It is true that – for this purpose – the MPA [The Accelerationist Manifesto] is armed with a good solution when – right in the middle of the relationship between subject and object (that we are accustomed to other terminology, we would call the relationship between technical composition and political composition of the proletariat) – arises when to decide on this intersection anthropology transformative bodies of workers. That’s how the drifts of pluralism could be avoided. But it is also true that if you want to proceed on this ground – which we believe is useful, better, decisive – you must also break somewhere in the relentless progression of the productive tension indicates that the MPA: we must determine the “thresholds” in development – thresholds which consist of consolidations – Deleuze and Guattari would say – of agencements collectifs in the reappropriation of fixed-capital and the transformation of the labor force, of anthropology and languages and activities. These thresholds are those that arise in the relationship between technical composition and political composition of the proletariat and fix them historically. Without such a program consolidations – as transitory – is impossible. And it is precisely because today we can not precisely define such a relationship, lest we find ourselves helpless methodologically and politically powerless. On the other hand, is the determination of a historic threshold, and the awareness of a specific mode of the technical report-political, which allows the formulation of an organizational process and the establishment of an appropriate program.
My apologies for the clunky translation – had to rely Google to read the text! For anyone interested, it can be found here.