Accelerationists, Beware: Power Abhors a Vacuum
Apathy and anti-institutional nihilism is on the rise, with some hoping for the hastened end of the current social order. But have they really considered what comes next?
In my writing, I’ve referred to the late anthropologist David Graeber a number of times, and for good reason. Though his work was not infallible, he offered provocative critiques of economics and social relations which, while paying respect to his ideological forebears, were ultimately contemporary and forward thinking. While so many are guilty of “playing the greatest hits”, so to speak, with many seeking to emulate 19th and 20th century revolutionaries and academics, Graeber’s frame of reference was often wider, reaching both further back in time while simultaneously contending more seriously with challenges unique to the present moment. For better or worse, he’s clearly left an indelible mark on America’s progressive movement, perhaps most notably having been a leading figure in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement.
Obviously, I was not the first nor the last to revere his work. One of the most popular clips posted to Praxis’ social media accounts is one of none other than Graeber himself, in which, during an interview recorded shortly before his death, he masterfully distills the core push-and-pull between the two major American political parties: Democratic politicians offer no positive argumentation, no substantive vision for the future, while Republicans exist largely as a foil to what he describes as “the extreme centrism” of the Democrats. In other words, Democrats may exist largely in service of an ailing status quo, but they are banking on their supporters’ willingness to frame their milquetoast platform against the relative regressiveness of their political opponents, hoping that this is an ample political proposition to retain (or return to) power.
This clip is so resonant with people, I think, because as people’s lives materially degrade in the wake of sociopolitical deterioration wrought by this political stalemate, Graeber’s diagnosis of the fundamental charade becomes increasingly intuitive and obvious for increasing numbers of people. Many have become increasingly disillusioned with America’s political system, and it isn’t just vibes-based thinking, but reflected in data. Voter turnout ticked down in 2024 from their 2020 highs. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that only 4% of Americans described the political system as working “very or extremely well”. Favorability ratings for both political parties are near record lows. Faith in democratic institutions has been ticking down for decades. Meanwhile, political radicalization is on the rise. Socialism’s favorability rating is reaching new highs, especially with Democrats and young people, but conversely, white nationalist sentiments are also becoming mainstreamed by way of platforms like X or the Trump Administration’s embrace of extremists like Laura Loomer, Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and so on.
Within both political wings lie those cheering for the continued and accelerated erosion of sociopolitical institutions and norms in the hopes of crossing a critical inflection point, often characterized by some imagined technological breakthrough. These are strains of a movement broadly referred to as accelerationism. The term was popularized by professor Benjamin Noys in his 2010 book, The Persistence of the Negative, in which he critiques leftist thinkers who believe that hastening capitalism’s development would necessarily usher in socialism, either from its ashes or through the co-optation of existing capitalist infrastructure towards collectivist ends. Indeed, Noys offers a cynical view of the conceit; its inherent political ambivalence and capitalism’s resiliency and ability to reinvent itself time and again run counter to the notion that inducing crises would necessarily bring about positive social change.
Since that first book, accelerationist thought leaders and manifestos have come and gone, largely without much of a trace. In the preface to his new book, Noys suggests that, “passions aroused by the accelerationist moment have faded, and what movement there was, especially on the left, now takes more sober and restrained forms.” Maybe one could argue this to be the case among the intelligentsia, but for the general population, I would venture to guess that the political apathy and disillusionment alluded to earlier represents a sort of less coherent anti-institutional accelerationism, rooted primarily in nihilism: people yearning for a broader end to the current social order in the hopes that either their ideal future will manifest on the other end, or so as to rip a bandage and hasten what feels to be an excruciating and slow boil toward some kind of global catastrophe.
Contrary to the fanciful musings of nihilist cynics, even despite the ascendancy of collectivist ideals like universal welfare, socialism, and economic redistribution in the cultural zeitgeist, it is highly unlikely that an induced crisis should usher in some kind of egalitarian utopia. Rather, what should emerge on the other end of a cataclysmic crisis would likely strongly resemble our current conditions, as its beneficiaries and defendants (the corporations, the elite) are best disposed to pick up the pieces.
In essence, the American Left suffers from a profound shortage of the sorts of base building required to shape and build new institutions. Sure, there are obvious financial barriers toward building movements that threaten existing structures of power, but it goes beyond the financial realm. In order to better describe how power is built and articulated, the influential French sociologist Peter Bourdieu stratifies capital into three forms: economic capital (material goods, money, property), social capital (networks, relationships, organizations), and cultural capital (factual legitimacy, education, narratives, relevance). Labor and the American Left have failed to build durable inroads into any of these categories in meaningful ways.
In his book, Bowling Alone, political scientist Robert Putnam charts the collapse of social capital across an increasingly atomized American life. Unions, civic groups, and fraternal organizations have not been spared from the erosion plaguing social groups of all stripes for the last several decades, wrought by the albatross of cultural and infrastructural isolation hanging around the neck of every American. The social media age, the proliferation of the automobile and sprawl, and longer working hours all compel us toward antisocial and introverted tendencies; not exactly ripe for organizing a mission to rebuild the social order.
Meanwhile, culturally, the American “Left” has largely been represented by institutions at least partially aligned with corporate and financial interests. More often do they resemble socially progressive neoliberalism rather than any sort of classically progressive thinkers like Marx. Perhaps, until recently, they have enjoyed significant cultural mainstay, but without compelling first principles rooted in economic interests, they offer little of relevance to the layman. In fact, in many instances, as Graeber alludes to in the aforementioned video, they traffic in elite circles and come across as admonitory and elitist. More inclusive movements rooted in class politics (and it should go without saying that this is not the same thing as class reductionism) as their base of analysis are beginning to blossom, but promulgating these notions through traditional, private cultural mediums is fraught with its own set of challenges.
If the existing social order is fraying, the American Left can’t rely on sentiment alone. Power abhors a vacuum, and moments of upheaval are filled by whomever possesses the institutions, networks, and material capacity to act. The technofeudalist robber barons are acutely aware of this. The Thiels and Musks of the world are happy to usher the end of the world as we know it; they command the means to rebuild it in their image. Antonio Gramsci, political theorist and political prisoner of Benito Mussolini’s fascist regime, called this the struggle for hegemony: the battle to build institutions within civil society that organize masses, generate consent, and lay the groundwork for the future via a coherent vision well in advance of crucial moments of inflection wrought by natural progression.
Thus, much greater focus must be afforded to building what the sociologist Erik Olin Wright calls “real utopias”: existing egalitarian structures like mutual aid networks, open-source software communities, worker self directed enterprises…other newly imagined economic organizing cells rooted in models of participatory governance, full enfranchisement, and responsibility to collective welfare. Intentionally and cooperatively, instead of awaiting crisis, people can and should build commons-based infrastructure that redistributes technical and organizational power. The future is not set in stone. If sensible people of conscience wish to see a world shaped by commonwealth rather than reactionary tendency and consolidated wealth and power, they should be prepared to jump into future vacuums with newfound and intentionally crafted instruments of exercising power on behalf of mass movements.