Talk:Accelerationism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DizzyLemur. Peer reviewers: Casperthelazyghost.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh no wonder it’s crap then. Huge passages with no source, radical claims of “influence”

this article needs to be cleaned up 2603:7000:A700:4EB9:E0DB:59FF:345:E408 (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 23 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JKnoepke. Peer reviewers: Hford13, Jackson1317.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The introductory sentence of this article seems to be incorrect at least according to Peter Wolfendale, whose article on accelerationism is referenced. He writes:

"Capitalism reduces the cost of being alive to a minimum, but just to shrink the worker’s slice as the pie grows. Eventually through this process “it becomes evident” that the owners are parasites, and the expropriated expropriate the expropriators. If all this is the case, then it logically follows that we shouldn’t be trying to slow the expropriation down, but rather we should attempt to speed the system toward its inevitable doom. This dynamic is the premise for the collection #Accelerate, new from the radically odd publisher Urbanomic.”

As Alex Williams has noted before, this is not a position that anyone has ever held. Okay, let’s qualify that a bit. It might be the case that some people have held this position, and that some of them now even think of themselves as ‘accelerationists’. So let’s limit it to the claim that it is not a position that anyone in the #Accelerate reader has ever held.

Morgan Sutherland (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As the original author of the article I agree with Wolfendale up to a point, actually; I will admit I dashed off the article in a fairly short period of time and just grabbed the most obvious citations to give it some value as a starting point. I do agree that none of the three people I've referenced in the article—that is, Marx, Nietzsche, and Land—can really be described as accelerationist tout court, at least in the sense of the article's first sentence.

To some extent that's irrelevant to the article's lede, though: it seems to me that Wolfendale is making a normative claim about the validity of the definition, and not primarily an empirical claim about how the term is employed in real life (he admits the possibility that there are people who hold those views, just not the ones in the #Accelerate reader). To that extent, the definition expressed in the first sentence of the article is not "simply incorrect"—it's certainly how I've heard the term used the vast majority of the time, and I'd be happy to provide more sources justifying this beyond the Shaviro and Adams books that are already cited.

Note also that merely defining accelerationism as what self-described accelerationists think it is, without further elaboration, would be POV-pushing.

I think there are three distinct definitions operating here:

1. The colloquial usage of the term, which Wolfendale criticises (more or less the current definition in the article: "capitalism should be accelerated so that it can destroy itself");
2. The left-accelerationist usage: roughly, I take it, that the deterriorialising accelerative tendencies that characterised the emancipatory dynamic of early capitalism should be revived under the aegis of a new political project; and
3. Landian or right-accelerationism: capitalism should be accelerated, full stop. N.B.: Still in order to generate radical change, just not in the direction of socialism.

Here's a quick suggestion for a new lede which encompasses these various definitions ecumenically (which I'm sure could be improved upon):

In political and social theory, accelerationism is the belief that either the prevailing system of capitalism, or certain technosocial processes that historically characterised it, should be expanded and accelerated in order to generate radical social change. Contemporary accelerationist philosophy takes as its starting point the Deleuzo-Guattarian theory of deterritorialisation, aiming to identify, deepen, and radicalise the forces of deterritorialisation with a view to overcoming the countervailing tendencies that suppress the possibility of far-reaching social transformation. In colloquial usage, accelerationism may also refer to the specific belief that capitalism's acceleration will lead to its self-destruction.

Let me know what you think. (If no one objects, I'll collect additional references and add this to the article.) --Nizolan (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The opening statement, "In political and social theory, accelerationism is the idea that either the prevailing system of capitalism, or certain technosocial processes that historically characterised it, should be expanded and accelerated in order to generate radical social change" is an excellent general definition. I'm open to suggestion, but cannot think of a use of the term that it does not cover. The opening line of the Accelerationist Reader may be worth citing: "Accelerationism is a political heresy: the insistence that the only radical political response to capitalism is not to protest, disrupt, or critique, nor to await its demise at the hands of its own contradictions, but to accelerate its uprooting, alienating, decoding, abstractive tendencies." (pg 4)

However, I disagree with the D&G tilt to the article - although it's a critical influence on Land, they show up very infrequently in l#a writing so far as I'm able to establish. And historically, as in the Urbanomic reader, there are many antecedents - explicitly, in the reader, Marx (Srnicek and Williams, and the commentators on it in that volume) and Fedorov, Bulgakov and Russian cosmism generally (Singleton essay). Plus of course various futurisms (not just Marinetti!), "NASA cosmism" (von Braun, or Krafft Ehricke and his doctrine of 'the extraterrestrial imperative, etc.). I'm not sure how far this would go in a Wikipedia article - these are possibly just 'related links'.

The term is first used by Zelazny in Lord of Light, 1967. As one of the alien rulers of earth, who in novel masquerade as gods, explains: "“Now then, about Accelerationism-it is a simple doctrine of sharing. It proposes that we of Heaven give unto those who dwell below of our knowledge and powers and substance. This act of charity would be directed to the end of raising their condition of existence to a higher level, akin to that which we ourselves occupy. Then every man would be as a god, you see. The result of this, of course, would be that there would no longer be any gods, only men. We would give them knowledge of the sciences and the arts, which we possess, and in so doing we would destroy their simple faith and remove all basis for their hoping that things will be better-for the best way to destroy faith or hope is to let it be realized. Why should we permit men to suffer this burden of godhood collectively, as the Accelerationists wished, when we do grant it to them individually when they come to deserve it?” (And plenty more quotes to be found in there besides - very l#a-type usage obviously.)

It was later used by Benjamin Noys (of course) in the pejorative. He has said in writing (see preface to Malign Velocities, available here) it was an independent coinage, but he concurs that he had read the book a long time ago and it might have influenced him.

I think it's fair to say that the legacy of the CCRU has been critical in fulminating both 'accelerationism' as a visible contemporary (circa 2013-present) discourse (not just Land, but also Sadie Plant, and the later work of the students who studied under/with them: Luciana Parisi, Mark Fisher, Kodwo Eshun, Steve Goodman, Robin Mackay, etc.), and of course the label (deployed by Noys as a critique of Land, amongst others). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestwaysurface (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think some comments on Lenin are needed, wasn't he the one who coined the term and concept 'accelerate the contradictions'

---

Peter Wolfendale here. Just pointing out that the blog post you are referencing here has been attributed to Robin MacKay rather than me. I'll edit it quickly, if that's permissible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.253.62.139 (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Starting this thread for action on the tag. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Request placed on talk page of the ip that placed the tag, so will remove it quicker than usual if there is no response. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I added a separate headline for far-right accelerationism, seeing as it differs from "traditional" accelerationism (even the right-wing variant of Nick Land) in not focusing on the acceleration of capitalism but rather the acceleration of racial conflict. I won't argue that the far-right version doesn't have anything at all to do with the Deleuzo-Guattarian heritage, but it seems far enough removed to warrant its own headline. Sorbisk fuga (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. On the other hand, the section needs work and currently lacks citations. Some at George Floyd protests § Reports of extremist activities can likely be used. —PaleoNeonate – 19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there are absolutely 0 sources tracing racial accelerationism back to true acc, or the deleuzoguattarian framework (or even the term "acceleration" itself, since it's more of an escalation/collapse tactic than a tendency leading to anything new), at least none that I know of Mononononoke (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Not only is there little to no connection between racial "accelerationism" and actual accelerationism, but half the page is taken up now with information on far-right accelerationism. This is tantamount to giving National Socialism a section on the Socialism page because it appropriates the term "socialism" despite having little to do with it. At best it deserves a small mention that far-right terrorism in the 2010s began to identify itself as "accelerationist", with a See Also tag for the following: Domestic terrorism in the United States, Terrorism in the United States § Right-wing and anti-government extremism, Terrorism in the United States § White nationalism/White supremacy — Utterly Null (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I've edited down the section to clarify the origins of differing usages of the term "accelerationism", provided links to the relevant information, and noted that the appropriation of terms from other political theories has historically been practiced by far-right movements to explain this. — Utterly Null (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't do that. I'd say the far right section now contains the bare minimum to explain it. Unfortunate perhaps, but when accelerationism is mentioned in 2020 they're far more likely to think of the terrorist kind of accelerationism than Land's theoretical musings. Words are living things, they evolve and take on new meanings. That's why the page about "gays" is about homosexual rather than happy people. Besides, Land has expressed support for the new kind off accelerationism, further complicating separating them.RKT7789 (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it, in fact, true that "Land has expressed support for" the "accelerationism" of intensifying racial tension toward race war? He's certainly expressed support for the idea of racial differences, but what I've read of him indicates that he thinks those supposed racial differences will soon be made irrelevant by technological advancement and the effects of class-based assortative mating; e.g. "The Dark Enlightenment" ("For racial nationalists, concerned that their grandchildren should look like them, Campbell is the abyss. Miscegenation doesn’t get close to the issue. Think face tentacles. ... When seen from the bionic horizon, whatever emerges from the dialectics of racial terror remains trapped in trivialities. It’s time to move on.") and "Hyper-Racism" ("This [i.e. genetic diversification due to assortative mating] is not anything that ordinary racism is remotely able to process. That it is a consummate nightmare for anti-racism goes without question, but it is also trans-racial, infra-racial, and hyper-racial in ways that leave ‘race politics’ as a gibbering ruin in its wake. ... [R]acists and anti-racists can be expected to eventually bond in a defensive fraternity, when they recognize that traditionally-differentiated human populations are being torn asunder on an axis of variation that dwarfs all of their established concerns."). -- 2601:80:4580:E0E0:6C0D:F188:6EEC:2D24 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

So explain why in a manner that does not equate accelerationism to neo-nazi trolls that have taken up the label. Utterly Null is completely correct in their concerns and proposals 73.92.48.129 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

To make this clearer I have separated the discussion of neo-Nazi racial 'accelerationism' from the discussion of accelerationism in the sense of acceleration of capitalism or technology in the introduction. The statement which was included there about neo-Nazis supporting right-accelerationism does not appear to be supported by the cited sources, which refer solely to "accelerationism" in the neo-Nazi sense of intensification of racial tension, without any reference to acceleration of capitalism. Therefore I have removed that statement and instead clarified the description of the neo-Nazi appropriation of the term at the end of the introduction, to which the supporting sources have been moved. -- 2601:80:4580:E0E0:6C0D:F188:6EEC:2D24 (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Currently, a piece from Jacobite Magazine is used as a source. I have found only a single source (Vox) mentioning anything at all about Jacobite. They say: "Other places that Wax credits for 'thoughtful discussion' of these issues are Taki’s Mag, the alt-right publication where Derbyshire published his screed about 'the number of blacks,' and VDARE, another leading alt-right publication. (The pro-Trump Journal of American Greatness and the marginal right-wing site Jacobite were also mentioned.)"

The only other places that mention Jacobite seem to be... just... the worst sites I've seen in a while. The difference here is that the currently-used article is by Nick Land, who is an important figure in accelerationism. I think his statements may in fact be due, but it is worth discussion.

Thoughts on this particular use? Any objections to me stripping this source out of most other articles? Thanks for your considerations! Jlevi (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude Jacobite considering that the article is a primary source written by one of the most important figures in accelerationism. That gives it far more credibility than a secondary source writing about accelerationism like a journalism site, since accelerationism is a philosophical/political theory and therefore requires a certain understanding beyond that of a casual outside observer without a background in philosophy or critical theory. — Utterly Null (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts! I am unsure how familiar you are with Wikipedia's policies on WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:due weight, but reviewing these core policies may clarify my question. In general, secondary sources are preferred to primary, including on technical topics. Here, Land's writings are pretty clearly primary sources. This doesn't mean they can't be used! But it must be done carefully: "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided."

Further, when using primary sources, it is often crucial to determine what to include based on secondary sources that contextualizes it. It can often be difficult to see how to lend ideas or statements proper WP:WEIGHT from within primary sources.

So, to conclude, I don't think that your response directly grapples with the questions I bring up, though I appreciate your thoughts. Jlevi (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jlevi: As the user who added the Jacobite source, I was treating it as a primary source to characterise its writer (Nick Land's) own opinion. Of course this isn't to be preferred where secondary sources do exist, but I think the usage here did fall under WP:PRIMARY's rule of being a specific fact cited with no interpretation or synthesis. The one question would be whether it is "reputably published", which is a bit trickier—I agree that Jacobite would not be a reputable source in general, but as WP:SOURCEDEF states reliability is a function of the work, the author, and the publisher. The article is definitely a piece by Land, who is an important source for the article and reliably capable of characterising his own opinions (i.e., it would fall under the "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" prong and not "published materials with a reliable publication process"). Admittedly I recognise now that it should have said Nick Land explicitly rather than the weasel-y "accelerationist writers". —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 00:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I added Template:Confusing.

• This article's lead is pretty much unreadable to a layperson because it uses too much jargon. For example, "emancipatory process", "constrictive horizon", "repurposing", "emancipatory ends", "indefinite intensification".
• The rest of the article uses too many quotes and attributions. This article needs more paraphrase of the main ideas, so that the reader can succinctly read what the main ideas are.

I re-wrote the first two sentences so hopefully things are clearer now. I could use some help re-writing the rest of the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Unfortunately the rewriting introduced some significant inaccuracies: in particular the first sentence ended up stating that accelerationism is about intensifying capitalism when left-wing accelerationist theorists explicitly reject that idea, and the removal of the distinction between "accelerationism" as a school of theory and as a typically pejorative label also attributes positions to various "accelerationists" who don't actually hold them, while departing from the cited sources (Shaviro and Adams). Because of this I have restored some elements of the previous opening sentences but hopefully it is more comprehensible. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 00:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Nizolan, looks better, thanks for your edit. Just now I added a couple of inline maintenance tags to spots that I'm still having trouble with. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The abbreviations "L/Acc", "R/Acc", "U/Acc" appear frequently enough that they should probably be included in the article. I am going to add these, sourced to Nick Land's "Introduction" for lack of a better source (if someone can find a better source please substitute it, but AFAICT as a major contributor to accelerationism Land is a sufficiently reliable source for this information). - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is joke. It takes an entirely far left alarmist view point and tries to paint everyone who believes improved technology will save the planet and bring about abundance for everyone as Nazis. Absolutely laughable. It's this kind of thing that has destroyed Wikipedia. Hontogaichiban (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Even Marx thought capitalism would eventually destroy itself due to technology lower the cost of almost everything to zero. Hontogaichiban (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hontogaichiban, seems like a pretty extreme viewpoint for you to have. That all of Wikipedia is extremist. Perhaps this one article is just in bad shape? Feel free to fix it. I also happen to think this article is in bad shape, but mostly because it is not readable by a lay person, it is full of jargon and unclear sentences. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply. Obviously Wikipedia is still useful for anything not at all controversial, but wherever politics is involved it's a shadow of its former self. The last 10 years have not been kind. Hontogaichiban (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Basically what this article is saying is: "right-wing terrorism = bad, left-wing terrorism = good". Not biased at all! 77.255.102.48 (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Where are the responses from mainstream philosphers? Elias (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Since "accelerationism" was coined in 2010, the term has suffered from considerable conceptual stretching and has taken on several new meanings, often appropriated by right-wing extremist movements

Since the late 2010s, neo-Nazis, white nationalists and white supremacists have increasingly appropriated the term "accelerationism"

(emphasis mine)
Is there a reason why “appropriated” should be used here instead of “used”? I note also that the lead says:

The term accelerationism has also been appropriated and placed into contexts distanced from accelerationist ideas

This assertion is unsourced, and none of the references given for this paragraph say anything even resembling this. Please advise :-) postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 16:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It should be made clear in this article that the appropriation of the term "accelerationism" by far-right terrorist organizations has nothing to do with the philosophers and especially left-wing critical theorists who inspired the term. There is a strong ideological distinction between the 1990s work of Nick Land and his subsequent Dark Enlightenment philosophy in the 2010s. Having a section mentioning the black artist and theorist Aria Dean's clearly left-wing use of accelerationism to theorize the damage of the slave trade on an article gradually being edited to paint accelerationism as an ideology of far-right terrorism makes this distinction obvious. TreeLethargy (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that the page just reads that way since there's a lot of, in my opinion, good information about far-Right accelerationist groups on it. Just bolstering the left-wing accelerationism section with more information on the left-accelerationists would clear up any confusion in this regard.

Land, to my estimation, has always been willing to entertain reactionary ideas, but does, at some point, seem to make a break from his status as a Silicon Valley cause célèbre to a more politicized figure, and, so, perhaps, someone who knows a good bit more about Nick Land will be willing to parcel all of this out. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Nazis are utterly opposed to social theory and critical theory; accelerationism is named as a range of ideas in social theory and critical theory in the very first sentence. ??? TreeLethargy (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The reference given in the Far-right accelerationist terrorism section regarding Myatt and O9A - CTC Sentinel - while it mentions Myatt does not provide any evidence: the CTC links relate to Islamic State and have nothing to do with Myatt. Given this basic error in the source and thus its unreliability in relation to Myatt I've removed the claim. Mactoron (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence for Myatt and the ONA's involvement in far-right Neo-Nazi terrorism can be found in Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (2001). "Nazi Satanism and The New Aeon". Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. New York City: New York University Press. pp. 215–223. ISBN 978-0-8147-3124-6. LCCN 2001004429.. GenoV84 (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

They provide no actual evidence, they just make the allegation or make an assumption so if the claim/allegation regarding Myatt and O9A is to be included then to ensure NPOV and because Myatt is still alive it should include Myatt's denial of the allegation such as "David Myatt has always denied allegations of involvement with the ONA" and the fact that three academics - Sieg, Kaplan and Monette - have questioned the claim. Mactoron (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion again? We had the same discussion in the talk page of the O9A article to the point there was official statement from the arbitration that it's not needed. Nazis don't need to be included for balance. Do you think nazis are asked if the Holocaust happened and that is included in all related pages for balance? This is perfect example of WP:UNDUE. Ironically the only people in the world who adamantly deny Myatt is Long are o9a members themselves. RKT7789 (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It could, perhaps, be stated that it is commonly suspected for Myatt to be Anton Long or something to that effect, of which, I believe, there's a Searchlight article somewhere on. To my estimation, it seems like Myatt is Long, but, also, that he had some sort of strange change of heart after of all of those years and just wanted to become kind of a withdrawn mystic. There's an About David Myatt WordPress somewhere with a lot of information on him, though it seems a bit strange, as if this person could be under the employ of Myatt to clear up his past history. Searchlight, I think, also claims that Myatt was some sort of liaison between MI6 and Combat 18, and, so, it's really kind of anyone's guess as to just who he really is and what is really going on.

It'd be my best guess that Myatt, who is Long, wanted to drop out at some point, teamed up with the WordPress person in order to do this, and that, now, there are a lot of people around the Order of Nine Angels who deny this, along with that they are a neo-fascist organization, with all kinds of people otherwise speculating upon just who Myatt is and what the ONA does. It seems probable to me that Myatt is Long, anyways, but, also that this is just the sort of thing that, in virtue of their being an esoteric organization and alleged connection to intelligence, more or less everyone is bound to come up a bit shy on good information in regards to.

It is commonly suspected that Myatt and Long are one in the same person, anyways, and, so, just a slight change of the wording might suffice. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

i know what they have to do with far-right "accelerationist" terrorism but i can't find anything about the O9A talking about accelerating capitalism with Deleuze's ideas ? why do we need a paragraph explaining who they are TreeLethargy (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that, in general, this article could stand to better parcel out Nick Land's relationship with the Dark Enlightenment and debatable support of the Order of Nine Angels, i.e. his relationship with contemporary reactionary movements and the far-Right, as it just feels fairly nebulous somehow and I find myself feeling unsure where I stand with the guy, as if he either could just be some eccentric technocratic intellectual or a neo-fascist sympathizer, which, I think, may come part and parcel with the figure that is Nick Land, but feel like there's information to be had about all of this, should anyone know where to find it.

I'm also not sure why the Manson Family is included within the list of accelerationist movements, which is not to say that they didn't comprise of kind of a fascist cult, but, they do precede the accelerationist theories of, say, Nick Land, and, so, just can not possibly be considered as an accelerationist organization.

I also wonder if it wouldn't be useful to mention Terrorgram somehow, as, though I couldn't say for absolute sure, not venturing forth there, I'd bet that people in the Atomwaffen Division, The Base, Combat 18, the Nordic Resistance Movement, the Order of Nine Angels, and the Russian Imperial Movement may all be active there. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This is more of an idea for an inquiry than it is a suggestion for an edit, but, just staring into the abyss that is the extensive information that can be found on neo-fascist intellectuals and organizations on this website for kind of an extensive period of time, it seems a bit likely to me that adherents of the so-called "third position" and the far-right accelerationists may kind of run in the same circles, which is how I wonder if there hasn't been some influence or another.

As I'm interested in it, I really ought to do my own research, but reading actual neo-fascist texts just kind of flips my wig too much, and, so, apologize for just kind of tossing this out there. It may not be true, but it certainly seems possible to me, anyways. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Third Position is just a fancy word for fascist, if you're asking if "mainstream" fascists rub shoulders with accelerationists, then the answer is "yes".RKT7789 (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sure, but I guess that I'm positing that the third position may have had some sort of direct influence on far-right accelerationism. It seems to me to be the case that the third position is kind of like the far-right intelligentsia, if you will, and far-right accelerationism is a kind of at the forefront of their actions, of which there are notable and recent accounts of terrorism. I'm thinking that, since the third position and far-right accelerationism are kind of like the neo-fascist vanguard, there may be direct influences, as well as relations, between them. It just seems like those neo-fascist obscurants kind of answer to those other neo-fascist obscurants, and, so, in understanding the seemingly decentralized contemporary far-right, if it could be shown that there are connections between them, that might be helpful for anyone busying themselves with keeping these kind of tabs. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian has a piece that says that Roger Zelazny originally came up with the idea in Lord of Light, 1967, not first coined by Benjamin Noys in 2010 as the Wikipedia article states. The Guardian says Noys "borrowed" it. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Is that a valid source? 47.18.39.208 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"both of which support aspects of capitalism such as societal change and technological progress"

This reads like it is implying societal change and tecnhnological progress as something inherent and particular to capitalism, the error of such an implication should be obvious? 176.10.146.118 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Leaning very heavily on Noy's perspective, which is potentially problematic, lets take an example, his view of Baudrillard as an 'accelerationist':

Baudrillard's position was more that of a fatalist and diagnostician - he wasn't trying to accelerate capitalism's decline; he was describing how the system was already accelerating itself into a state of self-destruction (or "implosion") through simulation and hyperreality. "Accelerationism" (the critique Noys applies) is the idea that you should push the system's own processes (like technology or market forces) to their extreme limit, hoping they break. This is an active project—you are consciously "stepping on the gas."

Baudrillard's "Fatal Strategy" was that the system was already at its limit and had become a meaningless simulation. He argued that active, head-on resistance (like traditional Marxism) was futile because the system would just absorb it as another "sign" or "spectacle." His "strategy," if you can call it that, was not to push the system but to mirror it. It was a form of ironic hyperconformity. The idea was to "push the system into a hyperlogic... to the point of absurdity and collapse."

Analogy: If the system says "consume," the fatal strategy isn't to stop consuming (resistance) or just consume more (simple acceleration). The fatal strategy is to consume in such an obsessive, meaningless, and purely symbolic way that the very logic of consumption itself breaks down and looks absurd.

Note also, Baudrillard actively critiqued the very thinkers (like Deleuze and Guattari) whom Noys groups him with. He argued that their call to "accelerate the flows of desire" was naive. In his view, "liberating your desire" was exactly what modern capitalism wanted you to do—it was the system's new and improved fuel, not a way out.

So the reality is Baudrillard was not an agent actively trying to accelerate anything. He was a theorist who believed the system's acceleration into unreality was already a fatal, inevitable process. His "strategy" was a kind of philosophical taunt: to meet the system's absurdity with an even greater absurdity, causing it to implode. 77.97.235.240 (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, we need more sources, this is poor. 77.97.235.240 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with reuse of sources, particularly in an article with 82 references. TarnishedPath^talk 12:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding to what TarnishedPath said, there are only 8 instances where the Guardian article is the only source. BTW... the same goes for the complaint about the Noys source - half of the uses (12) are instances where there are multiple sources. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Fluss to this, another 24 cites. when multiple RS exist reuse is unnecessary (should probably check also if actually used properly in each instance). 77.97.235.240 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to list each source here that is used multiple times. That's just stating the obvious. Re: when multiple RS exist reuse is unnecessary - That's not always true, it depends. Contentious topics often need more than a single source. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

indeed, it depends, unfortunately would have to pick through every instance to establish necessity. 77.97.235.240 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I may be biased since I've done lots of changes to the article, including putting most of those sources, but regardless, I don't think reusing cites is necessarily an issue here. Some cites can be pretty in-depth and have diverse info, leading to them being used a lot (plus breaking up cites for WP:TSI), but other cites are nearby so they can corroborate, expand upon, or dispute the ones used a lot. As the others said, with many of the uses having additional sources cited, often on the same sentence, it's corroborating info between several perspectives rather than relying a ton on just one, and I think statements with just the oft-used cites are not excessive and are quite well attributed to the specific perspective.

If multiple paragraphs have just one source, that's indeed an issue. But if there's also a smattering of other sources for Paragraph 1, with another bundle for Paragraph 2, etc, I'd think the one source used for all paragraphs is less of an issue because each paragraph still has other sources.

Regarding your critique of Baudrillard as an accelerationist, I believe the cites on that line corroborate each other on that, though I can check again if you like, and I haven't yet found a source that outright disputes Baudrillard's place in the post-68 movement, so it seems fit to stay (WP:DUE and WP:OR). Even if sources exist which do dispute it, the original perspective seems significant enough to note that one side considers him accelerationist while another does not. Plus, the usage of "accelerationism" for all of them seems more a general outline of similarities post-68 rather than a strict claim that they all think the exact same. Lyotard's thought is also distinct in its own ways, and FWIW the vast majority of accelerationist analyses tend to focus on Deleuze and Guattari rather than the others anyways. Land also wouldn't fit very well in a stricter definition of "accelerationist" since he's not trying to break capitalism through its own means so much as he's trying to fully support and unleash it, not to mention left-accelerationism not addressing post-68 thought very much at all Shredlordsupreme (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like this abysmal article is actually pretty good now! /Acc spaces used to mock the wikipedia, but it looks like someone finally got off their butt and did the work. Except for the first sentence setting up the topic, which is clearly a product of the old version and flatly contradicted by everything else in the article, which doesn't represent Accelerationism as uniformly "calling for" that or anything else. I think it should be fixed to reflect the accuracy of the rest of the article. 2601:540:102:7540:9CF0:C3BA:42A9:7A04 (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

As is, this is rather irrelevant to the article. Helpfully this specific brand of accelerationism has been given another name by scholars, "militant accelerationism". There is quite a bit of scholarship on that so IMO it might be worth having an article on given how different it is and how it is discussed from other kinds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this is a separate topic to the rest of the article, it just happens to share the same name. I would support splitting it out to something like Far-right accelerationism (currently a redirect) or Militant accelerationism, whichever is the most common name. If it is split out, I think there should be a Not to be confused with... hatnote at the top of this page too. Shapeyness (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

From my memory of the literature militant accelerationism is the most common name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with splitting. I think Militant accelerationism would be the better name; Far-right accelerationism might be confused with the Dark Enlightenment. Donn Fretz (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I think splitting it out is fair, I think it's distinct enough and there's enough information about it for another article. I think I'd want to add a further information/main article hatnote for the section though (maybe just a body link like with e/acc) rather than at the top of the page, as I think it would still fall under the various other uses (ie. worsen capitalism for revolution against it). Perhaps if it was the only other distinct use then I'd favor a "not to be confused with" hatnote for the top. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

When I search Google Scholar, "militant accelerationist" gives 3 results:
Richards, Imogen. "Fashwave, Accelerationism, and the Aestheticisation of Destruction." The Aesthetic Politics of Far-right Environmentalism. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025. 121-151.
Argentino, Marc-André, and Amarnath Amarasingam. "CONTEMPORARY FAR-RIGHT CULTURE."
Šurlák, Samuel. "Faktory ovplyvňujúce radikalizáciu k pravicovému terorizmu v Európe." (2025).

On the other hand, "militant accelerationism" gives 0. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If there is a better name that is not going to cause confusion (naming the terrorist ideology "accelerationism" is already confusing enough), then it would be acceptable to name the article that. Donn Fretz (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Simply "Accelerationism" would be WP:COMMONNAME as most sources leave it at that, but that alone doesn't distinguish from the capitalism related ideologies. "Militant accelerationism" is less common but more distinct and still used decently often, which perhaps fits WP:NCDAB's "Natural disambiguation". Since simply "accelerationism" is more common, perhaps the article would prioritize it, like the lead going "Accelerationism or militant accelerationism is...",

Only other thing I can think is "Accelerationism (far-right [extremism/terrorism])". Adding "extremism/terrorism" should distinguish from Land's Right-acc and from NRx. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The thing is neither far-right nor terrorism are quite right with what sources describe as being the ideology. As I say below, there are hundreds of hits for "militant accelerationism" on Google Scholar, I have no clue what FatalSubjectivities searched to get 3. It is very clearly the common name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I see "militant accelerationism" (128) being more commonly used on Google Scholar (and probably also better defined when reading some of the results) than "far-right accelerationism" (53). ButlerBlog (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, I see a consensus for a split and a rough consensus on the title. But splitting this is going to basically require writing a whole new article so I will start working on that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I've started Draft:Militant accelerationism, starting with kinda copy/pasting info/sources from the current section of the article. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@FatalSubjectivities I get 70+ results for the first and 128 for the second. What are you searching with? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

For various examples for a handful. The first is a full book chapter about it and the second is a full scholarly report about it. There are more. It appears constantly in the major study of terrorism journals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh my. Silly me. I think I must've did a typo. Indeed, "About 70 results (0.06 sec)" and "About 126 results (0.07 sec)" comes up, with the open-and-closed inverted commas (quotationmarks). FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Side note: (I am not attempting at canvassing for edits to the following pages, - I'm just putting this out here, that this is how pages which do currently exist:
New world order (politics) and New World Order conspiracy theory,
whereas "Globalism" has another page, "Right-wing antiglobalism" (created in 2024), but also has a section. When words get semantically bleached or transformed a lot into dogwhistles, in fact, by some listening to others, these are some pages which do exist by separate meanings gaining an life of its own. I think this doesn't constitute a wp:povfork. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)