Max Castle

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)

yeah, I mean. if r/acc is simply capital escape, then it's really no different from u/acc, all wailing to the contrary. this is indeed what Land meant by u/acc back in 2014, as an opposition to l/acc. but that's not what we've seen on twitter since (at least) last year.

what we've seen is scattered and very inarticulate, but seems to revolve around some notion of restoring humanity to some past condition, where acceleration was possible, implying 1) the effectivity of human action, 2) some definite albeit possibly limited control over the future

U/acc is a fatalism before anything else, which seems contrary to both l/acc and r/acc.