#ninapower

Wikipedia defines accelerationism as, “the idea that either the prevailing system of capitalism, or certain technosocial processes that have historically characterized it, should be expanded, repurposed, or accelerated in order to generate radical social change.”

In Decapitalism, Left Scarcity, and the State, Power identifies flaws within this thinking citing a series of writings both in support and critique of the accelerationist project. Some key themes and related thoughts began to emerge in connection to my own work and research interests, which I will attempt to summarize and reflect upon here.

Powerless, Powerful, Empowerment

Power argues that we (the left, and, I assume, society in general) have more imagination now than ever before, however we lack the “power to enforce it.” This thought stands out for me because I’ve been thinking a lot about power and powerlessness (i.e.: feeling powerless and trapped within the “system” due to lack of understanding of and influence over the economics and policy that appear to drive inequality). Perhaps, as Robinson and Shallcross suggest in Social change and education for sustainable living, small-scale, local action, when driven by the surplus imagination that Power refers to, can actually give us this power back?

Under the surveillance and repressive power of “the system” or state, it is difficult to imagine any sort of shift in power, particularly for vulnerable and marginalized groups. As Power puts it, “You may not care about the state, being interested only in a capitalism that supposedly transcends borders, but the state sure as hell cares about you the moment you step one inch beyond remarkably circumscribed boundaries.” Yikes.  

Mapping as Action, Truth, and Propaganda

The concept of mapping material scarcity is suggested on multiple occasions. First, this mapping is suggested in contrast to mapping conceptual scarcity, such as perceived lack of imagination. It is then described more concretely as a tactic for “decapitalism,” to begin to “take back what is left” by mapping production and consumption data, overlaying this information with timelines such as estimated ecosystem remediation and equitable resource reallocation, and recognizing the often-overlooked, downstream / behind-the-scenes impact of the capitalist system itself (including but not limited to gross, unacceptable human rights violations). Power doesn’t go into further detail about what such mapping would accomplish in terms of policy or system change, but I assume she means to suggest that awareness will lead to some sort of action. As Philippe Rekacewicz points out in his lecture on cartography at MIT, maps are often taken at face value, assumed as truth and believed (interestingly, opening up opportunity for propaganda and intentional misinformation, which is a rather intriguing and provocative thought).

Power does, though, state that “without political organization predicated on a material assessment of the current state of the planet [such as, I assume, the previously mentioned mapping], any relation to technology will either be overly conditioned by that technology itself or will bear no relation to ultimate speculative desires...” She also claims that “Politics mediates nature and technology, and has to if progressive revolutionary projects are to be advanced.” However, I remain unconvinced of these points, perhaps because I don’t fully understand her meaning, or perhaps because I’m jaded by the thought of politics mediating anything. Later, she quotes Illich, stating that “Only participatory democracy creates the conditions for rational technology,” which seems to bring some logic to these prior thoughts.   

Update Oct 22: After chatting with Amber, I can better understand Power’s point about Politics mediating technology. I had in mind the definition of “mediating” as “keeping in check” or “maintaining the ethics of”, however Power’s use of mediating is more along the lines of “driving” or “generating purpose for”. Which is true I suppose, given that many unethical forces are inherently political, resulting in political forces becoming unethical. Also, the mapping idea can be thought of as taking stock of the technological power that exists, and, rather than driving it onward and upward - ever seeking out new futurist challenges, reflecting it back and applying it to our existing ethical dilemmas and wicked problems currently (urgently) in need of solutions.

Human Energy (AKA: Industry Enslavement) and Income Inequality

Marxist ideals of the machine taking on the burden of human labour as a “moving power that moves itself” discounts the dependence of technology on energy, labour and consumption. Truly, as Power emphasizes, “the replacement of human energy with fossil-fuel energy is central to the history of capitalism’s development,” and, quoting Illich again, “A ceiling on energy use can lead to social relations that are characterised by high levels of equity.”

Power also points out that, “there is a direct relation between social form and energy use,” as confirmed and illustrated, in my opinion, by the emergence of a culture of selfishness and I-ness whereby the needs of the self become indistinguishable from wants and vastly outweigh the needs of the other in many cases. To this end, the I’s, with their iGadgets, zombie-walk disconnected through life, “fail[ing] to note that those who consume and those who produce such consumer gadgetry are at rather different ends of the sharp edge of capitalism’s own version of accelerationism.” Boom. This all-too-common example is the epitome of what critical artist and designer Krzysztof Wodiczko describes as a “numb sleep,” one which we, the I’s, must awaken from before it is too late.