@DADABASE wrote:
Artwork by Keith TilfordCLICK HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL POST
Peter Wolfendale, philosopher and an instructor of the Critical Philosophy Program at The New Centre for Research & Practice responded on Facebook to Fred Turner. Here are his points published here with permission.
The equation of embracing/accelerating technological process and 'the spread of capitalism' is a severe misreading of Nick and Alex that opens the rhetorical door to most of the other criticisms.
"Imitating neoliberal tactics is one thing; arguing that commerce and technology will bring about utopia is another. Srnicek and Williams want both." - This is a blatant straw man. They argue for commerce and technology as sites of struggle, and even if they have things to say about the generally emancipatory character of technology they certainly don't say similar things about commerce.
"We have authentic selves, they argue, and to work for wages, we must leave our authentic desires at home." - This is also categorically false. The critique of 'authenticity' is part and parcel of the critique of immediacy. What they call 'synthetic freedom' has fuck all to do with Romanticism and any latent manner in which this is exploited by employers in cultivating the subjectivity of workers. He could have easily connected this to Mark Fisher's 'Capitalist Realism', which is an obvious precursor to Nick and Alex on these issues of workplace subjectivation.
Turner seems to have little to no understanding of what Cybersyn was, and thus bases his comments entirely on the 'star trek bridge' look of the control centre, which is a highly misleading visual analogy. There's an importance to the fact that the chairs are laid out in a circle, with no central 'captain's chair' for a start. More importantly though, the decentralised feedback processes that the system is designed around are completely obscured by it.
"If this sounds more than a little like a marketing campaign for Uber, it should. This is the same logic that drives the rhetoric of the sharing economy. And that should make us nervous." - I find this particular cheap shot (i.e., 'this sounds like Uber and you don't understand the evils of Uber') pretty galling, given that Nick is literally a world expert on Uber, the sharing economy, and 'Platform Capitalism' (the title of his forthcoming book).
"Srnicek and Williams are blinded by their faith in all things digital." - Utter bilge. Every one of the questions he raises about the perils of automation are actually asked in the book. Even if you don't think they were addressed satisfactorily, you can't just pretend they've been ignored.
"Say we succeed in building a new Cybersyn. Who will sit in the armchairs of command?" - Such a cheap shot. See point (4).
Everything about Noys and the CCRU is essentially irrelevant in my view, and again, provides an obvious set of cheap shots to reach for in lieu of actually engaging with newer work. It's worth remembering that Noys barely discusses the manifesto or anything beyond the CCRU in MV, and it really shows. It's not so much a bad critique as one that completely fails to connect with the 'contemporary accelerationism' that it's supposed to be aimed at.
Posts: 1
Participants: 1