We could define the antagonism between these two in terms of a fundamental gap between philosophy and justice that I myself don't quite know how to approach.
The right accelerationist has done the work involved in understanding systems theory and cybernetics, sincerely believes in Deleuze's metaphysics (or something close to it) and has a sharp enough philosophical imagination to grasp that even his or her own deepest convictions - convictions about justice, freedom and equality - are contingent and bound up in an historical / natural process that far outstrips them. The right accelerationist follows Nietzsche in affirming the leveling of not just the old patriarchal European values but also the new liberal humanist ones, affirming the creation of new values and the birth of a post-human world the coordinates of which we cannot currently conceive. Yes, the right accelerationist understands that this stance is dangerous and in some ways heartless (because it is not particularly sensitive to local politics), but this person has accepted the cruelty that comes with truth. This person is not "right" in the sense of conservative - he or she is a visionary, an affirmer of utopia - but a utopia that takes into account the power of genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, that situates its present in a history that goes back thousands / millions of years.
The left accelerationist begins with justice rather than with philosophy. This person does not care much about the fabric of being, and perhaps does not believe that speculation about it is even legitimate or possible. The left accelerationist is only interested in philosophy as a means of articulating and communicating an emancipatory vision that is informed in advance by values that it has no interest in questioning or revising. It is compassionate - it is rooted in real relationships, real social groups, specific struggles, and so forth.
You could call the former (as Nick Land does) 'unconditional' accelerationism, and the latter 'compassionate' accelerationism. They of course also entail different attitudes towards capitalism (and probably different definitions of capitalism as well). Both affirm technological progress, but the former imagines that it is pulling us towards a singularity at which all will be transformed - and the later seeks to control it rationally and deliberately for the sake of achieving clearly articulated goals.
The ESCHATOLOGY of Transcendental Qabala is an effort to dialectically move beyond this antagonism. I am unable to choose a side, and I believe that there is a perspective from which the two can be seen as structured around some kind of traumatic impossibility that neither is willing to define or recognize. I also feel sure that in some way or another this traumatic impossibility has to do with religion. After all, philosophies of the future and utopian visions owe their existence to the messianism of the Abrahamic religious complex: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
What is missing from both is of course the figure of the messiah. We can hardly take serious the idea of the return of Jesus Christ, but we can imagine that there is something in the relationship between art, prophecy and grace that is required to push through the deadlock.