of labor does not simply lead to left wing political activation but in the current ideological context is as likely to lead to anti immigrant and anti welfare sentiments Those struggling to survive as precarious workers are as likely to turn on others as they are to start new forms of support and struggle that recognize the impossibility of work This is I think one of the crucial conundrums of the present moment Accelerationism tries to resolve it in machinic integration and extinction which bypasses the problem of consciousness awareness and struggle in a logic of immersion We are torn by the moving contradiction of capital into two broken halves that can’t be put back togetherA working solution to be deliberately ironic is to struggle for decommodification of ourlives Campaigns against privatization and for the return of privatized services to publiccontrol try to reduce our dependence on work by attacking the way work is supposed toaccount for all of our self reproduction These struggles are in parallel for struggles to defendpublic services protect benefits and sustain social and collective forms of support Whilethey may be unglamorous especially compared to space travel these struggles can negate theconditions of the impossibility of work by trying to detach ‘work’ from its ideological andmaterial role as the validation of citizenship and existence