Max Castle

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.

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.

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.

What you've set up here is a dialectic with u/acc as the emerging term. That you don't cash this out doesn't really matter.

Emerging term? What would you like me to cash out?

Your definition of r/acc is what I would say u/acc is. This gets to what I think @cyborg_nomade says about u/acc being what was r/acc (did I get this right?). If u/acc are a bunch of commies then the development of strong AI is the best plan for a Marxist economy. (1 of 2)

I don't think this is right (dialectic, etc) but it gets closer than what you end up setting up. The question seems to really be: can the future be controlled/summoned?

This is unabashedly humanist. 'The future ™' _if_ it happens will only see humanity at its beginning. "Thanks apes...err, bye?"