/lit/ - Literature

>>12973831

You don't need a book. The basic theory of accelerationism is

>Things are bad because <mumble mumble reasons>

>Fixing <mumble mumble reasons> is not possible, not worth it, or too hard, so you shouldn't try

>Not fixing problems caused by <mumble mumble reasons> means eventually, that <mumble mumble bad things> will happen

>Getting to those bad things faster will be a good thing because it'll <rip the bandaid off or mumble mumble good things>

>So we should do things that make the <mumble mumble bad things> happen faster

That's it. The rest is just details: Usually the blanks are alt-right conspiracies or people who don't like capitalism, since both theories like to scream about societal collapses (and want to co-opt them, either as worker revolutions, or as a justification to discriminate).

In any case, pretty much by definition, someone arguing in favor of accelerationism is in favor of making things shittier. This is because, even if the majority of people would tell them they don't want things made shittier, they believe they know better what's in people's best interest.

This, in practice, makes the theory attract dogmatic dogshit people who want an excuse for being dogmatic dogshits - and edgelord kids.