Abstract
The accelerationist paradigm reveals the hidden potential of technology. Virtual being of technology has a range of opportunities for the restructuring of social actors. The ways in which technologies are integrated into the context of public relations, as well as their role in the establishment of regimes of the administration of power, including biopolitical power, are problematic. Possessing a level of virtual, technologies redistribute forces, the uniqueness of the effects of which is in a problematic position. The other question, from the point of view of epistemological coordinates, is of the multiplicity of technology itself and the fixity of its materiality. The emphasis on accelerationist optics and new ontologies has the goal of clarifying the social feature of technology to produce an ontological policy that allows it to determine the essential characteristics of social assemblages. The main conclusions include the identification of the decisive meaning of the use of technology in the expectation horizon of political projects. Post-capitalist intentionality, being an actual reality of human interaction, seeks to maximize synthetic freedom, which includes the degree of inclusion and participatory social assemblages. This study was based on the texts of A. Greenfield, P. Mason, N. Srnicek, A. Mol, D. Law, M. Callon, B. Latour, M. Foucault, L. Bryant, G. Harman, M. Delandа.
References
Agamben, G. (2011). Homo sacer. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life . Moscow: Europe. (in Russian)
Aristarkhova, I. (2017). Hospitality Matrix. Saint Petersburg: Ivan Limbach Publishing House. (in Russian)
Bastani, A. (2019). Fully Automated Luxury Communism. L.: Verso Press.
Bryant, L. (2019). Democracy of objects. Perm: Gile Press. (in Russian)
DeLanda, M. (2018). The new philosophy of society. Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. Perm: HylePress Publisher. (in Russian)
Deleuze, G. (2004). Post scriptum to control societies. Conversation. Saint Petersburg: Science. (in Russian)
Digalaki, E. (2019). The impact of artificial intelligence in the banking sector & how AI is being used in 2020. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-in-banking-report?r=DE&IR=T
Esposito, R. (2011). Immunitas: The Protection and Negation of Life. Cambridge: Polity.
Esposito, R. (2012). Third Person. Politics of life and philosophy of the impersonal. C.: Polity Press.
Fisher, M. (2010). Capitalist realism. Publisher Ultraculture 2.0. (in Russian)
Foucault, M. (2000). The Subject and Power. In Power: Essential Works of Michel Foucault, (3), 326–348.
Foucault, M. (2011). Security, territory, population. Course of lectures delivered at the College de France in the 1977-1978 school year. Saint Petersburg: Science. (in Russian)
Gavrilenko, S. (2018). Biobanking and the modern regime of biopolitics. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow University. (in Russian)
Glukhov, A. (2019). Foucault as Superauthor. Logos, 29(2), 104-125. Doi 10.22394/0869-5377-2019-2-104-123 (in Russian)
Greenfield, A. (2018). Radical technology: the device of everyday life. Moscow: Publishing House Delo RANEPA. (in Russian)
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books.
Harman, G. (2015). Fourfold Object: Metaphysics of Things after Heidegger. Perm: Publisher HylePress. (in Russian)
Harman, G. (2017). Networks and Assemblages: The Rebirth of Things in Latour and DeLanda. Logos, 27(3), 1-34. (in Russian)
Jager, A. (2018). Why “Post-Work” Doesn’t Work. Jacobin Mag. Retrieved from https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/11/post-work-ubi-nick-srnicek-alex-williams
Laet, M. & Mol, A. (2017). The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology. Logos, 27(2), 171-232. (in Russian)
Latour, B. (2015). Pasteur: War and the world of germs with the application “Irreducible”. Saint Petersburg: Publishing House of the European University in St. Petersburg. (in Russian)
Latour, B. (2017). On Recalling ANT. Logos, 27(1), 201-216. (in Russian)
Law, J. (2015). After the method: mess and social science. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House. (in Russian)
Lemke, Th. (2011). Biopolitics: An Advanced Introduction. N-Y.: New York University Press .
Meyasu, K. (2015). After limb: Essay on the need for contingent. Moscow: Cabinet scientist. (in Russian)
Mol, A. (2017). Multiple body. Ontology in medical practice. Perm: Gile Press. (in Russian)
Orleanskiy, N. N.(2016). Genesis of the concept of biopolitics: from sociobiology to poststructuralism. Trends and Management (1), 39-44. (in Russian)
Pettit, F. (2016). Republicanism. The theory of freedom and government. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House. (in Russian)
Phillips, L. & Rozworski, M. (2019). The People’s Republic of Walmart. How the World’s Biggest Corporations are Laying the Foundation for Socialism. L.: Verso Press.
Pisarev, A., Astakhov, S. & Gavrilenko, S. (2017). Actor-Network Theory: An Unfi shed Assemblage. Logos, 27(1), 1-40. Doi 10.22394/0869-5377-2017-1-1-34 (in Russian)
Regev, Y. (2016). Impossible and coincidence. On the revolutionary situation in philosophy. Perm: Publisher Hyle Press. (in Russian)
Srníček, N. & Williams, A. (2019). Inventing the future. Post-capitalism and a world without labor. Moscow: Strelka Press. (in Russian)
Srníček, N. (2019). Capitalism Platform. Moscow: Ed. House of the Higher School of Economics. (in Russian)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.