Max Castle

how so?

r/acc has a problem with 'trans' because they have not sufficiently emptied themselves of the remnants that tie them to the world presently constituted. This is the "r" in r/acc. There are other features of their ideology that would equally be considered a drag.

Ultimately, the three branches of accelerationism ultimately differ based on whether "effective" ideological breaks can be applied to capital without entering into a total and complete catastrophe.

Are you suggesting that the “r” in r/acc constitutes such an ideological break?

That should read 'brakes'.

Ah, yes, okay. Although curiously, I think both make sense. And I suspect Land would rather see r/acc as a “break” with the ideological inhibition of capital, ie. all forms of central planning and compensation. "The Right is … fragmentation, experimentation and … competition".

But then what's left to distinguish u/acc and r/acc? I can't help but think that u/acc's individuation presupposes either: (1) the threading together of r/acc and NRx, (2) accepting a theoretical, diagnostic capacity, or (3) ascribing metaphysical necessity to the process.

I would say that u/acc is an attempt to theorize capital. It makes certain claims about what is possible and what not is possible within Capital. It is not a metaphysics necessity but an attempt to think capital in itself.