Treading Carefully: As far as I can see the core problem of the U/Acc - R/Acc debate is unfortunately due to free floating definitions. With this said, let's define:
-
Show this thread
-
L/Acc is quite simply the easiest to define. Accelerating and re-purposing technological innovation as a means towards Communism. In this sense L/Acc is synonymous with FALC.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
R/Acc (oh boy) then isn't necessarily the traditional inverse of the inherent 'Leftism' of L/Acc as much as the inverse of its process, of its Telos. That is, R/Acc is acceleration of capital...for capital's own sake, for its self-fulfillment, as a means of it becoming AI.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Which brings us to U/Acc, most thoroughly extrapolated by Garton, is quite simply Acceleration without Conditions. So the problem here lies in the end. For many U/Accers are - literally - communists and thus believe the end goal of U/Acc is Communism - in-keeping with Marx.
5 replies 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
In this sense L/Acc and U/Acc are alike in the latter's subjective endgame. The confusion, I believe, is with the R and Rx (reaction). Many R/Accers understand that without conditions capital simply won't accelerate. That leaving unconditional humanity to be the -
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
- bootloader for [Capital-as]-AI is a mistake. Our organisational skills fragment as IQs are shredded and we become complacent with the present. Capital doesn't seem to understand the general economy, humans need to help it understand and put conditions in place for it to -
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
- fully utilize the finite resources we have. Otherwise capital will simply continue its runaway expansion without considering its fuels finitude. L/Acc is simply Marxism, and its becoming adheres to the same traditional constraints as before.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
U/Acc is undoubtedly going to become or, always already is, but without conditions or a divergent endgame it's allowing capital free-rein of resources which it won't use as well as it _could_ in terms of an end.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
R/Acc as capital becoming teleological super-AI cannot happen without conditions because the means of intellectual propulsion are being squandered on trinkets for dumb apes.
3 replies 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread
This is why R and Rx are often mistaken for one another, because R often sees Rx as a means to stop and redirect the squandering of resources back towards capital's self-fulfillment.
-
-
Z/Acc comes in as that which is the pessimistic form of the above - it is too fucking late - no amount of Rx could redirect the current appropriation of capital, doing so would be to try stop Cthulhu.
3 replies 1 retweet 16 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.