Authors
Leith Mzahim Khudhyer
Journal
ICON, Volume 31, Issue 1 (2026)
DOI
https://doi.org/10.11590/icon.2026.1.03
Abstract
This article asks whether left accelerationism’s engagement with digital infrastructure structurally repeats classical Marxism’s dialectical stance towards the bourgeoisie: a dominant force that is used rather than refused. Through a comparative conceptual analysis of Marx’s Manifesto, Grundrisse, and Capital alongside Srnicek and Williams’s foundational texts, the article develops the concept of a dialectic of appropriation, distinguished here from the descriptive traditions of the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), actor-network theory, and infrastructure studies. Both frameworks, it argues, confront an internal historical engine whose contradictions render it available for redirection. Licensing, governance, and exit are proposed as the design principles through which this appropriation might proceed. The article also engages in critiques of techno-determinism, of an underdeveloped theory of subjectivity, of racialised and gendered violence embedded in technical systems, and of technocratic closure. Its conclusion is conditional: the accelerationist wager stands only if infrastructural redirection is accompanied by the theoretical work these critiques still demand.