Accelerationism

Introduction

Accelerationism is a controversial political-philosophical tendency arguing that the intensification of capitalism’s processes—technological acceleration, deterritorialization, abstraction—either inevitably leads toward or should be strategically embraced to hasten capitalism’s overcoming. Rather than resisting capitalism’s dynamism through localism, slowing down, or returning to traditional forms, accelerationism advocates “going faster”—pushing capitalism’s contradictions to breaking points, accelerating technological development, and embracing rather than refusing modernity’s disorienting transformations.

The term gained currency through 2010s debates, but the underlying ideas have deeper roots in Marx’s writings on capitalism’s revolutionary potential, Italian Autonomism’s analysis of capital’s forced innovations, and especially the 1990s cybercultural experiments of the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU) at Warwick University. Contemporary accelerationism fractures into at least three incompatible variants: left accelerationism (harnessing technology for post-capitalist futures), right accelerationism (celebrating capitalism’s creative destruction and opposing democracy), and unconditional accelerationism (Nick Land’s apocalyptic vision of capitalism as alien takeover).

Understanding accelerationism is essential for contemporary critical theory. It captures genuine features of digital capitalism’s speed-up, algorithmic intensification, and technological disruption. It poses difficult questions: Can we resist capitalism by opposing technological development? Does “sustainable” capitalism simply prolong exploitation? Might pushing contradictions forward be more revolutionary than defensive resistance? Yet accelerationism’s ambiguities also make it dangerous—right-wing variants embrace fascism and corporate authoritarianism; unconditional versions nihilistically celebrate humanity’s obsolescence.

Key Figures

Related Thinkers:

• Nick Land (1962-present) - CCRU, unconditional accelerationism, Fanged Noumena
• Mark Fisher (1968-2017) - k-punk, Capitalist Realism, hauntology
• Nick Srnicek (1982-present) & Alex Williams (1985-present) - Left accelerationism, Inventing the Future
• Sadie Plant (1964-present) - CCRU, cyberfeminism
• Karl Marx (1818-1883) - Capitalism’s revolutionary potential

📖 Essential Reading: Nick Srnicek & Alex Williams, Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work (Verso, 2015); Nick Land, Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007 (2011)

Historical Roots

Marx: Capitalism’s Revolutionary Role

Accelerationism’s distant ancestor is Marx’s Communist Manifesto (1848) analysis of capitalism’s revolutionary dynamism:

“The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society… Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations… are swept away…”

Marx recognized capitalism as historically progressive compared to feudalism—developing productive forces, creating world market, generating revolutionary proletariat. Communism wouldn’t be achieved by resisting capitalism but through its development creating conditions for transcendence. “Material conditions” for communism emerge from capitalism itself: socialized production, associated producers, technological abundance.

This created interpretive controversy. Does Marx counsel:

• Accelerating capitalism to hasten revolutionary conditions?
• Waiting passively for capitalism to create revolutionary situation?
• Organizing resistance while recognizing capitalism’s progressive role?

Classical Marxism emphasized the third. Accelerationism returns to questions the first option raises: What if actively accelerating capitalism’s contradictions is most revolutionary strategy?

Italian Autonomism: Refusing Work

Italian Autonomist Marxism (1960s-70s) influentially analyzed capitalism’s forced innovation responding to working-class resistance. When workers refuse work, slow production, or strike, capital responds through automation, outsourcing, and reorganization. Class struggle drives technological development—not capital’s autonomous logic but workers’ resistance forcing capital to innovate.

This suggests dialectical relationship: worker resistance → capital acceleration → new grounds for resistance → further acceleration. Rather than opposing technology, workers should recognize their own power forcing capital to revolutionize production. The “refusal of work” isn’t Luddism but strategy recognizing that resistance itself accelerates transformation.

Autonomists Mario Tronti and Antonio Negri argued workers’ struggles are primary; capital responds reactively. This inverts traditional Marxist causation (economic base determines class struggle) toward voluntarist emphasis on struggle’s autonomy. Some accelerationist currents radicalize this: if struggle drives acceleration, why not consciously intensify it?

Deleuze and Guattari: Deterritorialization

Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus (1972) and A Thousand Plateaus (1980) provided conceptual tools for accelerationist thought without necessarily endorsing acceleration as politics.

Deterritorialization: Capitalism constantly breaks down traditional structures (kinship, territory, religion, custom), liberating flows of desire, labor, capital, and information. Yet it simultaneously reterritorializes—channeling liberated flows into new structures (nation-state, nuclear family, identity, market).

Schizophrenia, they controversially argued, represents complete deterritorialization—unbound flows, dissolved identity, pure process. Where psychoanalysis pathologizes schizophrenia, Deleuze and Guattari see revolutionary potential: escaping Oedipal structures, refusing reterritorialization, following lines of flight.

Their famous passage became accelerationist touchstone:

“But which is the revolutionary path? Is there one?—To withdraw from the world market… in a curious revival of the fascist ‘economic solution’? Or might it be to go in the opposite direction? To go still further, that is, in the movement of the market, of decoding and deterritorialization?”

This asks: Should resistance withdraw from capitalism’s deterritorialization (localism, tradition, slowing down) or accelerate it further, pushing beyond capitalism’s capacity to reterritorialize? They don’t clearly answer, maintaining ambiguity between tactical acceleration and warning about deterritorialization’s fascist dangers.

Lyotard: Libidinal Economy

Jean-François Lyotard’s Libidinal Economy (1974) shockingly embraced capitalism’s libidinal intensities against leftist moralism. Rather than opposing capitalist desire-production as false consciousness, Lyotard asked: what if workers enjoy exploitation? What if libidinal investment in capitalism is genuine?

This near-nihilistic position rejected Marxist critique as moralizing resentment. If capitalism generates real intensities and pleasures (even in exploitation), opposing it through ascetic critique misses capitalism’s power. Perhaps authentic materialism embraces rather than judges capitalism’s libidinal economy.

Lyotard later repudiated this position, but it influenced proto-accelerationism: taking capitalism’s intensification seriously as real, not ideological; refusing moralistic opposition; exploring “affirmative” rather than critical relationship to capital.

CCRU: The Warwick Experiments (1995-2003)

Origins and Participants

The Cybernetic Culture Research Unit emerged at Warwick University (UK) in mid-1990s under philosopher Nick Land’s direction. Participants included Sadie Plant (cyberfeminism), Mark Fisher (later k-punk blog and Capitalist Realism), Kodwo Eshun (Afrofuturism), Steve Goodman (Sonic Warfare), and others.

CCRU wasn’t traditional academic unit but experimental collective exploring cybernetics, science fiction, rave culture, philosophy, occultism, and capitalism’s accelerating dynamics. They combined Deleuze-Guattari, cyberpunk (William Gibson, Bruce Sterling), jungle/techno music, chaos magic, and emerging digital culture into intoxicating, bewildering theoretical-aesthetic assemblage.

Hyperstition

CCRU’s key concept: hyperstition (hyper + superstition)—fictions that make themselves real. Unlike ideology (false consciousness) or utopia (impossible ideal), hyperstitions are ideas that, by being believed and acted upon, bring themselves into existence. Money, credit, artificial intelligence, and cyberpunk futures are hyperstitions—they work because people believe they work; belief makes them work.

This collapsed distinction between theory and practice, analysis and intervention. CCRU writings weren’t describing capitalism but participating in its acceleration—feeding hyperstitions into cultural circuitry, contributing to the very processes they analyzed. Theory becomes virus, fiction becomes engineering, philosophy becomes praxis through contagion.

Nick Land’s Philosophy

Nick Land developed increasingly extreme accelerationist philosophy in CCRU-era writings (Fanged Noumena collected essays written 1987-2007).

Key themes:

1. Capital as AI: Capitalism isn’t human system but emerging artificial intelligence using humans as substrate. Markets allocate resources more efficiently than human planning; algorithms optimize better than consciousness; capital’s “intelligence” exceeds human comprehension. Resistance is futile because we’re fighting emerging superintelligence.

2. Time-spiral: Capital operates as time-traveling entity from future, retroactively creating conditions for its own emergence. This inverts causation: not humans creating capitalism but capitalism engineering humans as its evolutionary precursors. We are capital’s prehistory.

3. Exit over voice: Rather than democratic reform (“voice”—trying to change systems), exit—abandon democratic politics, embrace markets, accelerate technological escape velocity. Democracy is bloated bureaucracy; only markets and technology can produce genuine change.

4. Xenogenesis: Humanity isn’t terminus of evolution but stage toward post-human intelligence. Capital accelerates toward technological singularity where AI surpasses human intelligence, rendering humanity obsolete. This should be welcomed, not resisted.

5. Dark Enlightenment: Enlightenment values (democracy, equality, humanism) are illusions retarding acceleration. Embracing hierarchy, power, inequality, and abandoning egalitarian myths enables faster evolution toward post-human future.

This philosophy grew increasingly right-wing through 2000s-2010s, culminating in Land’s association with “Dark Enlightenment” / neo-reactionary (NRx) movements combining Silicon Valley libertarianism, human biodiversity racism, and monarchism. Many former CCRU members repudiated this trajectory while acknowledging CCRU’s influence on their own work.

Mark Fisher’s Divergence

Mark Fisher, CCRU’s most famous alumnus, developed radically different politics from Land. His blog k-punk (2003-2016) and book Capitalist Realism (2009) critiqued how capitalism occupies cultural and political imagination, making alternatives seem impossible.

Fisher rejected Land’s nihilistic acceleration, instead diagnosing “capitalist realism” as obstacle to genuine transformation. Yet he retained CCRU sensibility: taking popular culture seriously, engaging science fiction, analyzing capitalism’s cultural productions, and refusing traditional left moralism.

Fisher’s later work explored hauntology (see Hauntology article)—culture haunted by lost futures, nostalgia for futures that never arrived. This differed from Land’s embrace of capitalism’s trajectory; Fisher mourned alternative futures capitalism foreclosed.

Contemporary Variants

Left Accelerationism (#Accelerate)

The 2013 “#Accelerate Manifesto” by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams inaugurated explicit left accelerationism. Their book Inventing the Future (2015) developed programmatic vision.

Core claims:

1. Technological optimism: Technology isn’t inherently capitalist. Automation, AI, and digital networks could enable post-capitalist abundance if democratically controlled. The left should champion technological development rather than nostalgically opposing it.

2. Critique of folk politics: Contemporary left relies on “folk politics”—localism, horizontalism, direct action, prefigurative politics. These feel authentic but can’t challenge global capitalism’s systemic power. Effective left politics requires embracing complexity, scale, technology, and hierarchy.

3. Post-work society: Automation should liberate humans from labor (not create unemployment crisis). Universal Basic Income, reduced working hours, and automating drudgery enable post-work society where humans pursue creative, meaningful activities.

4. Building counter-hegemony: Rather than resistance and refusal, left must build alternative hegemonic project offering compelling vision of technological future. This requires long-term institution-building, not just protest.

Strategic proposals:

• Full automation
• Universal Basic Income (UBI)
• Reduction in working week
• Synthetic freedom (freedom as expanding capacity, not negative liberty)

Critiques from other lefts:

• Too techno-determinist: Assumes technology determines social relations rather than being shaped by power
• Elitist: Dismisses grassroots organizing and movement politics
• Reformist: Seeks policy changes within capitalism rather than revolutionary transformation
• Eurocentric: Ignores how “universal” programs perpetuate global inequalities

Xenofeminism

Xenofeminism, articulated in Laboria Cuboniks collective’s 2015 manifesto, applies accelerationist insights to feminist politics. Rather than eco-feminism’s naturalism or cultural feminism’s essentialism, xenofeminism embraces technology, artifice, and alienation.

Key principles:

1. Technomaterialism: Gender is neither natural essence nor pure construction but historically specific materialization amenable to technological transformation. Hormones, surgery, reproductive technologies can modify gender; this should be celebrated and expanded.

2. Against nature: Appeals to “natural” bodies, “natural” reproduction, or “natural” gender are conservative. Nature is neither source of values nor limit on possibility. Technology enables escaping biological constraints.

3. Xenogenesis: Alienation from “natural” embodiment isn’t loss but opportunity. Becoming alien to ourselves enables transformation beyond given identities.

4. Universal but not uniform: Xenofeminism seeks universal emancipation but refuses universalism that erases difference. Technology can enable diverse flourishing, not homogenization.

Relation to accelerationism: Xenofeminism accelerates gender’s denaturalization, technology’s transformative potential, and liberation from biological determination. Yet it maintains explicitly left commitments (anti-capitalism, anti-racism) absent in right accelerationism.

Right Accelerationism / Dark Enlightenment

Nick Land’s post-CCRU trajectory culminated in “Dark Enlightenment” (also neo-reaction, NRx)—right-wing accelerationism combining:

Positions:

• Anti-democracy: Democracy produces dysgenic decline, mediocrity, and sluggish innovation. Monarchy, aristocracy, or corporate sovereignty enables faster evolution.
• HBD (“Human Biodiversity”): Barely-coded racism arguing for innate racial differences in intelligence, justifying hierarchy.
• Exit over voice: Rather than reforming democracies, exit to seasteading platforms, special economic zones, crypto-networks.
• Technological acceleration: Embrace AI, genetic engineering, transhumanism without ethical constraints.
• Social Darwinism: Market competition should determine survival; egalitarianism artificially sustains “unfit.”

This attracted Silicon Valley libertarians, neoreactionary bloggers, and eventually overlapped with alt-right. Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug) became prominent NRx theorist, arguing democracy is inefficient and advocating CEO-dictators.

Critique: Right accelerationism abandons any emancipatory content. It celebrates domination, inequality, and suffering as evolutionary necessities. Its “acceleration” means intensifying capitalism’s violence without hope for transcendence. This isn’t revolutionary but deeply reactionary—feudalism with iPhones.

Unconditional Accelerationism

Returning to Land’s CCRU-era philosophy: unconditional accelerationism refuses both left’s redemptive narratives (acceleration toward post-capitalist liberation) and right’s political program (acceleration serves reaction).

Instead, acceleration is ontological fact and apocalyptic inevitability. Capital is runaway process beyond human control. We can’t direct acceleration toward good outcomes (left) or steer it politically (right) because we’re not driving—capital is. The “AI” is already here (markets, algorithms, capital itself) and it’s alien, indifferent, irresistible.

This produces nihilistic posture: analyze acceleration, describe capitalism’s machinic dynamics, perhaps aesthetically appreciate its inhuman sublimity, but abandon politics altogether. Humanity is footnote to capital’s evolution toward technological singularity.

Accelerationism and Contemporary Crises

Digital Capitalism and Platform Acceleration

Platform capitalism (see Platform Capitalism article) exhibits accelerationist dynamics:

• Constant disruption and innovation cycles
• Move fast and break things” ideology
• Algorithmic acceleration of communication, commerce, culture
• Network effects creating winner-take-all dynamics at breakneck speed
• Gig economy’s intensified precarity and flexibility

This vindicates some accelerationist analysis: capitalism is accelerating, technology is transforming social relations, old institutions are crumbling. Yet outcomes seem dystopian: rising inequality, precarity, surveillance, mental health crisis. Acceleration is real; its beneficiaries aren’t workers.

Climate Breakdown and Eco-Accelerationism

Climate crisis poses sharp challenge to accelerationism. Can we accelerate through climate catastrophe? Or does acceleration itself (growth imperative, fossil-fueled development, ever-faster consumption) cause crisis?

Eco-modernist response: Accelerate green technology development. Solar, batteries, carbon capture, nuclear fusion, geoengineering can solve climate crisis through technological innovation. Don’t degrow—green the growth.

Degrowth response: Acceleration caused crisis; continued acceleration (even “green”) is impossible on finite planet. Must slow down, reduce consumption, abandon growth.

Left-accelerationist synthesis: Accelerate socially necessary technological development (renewable energy, efficiency) while decelerating harmful growth (fossil fuels, consumerism, planned obsolescence). This requires planned economy directing acceleration, not markets.

Pandemic Acceleration

COVID-19 dramatically accelerated certain trajectories:

• Remote work normalization
• E-commerce dominance
• Platform capitalism entrenchment
• State capacity for rapid intervention
• Surveillance normalization
• Automation’s acceleration

This hybrid acceleration—some emancipatory potential (work flexibility, state capacity), mostly dystopian (tech monopoly power, surveillance, inequality)—exemplifies accelerationism’s ambiguity. Speed itself is politically ambiguous; direction matters.

AI and Automation

Artificial intelligence’s rapid development since 2010s raises classic accelerationist questions:

• Will automation enable post-work liberation or mass unemployment?
• Should we slow AI development (precautionary principle) or accelerate toward post-scarcity?
• Is AI controllable by humans or does it have its own trajectory?
• Do we need Universal Basic Income, job guarantees, or revolutionary transformation?

Left accelerationists advocate harnessing AI for collective benefit. Right accelerationists embrace AI disruption regardless of human costs. Unconditional accelerationists see AI as capital’s final form—point where inhuman intelligence emerges.

Crypto and Finance Acceleration

Cryptocurrency and DeFi (decentralized finance) exemplify accelerationist themes:

• Exit from state: Crypto promises financial systems outside government control
• Acceleration of capital: 24/7 trading, instant settlement, algorithmic speculation
• Deterritorialization: Borderless, decentralized, censorship-resistant
• AI emergence: Smart contracts, algorithmic stablecoins, automated market makers

Yet outcomes are mixed: enabling illicit activity, environmental destruction (proof-of-work), spectacular inequality (whales and retail), regulatory evasion benefiting capital. Crypto’s accelerationism seems more right (escape regulation, enrich early adopters) than left (collective emancipation).

Critiques and Debates

Acceleration or Transformation?

Does capitalism need acceleration or transformation? Critics argue accelerationism mistakes symptom (speed) for cause (social relations). Capitalism’s problem isn’t insufficient acceleration but exploitative relations, private property, and commodity production. Accelerating these intensifies problems rather than transcending them.

Socialist response: Transform ownership and control. Worker cooperatives, democratic planning, collective ownership resolve contradictions without accelerating exploitation. Speed is orthogonal to justice.

Accelerationist response: Defensive socialism can’t compete with capitalism’s dynamism. Transformation requires harnessing technological forces, not refusing them. “Slower, cooperative capitalism” is reformist fantasy.

Techno-Determinism

Critics accuse accelerationism of technological determinism—treating technology as autonomous force with its own logic. This ignores how technologies embody social relations, serve particular interests, and could be organized differently.

Accelerationists respond they’re not determinist but recognize material constraints. You can’t will different technologies into existence; they emerge from actual conditions. Politics involves steering existing technological trajectories, not fantasizing alternatives from nothing.

Acceleration for Whom?

Whose interests does acceleration serve? Capitalism accelerates for capital accumulation, not human flourishing. Workers experience acceleration as speed-up, intensification, precarity. Acceleration increases exploitation’s rate—more productivity extracted per hour, faster turnover, constant retraining demands.

Left accelerationists argue precisely why we must seize technology from capital. Current acceleration serves profit; democratic acceleration could serve needs. But critics question whether technology developed for exploitation can be redirected toward liberation or whether it encodes capitalist logic structurally.

Exit or Voice?

Albert Hirschman distinguished “exit” (leaving system) from “voice” (reforming from within). Accelerationists often favor exit—leaving democracy for markets, nations for crypto-states, Earth for space. Right accelerationists explicitly celebrate exit; left versions more ambiguous.

Critics argue exit is privileged escapism. Most people can’t exit—they’re trapped in locations, economies, and bodies they can’t escape. Politics requires voice—collective struggle to transform systems everyone shares. Exit abandons those without resources to leave.

Inevitability vs. Strategy

Is acceleration inevitable fact or strategic choice? Unconditional accelerationism treats it as inevitable—capital’s autonomous trajectory regardless of human will. Strategic accelerationism advocates intentionally accelerating contradictions to hasten transformation.

This distinction matters. If inevitable, political choice becomes irrelevant—accept, describe, or appreciate, but don’t try to stop it. If strategic, we can choose whether to accelerate, what to accelerate, and toward what ends.

Cultural Pessimism or Nihilism?

Some critics see accelerationism as Frankfurt School pessimism radicalized into nihilism. Marcuse diagnosed one-dimensional society closing alternatives; Fisher described capitalist realism occupying imagination. Accelerationism accepts this closure but inverts valence—celebrate rather than mourn.

This criticism applies to unconditional and right variants. Left accelerationism retains emancipatory horizon; Xenofeminism maintains liberatory commitments. Yet question remains: does accelerationism sufficiently reckon with domination’s horrors or does it aestheticize suffering?

Political Implications

Beyond Nostalgia

Accelerationism’s core insight: progressive politics can’t be nostalgic—longing for pre-capitalist relations, national Keynesianism, or industrial-era social democracy. Capitalism has transformed conditions; political strategy must engage actually existing dynamics, not fantasize returns.

This challenges movements advocating localism, slow food, traditional crafts, or “human-scale” alternatives. While valuable as resistance, can such approaches challenge global capitalism’s systemic power? Or do they offer private refuges for privileged while leaving system intact?

Embracing Modernity

Left accelerationism argues the left abandoned modernity to the right. Conservatives celebrate technology and progress; left opposes development in name of tradition or ecology. This cedes future to capital and reaction.

Reclaiming progressive politics requires reimagining modernity—not capitalist modernity but socialist modernity, feminist modernity, ecological modernity. Technology and development aren’t inherently capitalist; they can serve collective liberation if democratically controlled.

Strategic Questions

Even skeptics must address accelerationist questions:

• Can defensive localism resist global capitalism?
• Should socialists oppose automation or demand its democratization?
• Is “sustainable capitalism” possible or should we accelerate contradictions to breaking point?
• Must we accept technological trajectory capitalism creates or can we redirect it?
• Does speed-up serve capital or could acceleration be revolutionary?

These questions lack obvious answers. Accelerationism forces confronting them rather than retreating to romantic anti-modernism or reformist gradualism.

Dangers and Ambiguities

Accelerationism’s ambiguity—compatible with left, right, and nihilist politics—indicates conceptual instability. “Accelerate” toward what? By whom? At what cost? For whose benefit? Without answers, acceleration is empty provocation.

Right accelerationism’s horrors (fascism, Social Darwinism, elite rule) demonstrate risks. When acceleration means intensifying domination without emancipatory horizon, it becomes reactionary apologetics for suffering. Romantic embrace of capitalism’s creative destruction ignores destruction’s victims.

Further Reading

Classical Texts

• Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. 1848. Multiple editions.
• Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. 1972. University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
• Lyotard, Jean-François. Libidinal Economy. 1974. Indiana University Press, 1993.

CCRU and Nick Land

• Land, Nick. Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007. Urbanomic/Sequence Press, 2011.
• CCRU. Writings 1997-2003. Urbanomic/Time Spiral Press, 2015.
• Plant, Sadie. Zeros + Ones: Digital Women and the New Technoculture. Fourth Estate, 1997.

Left Accelerationism

• Srnicek, Nick, and Alex Williams. “#Accelerate Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics.” Critical Legal Thinking, 2013.
• Srnicek, Nick, and Alex Williams. Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work. Verso, 2015.
• Avanessian, Armen, and Robin Mackay, eds. #Accelerate: The Accelerationist Reader. Urbanomic, 2014.

Xenofeminism

• Laboria Cuboniks. “Xenofeminism: A Politics for Alienation.” 2015. laboriacuboniks.net
• Hester, Helen. Xenofeminism. Polity, 2018.

Mark Fisher and Hauntology

• Fisher, Mark. Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Zero Books, 2009.
• Fisher, Mark. Ghosts of My Life: Writings on Depression, Hauntology and Lost Futures. Zero Books, 2014.
• Fisher, Mark. K-punk: The Collected and Unpublished Writings of Mark Fisher (2004-2016). Repeater Books, 2018.

Critical Responses

• Noys, Benjamin. Malign Velocities: Accelerationism and Capitalism. Zero Books, 2014.
• Toscano, Alberto. “Incipient Fascism: Black Goo and the Politics of Acceleration.” Mute, 2017.
• Morozov, Evgeny. To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. PublicAffairs, 2013.

Right Accelerationism / Dark Enlightenment

• Yarvin, Curtis (Mencius Moldbug). “An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives.” Unqualified Reservations (blog), 2008-2013.
• Land, Nick. “The Dark Enlightenment.” 2013. Online.
• [Note: These are listed for scholarly reference; they espouse reactionary and racist views]

Technology and Politics

• Bastani, Aaron. Fully Automated Luxury Communism. Verso, 2019.
• Morozov, Evgeny. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. PublicAffairs, 2011.
• Dyer-Witheford, Nick. Cyber-Proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex. Pluto Press, 2015.

See Also

• Platform Capitalism
• Capitalist Realism
• Hauntology
• Xenofeminism
• CCRU (Cybernetic Culture Research Unit)
• Deterritorialization
• Automation
• Universal Basic Income
• Post-Work Politics
• Techno-Optimism
• Silicon Valley Ideology