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 -
Replying to @meta_nomad
Only in the most self-destructive and esoteric definition of communism. To describe U/Acc as having a 'goal' is already to imply conditions upon the flow of Capital. Humans no longer have a say in the matter.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Why don't they? You all keep saying humans have no say, but offer up no ideas as to why?
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.