Accellerationism is the idea that in order to make things better, we need to make things much worse. That sounds counterintuitive, but let’s rephrase that “people won’t be inspired to make the radical changes we need until things are bad enough to force them to act”.

There’s a complicated history of accelerationist theory, including ideas about technological singularity and appropriation by far right authoritarians, but the concept goes back to early leftists. For the purposes of this discussion, I am only talking about “making things so bad that they have to get better”, and I am also only concerned about accelerationism in left wing politics and activism.

I am not going to crap on someone for looking at the pending environmental disaster of climate change and our collective inability to respond effectively, and saying, “we need radical change quickly, and the only way we are going to get that is to help things fall apart”. There are multiple areas where complacently accepting the status quo could doom our future. But here’s my case against accellerationism.

Revolution through Inaction

One common expression on the left is “don’t fix it, you’re slowing _____”, where the blank is “revolution”, “police abolition”, “mass unionization”, or some other large-scale change. I call this “lazy accelerationism” because, while I am sure many people are sincere and well intended, it becomes a great excuse to focus on inaction and infighting rather than making positive social change.

Whatever you are trying to do, these folks won’t help. They may accuse you of “propping up a failed system” by your efforts to help people. You don’t want unhoused encampments bulldozed in freezing weather? You want less Black men executed by cops? You want to close down a factory polluting the neighborhood? Too bad! You’re a “neo-liberal treating symptoms”.

The problems with this seem obvious. It makes people’s suffering a tool used to gain political power rather than a problem to be addressed.

This becomes a great excuse for a vocal minority to undermine positive change while claiming to be the true revolutionaries. There are a lot of questionable folks fundraising on distant change rather than doing real work here and now. And shit, if you do think this way, there is plenty of suffering in the world to organize around - you don’t need to encourage more of it.

Better Options

At its best, accelerationism is still encouraging harm now for the hope of a better future.

I think the best argument against accellerationism is that you can do good in a community, you can reduce harm rather than encouraging it, and you can use that work to organize around and spread your ideas.

Want to educate people on an issue? Give them a reason to listen to you better than lies or fear mongering. Want to radicalize people? Get them face-to-face with do-nothing politicians who’d rather let people die than challenge the status quo. Want people to see how the fights against racism, xenophobia, homophobia, poverty, and environmental injustice intersect? Get people from those groups working together.

Political and revolutionary change requires broad local organization. The right has been doing this for decades, pushing religious extremists into school boards and city councils. On the left, we can organize around making people’s lives better. The Black Panther’s free breakfast for kids program is a great example of how community organizing, improving lives, and expanding understanding of leftist politics can go hand in hand.

Negative Outcomes

The assumption that what you may be accelerating is positive change is dangerously naive. Accelerationist models tend to encourage hyper-capitalism and authoritarianism. What if you help build a state characterized by even greater greed and violence, and your revolution doesn’t happen?

The conditions accelerationist want to create could just as easily spawn fascism or theocracy as easily as it could a leftist utopia. The difference between constructive radical change and an authoritarian nightmare is having a broad range of informed, engaged, and organized people. So, again, organizing in communities not only brings short-term gains, but it helps guard against reactionaries using a moment of change as an opportunity for a power grab.