Jacques Camatte (aka, my mother-fucking dude)

[The Douche]

How come nobody ever has any love for Camatte, and especially no love for later Camatte?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Camatte

This is my jam:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/wanhum/index.htm


It is the most negative, depressing, pessimistic, discouraging thing you will ever read. It gives absolutely no hope of things ever getting better, and then you might ask yourself, well what about the man, and his life, is there any solace there?


Hell nah, fool, that bro up and moved to the mountains at some hippy/survivalist compound.


Jacques Camatte, I love you:wub:.

[Os Cangaceiros]

He's a fixture of hipster communism.

[The Douche]

He's a fixture of hipster communism.

But his despair is totally not ironic.

[HEAD ICE]

He split with Bordiga and denounced him as an "activist." Enough said.

[The Douche]

Enough said, he's totally fucking awesome, right.

[the last donut of the night]

will be sure to check this fellow out. god i love summer

[bcbm]

dude i love camatte, read a bunch of his shit last year he's on the ball

[Zanthorus]

He split with Bordiga and denounced him as an "activist." Enough said.

Source? I don't think I've ever heard of this, IIRC the split was about Camatte's willingness to open up to the contributions of the German-Dutch Left. In his 1974 text on Russia Camatte cites Bordiga's determinism and faith in the revolution as the overwhelming positive side of his work.

I think a couple of Camatte's early texts on the party and the democratic mystification aren't bad, but some of the later stuff seems like an even more extreme version of Marcuse given an ultra-left sheen. Definitely not my taste.

for Marcuse, alienation, fetishism is not the product of wage labour, of the world of commodities and capital. The 'evil' for him is not a determinate organization of society, a certain system of social relations but rather industry, technology and science. It is not capital but machinery as such.

It is a fact that One‑Dimensional Man is entirely prisoner to this old assertion. The book is brilliant, it contains a series of minute and honest observations. But when the substance is examined it is easy to see that it is not an indictment of capital but of technology. Marcuse, who rebels against 'integrated thinking', does not realize that he is arguing like the most integrated of bourgeois sociologists. For him there is no difference between capitalism and socialism; what he fights is 'industrial society', 'industry' without class connotations, industry 'in itself'. Not machinery insofar as it is capital, not the capitalist employment of machinery, but machinery plain and simple.

In his analysis of the 'Industrial Revolution' in the chapter of Capital entitled 'Machinery and Heavy Industry', Marx frequently underlines the bourgeois economists' identification of machinery and capital.


Since, therefore, machinery considered alone shortens the hours of labour, but, when in the service of capital, lengthens them; since in itself it lightens labour, but when employed by capital heightens the intensity of labour; since in itself it is a victory of man over the forces of Nature, but in the hands of capital, makes man the slave of those forces; since in itself it increases the wealth of the producers, but in the hands of capital, makes them paupers—for all these reasons and others besides, says the bourgeois economist without more ado, the treatment of machinery in itself makes it as clear as noonday that all these contradictions are a mere semblance of the reality, and that, as a matter of fact, they have neither an actual nor a theoretical existence. Thus he saves himself from all further puzzling of the brain, and what is more, implicitly declares his opponent to be stupid enough to contend against, not the capitalistic employment of machinery, but machinery itself.

Here Marx is aiming at the position of bourgeois apologetics. In this case, the identification of capital with machinery allows the determinate historical contradictions derived from the capitalist employment of machinery to be spirited away, i.e. to be presented as mere 'appearances'. On the other hand, it allows the positive advantage and qualification of machinery as such—i.e.—the increase in the productivity of labour—to appear as a merit of capital itself. Marcuse's position, which is certainly not that of the economists, nevertheless repeats its operations—but in the opposite sense. Marcuse equates machinery and capital, not in order to attribute to the latter the advantages of the former, but rather to impute to machinery the enslavement and oppression of the labourer for which in fact capital is responsible. In the first case, the result is the apologetic approach of Vulgärökonomie. In the second case, it is that of the so‑called 'romantic critique' of bourgeois society—i.e. a critique of the present, not in the name of the future but in the name of, and inspired by, 'nostalgia' for the past. For the economist, whoever wants modern productive forces, i.e. machinery and modern industry, must also want capitalist relations of production. (As Marx writes: 'No doubt he is far from denying that temporary inconvenience may result from the capitalist use of machinery. But where is the medal without its reverse? Any employment of machinery, except by capital, is to him an impossibility. Exploitation of the workman by the machine is therefore, with him, identical with exploitation of the machine by the workman.') For Marcuse, on the contrary, whoever does not want exploitation, or rather (given that for Marcuse, in the final analysis, exploitation does not exist) whoever does not want . . . 'integration', must return to patriarchal conditions of life, or even perhaps to feudalism—a subject upon which our author expatiates like any highthinking social prophet. Taken to its extreme, Marcuse's approach leads to that cult of 'primitivism' and 'barbarism' which the abstract spiritualism of the bourgeois intellectual so easily turns into. His perspective, like that of Horkheimer and Adorno, is one of Luddism, as Lukacs recognized: 'If we say that manipulation has arisen as a consequence of technological development, then to fight manipulation we must transform ourselves into some kind of Luddites fighting technical development.' (See Gespräche mit Georg Lukacs, Hamburg, 1969.)

This reference to the 'romantic critique' of bourgeois society may seem amazing. This is, in fact, an adversary about which we never think. In reality, there is not just Marxism on the one hand and bourgeois‑capitalist ideology on the other; the game is more complex and has three players. No less than against bourgeois ideology, Marxism fights against 'the romantic conception that,' Marx says in his Grundrisse, 'will accompany the former as its legitimate antithesis until its dying day'.- Lucio Colleti, From Hegel to Marcuse

[ZeroNowhere]

It is the most negative, depressing, pessimistic, discouraging thing you will ever read.
'God, I never knew that human beings were capable of this much phrase-mongering. Humanity, why can you never satisfy even my worst expectations?!'

*Runs off into the woods (http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=timonathens&Act=4&Scene=1&Scope=scene)*

[HEAD ICE]

Source? I don't think I've ever heard of this, IIRC the split was about Camatte's willingness to open up to the contributions of the German-Dutch Left. In his 1974 text on Russia Camatte cites Bordiga's determinism and faith in the revolution as the overwhelming positive side of his work.

Camatte split from the ICP and founded Invariance. I read about Bordiga's "activist turn" in Invariance but I forgot which article it was. I think it was in Invariance II.

http://revueinvariance.pagesperso-orange.fr/

I don't have the affinity for the mythic "early Camatte" that some people do. The tracing of the concept of the party in the works of Marx is good only as a historical survey, his political conclusions however is trite bordigism and reading his work his later political development should come to no surprise, in fact they are the logical conclusions of the politics of his so called "early" phase.

[Savage]

why is this in chit chat

[The Douche]

Because my original post is not that serious, and while I'm down for a serious discussion of his ideas, I don't want to seriously engage the opinion of some people on this website in regards to this author.

I would be inclined to discuss him seriously in the ultra-left scum, left communist, or hipster communist groups, but user groups aren't very active.

Also, I'm nowhere near as familiar with his earlier work (which most people on here probably prefer) as I am with his later work.

[Savage]

Yeah that's fair enough, I realize that your post wasn't dead serious but I think any sort of discussion about people like Camatte is always going to degenerate into seriousness.

The left communist group is probably the most active and apt of those groups for a discussion of Camatte, but as you said, communists generally appreciate his earlier works a lot more than his later works so you probably wouldn't get much interest outside of the discussion of 'Origin and Function of the Party Form' or 'The Democratic Mystification', which I would agree are his best.

[Savage]

I don't have the affinity for the mythic "early Camatte" that some people do. The tracing of the concept of the party in the works of Marx is good only as a historical survey, his political conclusions however is trite bordigism and reading his work his later political development should come to no surprise, in fact they are the logical conclusions of the politics of his so called "early" phase.

What do you think of his work on democracy?

[HEAD ICE]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cbzfzeFp4PA/TGGU5oOm_xI/AAAAAAAAE7Q/hOEp5C10ZaI/s1600/jacques+camatte.jpg

[HEAD ICE]

What do you think of his work on democracy?

i disagree with principled stands against democratic forms. interesting how people like camatte and dauve (who i like) make much over stressing content over form uphold an 'anti-democratic' principle (camatte being one of the main champions of "organic centralism", probably the worst of bordigist debris).

i disagree with this over-fascination with the distinction between the historical party and the formal party. i agree it is legitimate, but when it is abused it leads to terrible political conclusions. one of which is obviously bordiga's idea that in counter-revolutionary periods where the party's situation is "historically unfavorable" that it is the task of revolutionaries to become isolated and simply study the class struggle to develop the program.

i agree with onorato damen that the task of "building the (formal) party" does not stop in historically unfavorable periods. obviously there can't be a formal class party in low-ebbs of class struggle, nor can it be simply be created out of thin air. however there remains a need for permanent revolutionary organizations with a presence in the class that participates in its struggles, and to use a phrase i have come to hate, give "revolutionary leadership" (in a completely non-trotskyist kind of way. the role of revolutionaries shouldn't be "leaders" but more of a gps).

[HEAD ICE]

reading back i was probably too hard on camatte. i actually do like him a lot, and his work on the party form is one of the best there is. the political conclusions compose only a minor part of it. however i do enjoy his later work more.

"we must leave this world"

[Android]

Wow, I don't go through threads on here that much presently apart from looking at threads posters I value on here are posting on. But threads on Bordiga and Camatte in the same week - is this a mini-revival for revleft!


He split with Bordiga and denounced him as an "activist." Enough said.


Source? I don't think I've ever heard of this, IIRC the split was about Camatte's willingness to open up to the contributions of the German-Dutch Left. In his 1974 text on Russia Camatte cites Bordiga's determinism and faith in the revolution as the overwhelming positive side of his work.


Camatte split from the ICP and founded Invariance. I read about Bordiga's "activist turn" in Invariance but I forgot which article it was. I think it was in Invariance II.

http://revueinvariance.pagesperso-orange.fr/

I have not looked up HEAD ICE's source yet, will do later. But I thought Bordiga and Camatte were on the same side in opposing the activist turn in the ICP in the early 1960s.

For instance, in Origin and Function Camatte indicates clearly that him and Bordiga were part of the same struggle against activism and immediatism:


It was Bordiga who wanted the text published.

(..)

The work on the democratic mystification began in 1962 and was approached at various party meetings from then on. (...) Again there was but a weak echo. Only a few, including Bordiga, agreed that the job should be done.

Are you saying that Camatte's split with Bordiga came later, which is possible but I think unlikely, didn't Bordiga drop out of political activity around this point again.


I disagree with principled stands against democratic forms. interesting how people like camatte and dauve (who i like) make much over stressing content over form uphold an 'anti-democratic' principle (camatte being one of the main champions of "organic centralism", probably the worst of bordigist debris).

I can't be bothered going back over Camatte's text on The Democratic Mystification at the moment, plus I am meant to doing uni now but this is no more interesting lol.

In Dauve's text, A Contribution to a Critique of Political Autonomy I am pretty sure he does not oppose a anti-democratic principle to the democratic principle.

Neither does Bordiga though, although for some reason people tend to think he does:


(..) the principle of democracy has no intrinsic value. It is not a “principle”, but rather a simple mechanism of organization (..) revolution is not a problem of forms of organization. On the contrary, revolution is a problem of content, a problem of the movement and action of revolutionary forces in an unending process (..)

On the content and form issue. I do not think it is about "over stressing content over form", which I think misses the point such writers are making that content produce the form necessary for it and that no form can be assumed to be a aprior expression of communist content. Hence Dauve et al pimping of the Marx's quotation from the Grundrisse on forms of activity etc.

[black magick hustla]

i

i agree with onorato damen that the task of "building the (formal) party" does not stop in historically unfavorable periods. obviously there can't be a formal class party in low-ebbs of class struggle, nor can it be simply be created out of thin air. however there remains a need for permanent revolutionary organizations with a presence in the class that participates in its struggles, and to use a phrase i have come to hate, give "revolutionary leadership" (in a completely non-trotskyist kind of way. the role of revolutionaries shouldn't be "leaders" but more of a gps).

so whcih is the supposed revolutionary leadership given by the heirs of damen (battaglia comunista)? i agree there is space for a sort of organization, but it is delusional that the tiny and insignificant communist left is capable of what you are mentioning.

[Savage]

On the content and form issue. I do not think it is about "over stressing content over form", which I think misses the point such writers are making that content produce the form necessary for it and that no form can be assumed to be a aprior expression of communist content. Hence Dauve et al pimping of the Marx's quotation from the Grundrisse on forms of activity etc.

Yeah I think it is more important to emphasize that forms need to be subjected to content and are determined by history and materiality rather than by eternal principles.

[the last donut of the night]

this is insanely depressing

[HEAD ICE]

so whcih is the supposed revolutionary leadership given by the heirs of damen (battaglia comunista)? i agree there is space for a sort of organization, but it is delusional that the tiny and insignificant communist left is capable of what you are mentioning.

that is the position of battaglia comunista

[Raúl Duke]

Sometimes...I feel like the late-phase Camatte...

[ZeroNowhere]

We should make it protocol that whenever somebody complains about being sad on the Non-Political forum, they have to refer to themselves as 'feeling like the late Camatte.'

[Искра]

I scroled trough his texts and decided that it's better to read Tito on liberal revisionists in Party. It's funny.... :D

[the last donut of the night]

can somebody PM me explaining his ideas in more layman's terms? especially the part on how capitalism dissolves class in bourgeois society. it'd help a shitton

[The Douche]

can somebody PM me explaining his ideas in more layman's terms? especially the part on how capitalism dissolves class in bourgeois society. it'd help a shitton

Why pm instead of discussing it in the thread?

[the last donut of the night]

Why pm instead of discussing it in the thread?

lol that works too. so can anyone explain this shit