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.
-
-
my quibble exactly with
@adornofthagn (which is why I don't think it's generally agreed upon). but the central point is that it's all about capital escape. -
How is capital going to escape from a gulag? I jest, so where's the _point_ of disagreement, human action effecting possible future divergences?
-
only farmers ever went to gulags, tbf. anyway, the point of the disagreement is whether the question is "what should be done" or "what happened". u/acc aligns with the latter.
-
'Only farmers went to gulags?' I'd push Solzhenitsyn but I'm guessing you're on the 'his numbers are high' camp? So then zacc and uacc are the same, if the question is 'what happened?'
-
well, zacc is the proposition that the answer to what happened is "capital can't take care of itself".
-
We will have the answer to this in the next 20-50 years globally, and some places the answer is pretty clear...at least to me.
-
At least we got somewhere. The split is the age old question of humans having authority over their reality, free will. Henlo academy!
-
I think this is precisely it.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
You'll be able to buy one in a hobby kit soon enough.
-
Need humans and human action to make nukes...
-
it has been doing well on that front.
-
I need the tldr on this atm. If you're saying capital is behind our backs sure, I mean you're confusing with someone who is humanising humans. Cog in the machine for sure, but what if that cog goes wrong?
-
the capital takes care of replacing it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.