> Two accelerationists might have directly opposed beliefs and goals.
The same way as there has been a left-wing socialism and a right-wing socialism, which in the case of inter-war France (for example) ended up with the Ni droite, Ni gauche slogan. But I can understand that the audience here is not that willing to embrace dialectic thinking, even though discussing about politics of the last 200 years or so without involving said dialectic thinking would be a futile thing.
Accelerationists are people who want to embrace the ultra-capitalist surveillance state to force a societal collapse in order to eventually built a better society on its ruins. We are very far from that goal, so I don't see how they have been proven right about anything.
Which accelerationists?
Accelerationism is a strategy, not an ideology. Two accelerationists might have directly opposed beliefs and goals.
> Two accelerationists might have directly opposed beliefs and goals.
The same way as there has been a left-wing socialism and a right-wing socialism, which in the case of inter-war France (for example) ended up with the Ni droite, Ni gauche slogan. But I can understand that the audience here is not that willing to embrace dialectic thinking, even though discussing about politics of the last 200 years or so without involving said dialectic thinking would be a futile thing.
I don't think you're using that word correctly.
Am I not? How would you have used it?
Accelerationists are people who want to embrace the ultra-capitalist surveillance state to force a societal collapse in order to eventually built a better society on its ruins. We are very far from that goal, so I don't see how they have been proven right about anything.