DEFINITIONS:

Summary of reading:

with resources dwindling because of global warming the way we are functioning as a society is not conductive to our enviornment anymore

new ideas are needed but not being generated by current political fields

right-wing organizations and corporations (not related to each other in this context) have been able to continue to grow under a neoliberal (capitalist) regime.

they think the 2008 financial crisis from Wall Street to the housing market collapse in North America is proof, or a call, to change societal structures from neoliberalism

they reiterate the same point that without new ideas from radical thinking the same right-wing narrow minded individuals are continuing to push foreward

SECTION 3 THE MANIFESTO

SECTION 1 INTRO:

Capitalism drives innovation. As we compete for capital gain we push technological advances further for sucess in the free market

ok this part gets tricky,

they reference Nick Land who is known as the godfather of accelerationism yet say "landian-neoliberalism" (not a real school of thought in philosophy lol) fails because it is within a capital society that withholds limits on acceleration. the contradiction they put themselves in is that accelerational politics actually relies on neoliberal/capital manipulation to drive innovation. without the need to survive in this fucked up world, you have no accelerated innovation. it's like that "I'm going to change the world and get rich attitude"

then they circle back to their original argument that capital slows innovation because of surplus value set by a capital-driven world. in short form: companies want more quantity $$ and less quality :)

same point reworded...you just gotta know they feel because of our depleting environment a neoliberal structure can no longer supply the promised life it once could - they got a point there

ok then he supports Marx by saying he used the most technological advancements to date,(collected data) to justify communism

then he quotes Lenin...yikes

SECTION 2 INTEREGNUM (they totally misspelled it *interregnum* lol)

their main arguments here are:

- technology will not save us exclusively, but it is necessary to win social conflicts.

- currently, technology is enslaved for capitalistic motives.

- they support capital-driven acceleration but do not support us returning to "Fordism" (the "golden age" of capital production sort of started by fords production of motor vehicles in the US

- again, they aspire to not smash away neoliberalism but springboard from it to a post-capital world (not sure how that would work, I think if you build a "post-capital world" off of capitalism it's not really post-capital right?

- they then finish going back to technology as a tool to create this post-capital world and have a good point with the chaos of our current dysfunctional world.

My final thoughts: I think there are some pretty major gaps in theory and knowledge but these two have a decent start or premise. their strongest point is that our environment can no longer sustain a neo-liberal regime. I would add it's the over-consumption and greed of the 7 major companies that are completely destroying our environment and those companies are of course driven by capital.