Max Castle

It would not be as though one group of people are determined and another not. One person is determined to write and one person is not. But this is not what is discussed in u/acc. There the question is whether humans are capable of interceding in the movement of capital. (4/9)

U/acc is a theory of capital, or a meta-theory of capital. There are questions about the human subject and Capital-as-subject but those questions are so easily dismissed. The author is incapable of function at the intellectual level necessary to think these things through. (5/9)

Her latching on to Noys' 'post-grad' ridiculousness is evidence enough for that. Such critiques are not serious and she confuses Noys' rhetorical flourish for actual thought. As for the article, there is simply no there there. (6/9)

Her discussion of Land is equally stupid. There are places to hit Land but she never even approaches them, preferring instead to remain in the safe embrace "but he's a racist!" (7/9)

Hell even the article that is cited for evidence that tech has slowed is a book review where is no mention of AI or automation Instead Tech is critiqued because it isn't bringing prosperity to the poor. Which accelerationist said it would? (8/9 )

Yeah, this is something that stuck out for me as well - to look at the present moment and posit "development is slowing down" is an unworkably simplified take on a complex and multifaceted issue. Tech development *can* slow down and does, but it's not obvious that this is...

happening, especially on a global level. There can be changes in the nature of development, and there can be development that has difficulty realizing its full potential, and both seem to be in play today (something something contradictions of capitalism)

Also, she connects slowdown to the profitability 'crisis' in Marxist theory, but that's a completely wrong reading because that tendency is coupled to accelerating processes and capitalism advancing on its dynamic, competitive side.