Jacques Camatte

[The Feral Underclass]

I have never read any work by Jacques Camatte, but I just read the Wikipedia on him and it said this:


After collecting and publishing a great amount of historical documents from left communist currents, and analysing the most recently discovered writings of Marx, in the early 70's Camatte abandoned the Marxist perspective. He decided instead that capitalism had succeeded in shaping humanity to its profit, and that every kind of "revolution" was thus impossible; that the working class was nothing more than an aspect of capital, unable to supersede its situation; that any future revolutionary movement would basically consist of a struggle between humanity and capital itself, rather than between classes; and that capital has become totalitarian in structure, leaving nowhere and no-one outside its domesticating influence. This pessimism about revolutionary perspective is accompanied by the idea that we can "leave the world" and live closer to nature, and stop harming children and distorting their naturally sane spirit.

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

I understand the idea of the working class being "an aspect of capital," but I don't understand how it follows that it is therefore "unable to supersede its situation." Also, I'm unclear what the phrase "shaped humanity to profit" means in reality...

Can anyone expand on this position?

[Atsumari]

Ask Remus. That guy loves seems to love Camatte and Bordiga the same way Ismail loves Hoxha.

[Sasha]

Are you in the "aftermath" group on Facebook? Lots of knowledgeable users there on these subjects.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The first two paragraphs from Against Domestication

"The time we are now living through is without doubt the most critical period capitalist society has ever known. All the features which we associate with the classic crisis now exist as a permanent state of affairs, though production itself has not been affected, except to a limited extent in certain countries. Social relations and traditional consciousness are decomposing all around us, while at the same time each institution in society proceeds to ensure its survival by recuperating the movement which opposes it. (An obvious example here is the catholic church, which has lost count of all the "modernizations" it has embraced). One would think that the violence and torture which is now endemic everywhere would have people mobilized and up in arms against it, but instead it continues to flourish on a world scale. Indeed, the situation today makes the "barbarism" of the Nazis seem in comparison rather unprofessional, quite archaic in fact. All the conditions would seem to be ripe; there should be revolution. Why then is there such restraint? What is to stop people from transforming all these crises and disasters, which are themselves the result of the latest mutation of capital, into a catastrophe for capital itself?

The explanation for this is to be found in the domestication of humanity, which comes about when capital constitutes itself as a human community. The process starts out with the fragmentation and destruction of human beings, who are then restructured in the image of capital; people are turned into capitalist beings, and the final outcome is that capital is anthropomorphised. The domestication of humanity is closely bound up with another phenomenon which has intensified even further the passivity of human beings: capital has in effect "escaped". Economic processes are out of control and those who are in a position to influence them now realize that in the face of this they are powerless: they have been completely outmanoeuvered. At the global level, capital's escape is evident in the monetary crisis;*[1]*overpopulation, pollution and the exhaustion of natural resources. The domestication of humanity and the escape of capital are concepts which can explain the mentality and activity of those who claim to be revolutionaries and believe that they can intervene to hasten the onset of revolution: the fact is that they are playing roles which are a part of the old world. The revolution always eludes them and when there is any kind of upheaval they see it as something external to them, which they have to chase after in order to be acknowledged as "revolutionaries"."

Cool piece of writing https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/agdom.htm

[Remus Bleys]

Camatte thought that humanity had been totally subsumed, became homo economicus, and therefore could rebel only in the same sense a machine could

[Sasha]

thread with some valuable nuggets on libcom; http://libcom.org/forums/theory/who-jacques-camatte-08082008
i should really read some more of his stuff again, forgot how intresting it was.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I actually had never read Camatte until this morning when I opened this thread. But now I realize he's everywhere from Tiqqun to Fredy Perlman. Pretty influential guy apparently.

[The Feral Underclass]

Camatte thought that humanity had been totally subsumed, became homo economicus, and therefore could rebel only in the same sense a machine could

I don't really know what sense a machine would rebel though...?

Also, are you able to expand on what it is that Camatte thinks has changed so fundamentally since 1917, 1936 and the 1960s and '80s?

[Remus Bleys]

I don't really know what sense a machine would rebel though...?

Also, are you able to expand on what it is that Camatte thinks has changed so fundamentally since 1917, 1936 and the 1960s and '80s?

Camatte thought humanity had totally been subsumed into capital, it was completely domesticated. That's what changed, and later he said Marxism was a movement not for the communist community, but for the community of capital.

A machine can't rebel, but it can be defective, break, and die.


I mean but now he's convinced he has left capitalism living on his pension.

[The Feral Underclass]

Camatte thought humanity had totally been subsumed into capital, it was completely domesticated. That's what changed, and later he said Marxism was a movement not for the communist community, but for the community of capital.



A machine can't rebel, but it can be defective, break, and die.





I mean but now he's convinced he has left capitalism living on his pension.


Thanks. I guess my question was more about why humanity wasn't subsumed in 1936 or 1968 or 1985. Is this domestication a new phenomenon and if so what has made it so?

What does Camatte propose? Does he think it is all hopeless?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Remus Bleys]

Domestication was completed so to say. Judging from his bordigist past it was most likely due to the stalinist counterrevolution, fascism, and the politics of antifa and fronts that totally domesticated humanity into capital. I suggest reading his stuff on the mia, if you like it, buy this world we must leave (it also has the beautiful echos from the past)

[Creative Destruction]

From the Wiki:


This pessimism about revolutionary perspective is accompanied by the idea that we can "leave the world" and live closer to nature, and stop harming children and distorting their naturally sane spirit.

Sounds like utopian crap.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

According to an amazon review he lives in a survivalist colony now.

[Remus Bleys]

From the Wiki:



Sounds like utopian crap.

eh better than parecon . Camattian despair and defeatist anticivism is much more pleasant sounding than the crap you peddle any day, I mean that's all this utopian stuff is, self help romanticism that sounds good.
Of course, the difference is that at a couple points (from his bordigist years in the ICP to the time COMMUNISM OR CIVILIZATION split from INVARIANCE) Camatte was an astounding Marxist, very astute and intelligent in his works, composing very useful pieces.

[Remus Bleys]

According to an amazon review he lives in a survivalist colony now.

He lives on his pension. Apparently he does lectures, sometimes in italy.

[Creative Destruction]

eh better than parecon . Camattian despair and defeatist anticivism is much more pleasant sounding than the crap you peddle any day, I mean that's all this utopian stuff is, self help romanticism that sounds good.

i don't think you know what i "peddle."

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

i don't think you know what i "peddle."

well it says pareconish right up there under your name, and Marxist-Humanist to the other side, so I think it's safe to say it's some dumb fucking shit, which is confirmed by basically all posts you've ever made

[Creative Destruction]

well it says pareconish right up there under your name, and Marxist-Humanist to the other side, so I think it's safe to say it's some dumb fucking shit, which is confirmed by basically all posts you've ever made

lol. whatever failings in parecon, which are quite a few, is still better than this incredibly stupid reactionary bunk your dumb sack of shit self swallows.

[Remus Bleys]

lol. whatever failings in parecon, which are quite a few, is still better than this incredibly stupid reactionary bunk your dumb sack of shit self swallows.

What reactionary bunk? Lol do you think anyone here actually buys into primitivism?

Anyway camatte is a very happy guy he basically held out long enough considering he was a kid in ww2 and never saw the heydays of communism. For people like him I'm honestly fine with it, he's an old man let him be happy, its a tragedy but it is what it is.

For people like you not so much. Parecon is literally modern day utopianism, yet you call others utopian. And do you even have any connection to the Marxist humanist imitative or did you just read a couple texts (protip for all they're shittiness they're also anti parecon)

[BIXX]

This is insane
I have never agreed with Remus bleys on any more controversial issue... Ever.

I think camatte's anti-civ stuff is pretty interesting.

[Creative Destruction]

Anyway camatte is a very happy guy he basically held out long enough considering he was a kid in ww2 and never saw the heydays of communism. For people like him I'm honestly fine with it, he's an old man let him be happy, its a tragedy but it is what it is.

If he's happy, that's all grand. I don't give a shit about that. If what's on that wiki is an accurate distillation of what he believes and writes, then it's shit.


For people like you not so much. Parecon is literally modern day utopianism, yet you call others utopian. And do you even have any connection to the Marxist humanist imitative or did you just read a couple texts (protip for all they're shittiness they're also anti parecon)

Well, this is a good reason for why I said you actually don't know what I believe. You, and a couple of others, have tried (and failed miserably) at trying to make hay out of -- lol -- my username sub-tag. It's mostly a joke because I don't think all or even most of parecon is all that good; I think some of the ideas are good, but Michael Albert has been unable to substantiate many of his contentions. I never bothered to change it because -- fuck it -- who actually gives a shit about it, except for people who are trying to ignorantly score a couple of points on Internet messageforums "RevLeft."

As for the MHI, I am active with them. And, yes, they're "anti-parecon" in the sense that they don't think it is a viable overall theory. But they (at least Andrew Kliman), like I, think there are some interesting ideas and commend Albert for at least giving it an honest try, as far as offering a vision. From Kliman:


Albert and Hahnel’s parecon is the product of a great deal more thought and reflection, 13-year’s worth at least (see www.parecon.org for numerous books, articles, etc.). I am not fully convinced that Parecon is feasible. Yet it is an achievement nonetheless, something to learn from and build upon. It seems to me to be by far the most successful attempt yet to articulate a concrete and feasible vision of what Marx called the lower phase of communism – even though Albert has recently pooh-poohed the idea that the higher phase of communism is possible.1 Parecon is a vision of a democratic society without value production, the commodification of labor-power, markets, or money, and with little if any division between mental and manual labor.

Parecon can look like a blueprint spun out of the heads of two intellectuals, but I think this is largely due to Albert and Hahnel’s tendency to give us their conclusions rather than exhibiting the process of thinking that led them to these conclusions. In fact, the specificity of parecon results largely from their attempt to work through the tensions and contradictions that arise when one thinks about how to break the logic of capital. Their purpose, it seems to me, is not to build castles in the air, but to formulate an alternative that will not revert back to capitalism because it has its own self-sustaining logic.

http://akliman.squarespace.com/writings/Alternatives%20to%20Capitalism.doc

Which is also to say, it's a lot more commendable than encouraging people to adopt a defeatist and, ultimately, reactionary position.

[bcbm]

Which is also to say, it's a lot more commendable than encouraging people to adopt a defeatist and, ultimately, reactionary position.

its really a 'choose-your-own delusional fantasy' kind of thing at this point.

[The Feral Underclass]

Which is also to say, it's a lot more commendable than encouraging people to adopt a defeatist and, ultimately, reactionary position.

Calling something utopian and reactionary isn't really an argument, and something isn't defeatist if it's true. If you want to make a contribution of substance to this debate, why not present an argument instead of using these buzzwords as if just saying them is enough to refute what's being discussed.

[Creative Destruction]

Calling something utopian and reactionary isn't really an argument, and something isn't defeatist if it's true. If you want to make a contribution of substance to this debate, why not present an argument instead of using these buzzwords as if just saying them is enough to refute what's being discussed.

There's nothing to refute because no argument has been made.

[The Feral Underclass]

There's nothing to refute because no argument has been made.

So what is it that you're accusing of being utopian, stupid, reactionary and defeatist?

[Creative Destruction]

So what is it that you're accusing of being utopian, stupid, reactionary and defeatist?

If what he believes is accurately depicted in the wiki you posted, then that. That isn't an argument, though, so I am not mounting some big counter-argument. However, it's worth noting that Remus Bleys even characterized his position as defeatist.

[The Feral Underclass]

If what he believes is accurately depicted in the wiki you posted, then that. That isn't an argument, though, so I am not mounting some big counter-argument.

Okay, but others have expanded on that post to form an argument for Camatte's views (if by argument we mean reasons in support of an idea). But suit yourself.


However, it's worth noting that Remus Bleys even characterized his position as defeatist.

And I'd say the same thing to him.

[Creative Destruction]

Okay, but others have expanded on that post to form an argument for Camatte's views (if by argument we mean reasons in support of an idea). But suit yourself.

Who did? The most I saw was a bunch of people quoting him and saying it was "interesting." That's not really an argument or an expansion on his views. Remus gave some other distillations of his views, but didn't actually give an argument for Camatte. Again, Remus seems content -- per his last post on the previous page -- to say that they were writings of an old man who has given up any ideas of revolution. Not much of an argument there!

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

People being other groups. Tiqqun I realize now is heavily influenced by him. The central character of Tiqqun's politics revolve around escaping a world that has been wholly consumed by the spectacle, that escape being communism. Direct confrontation with the spectacle is impossible and more often than not, suicidal. At which point their politics move into a mix of communization and situationism.

I don't find the aggressive posts in this thread to be very accurate or even entertaining to read. Everyone should chill the fuck out.

[The Feral Underclass]

Who did? The most I saw was a bunch of people quoting him and saying it was "interesting." That's not really an argument or an expansion on his views.

We must be reading different threads then.


Remus gave some other distillations of his views, but didn't actually give an argument for Camatte. Again, Remus seems content -- per his last post on the previous page -- to say that they were writings of an old man who has given up any ideas of revolution. Not much of an argument there!

I'm not sure why you keep bringing Remus into this...I'm not talking about what Remus said, I'm talking about what you said. Specifically, that the views were utopian, reactionary, stupid and defeatist.

Coming from someone who is knew to Camatte's views and is trying to learn more about them, I find your contribution particularly unhelpful, especially since you are now refusing to elucidate your views. I would stand to gain a new perspective if you did.

[Remus Bleys]

People being other groups. Tiqqun I realize now is heavily influenced by him. The central character of Tiqqun's politics revolve around escaping a world that has been wholly consumed by the spectacle, that escape being communism. Direct confrontation with the spectacle is impossible and more often than not, suicidal. At which point their politics move into a mix of communization and situationism.

I don't find the aggressive posts in this thread to be very accurate or even entertaining to read. Everyone should chill the fuck out.

Uh tiqqun is more of a prositu thing than camattian. Camatte wasnt Frankfurt school, he wasnt perlman, he wasnt prositu. He was a bordigist, his criticism of civilization is one based in bordigism, it has nothing to do with the spectacle, it has to do with camatte holding true to bordigism then going bonkers because of the failure of 68 and just trying to make sense if everything (he failed though)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I didn't say their critique was camatte's, only that it was influenced by him. Rednoise was asking for examples of who had expanded on camattes ideas. The divine revelation of bordiga is safe from the unwashed hordes of dropouts, have no fear.

[L.A.P.]

I haven't read much Camatte, but I did try reading his Origin and Function of the Party Form about a year ago, though the quoting of long passages by Marx accompanied with little commentary didn't appeal to me atm. However, I could def. see the little hints foreshadowing his coming primitivism; like he seemed, even then, to frame communism, not just as a struggle of class liberation, but have a dimension of a generalized human liberation. There seemed to always be this antagonism of humanity vs. civilization/society at play in his thought.

[Remus Bleys]

I haven't read much Camatte, but I did try reading his Origin and Function of the Party Form about a year ago, though the quoting of long passages by Marx accompanied with little commentary didn't appeal to me atm. However, I could def. see the little hints foreshadowing his coming primitivism; like he seemed, even then, to frame communism, not just as a struggle of class liberation, but have a dimension of a generalized human liberation. There seemed to always be this antagonism of humanity vs. civilization/society at play in his thought.
This is also in marx, engels, lenin, luxemburg, gorter, bordiga, etc. Camatte actually perverted that, but at least he actually understood that more than stalinists and trotskyists, as well as supposed "left communists".

[Zoroaster]

I actually just got a copy of "Capital and Community". It looks interesting, although, admittedly, I know little to nothing about Cammate besides his post 68 phase.

[Decolonize The Left]

God dammit. This was an interesting thread that I wanted to read but now I have to mod because some people can't reign in their crap:

well it says pareconish right up there under your name, and Marxist-Humanist to the other side, so I think it's safe to say it's some dumb fucking shit, which is confirmed by basically all posts you've ever made

Verbal warning.

Obvious flame. Please post actual content instead of trash like this.

[blake 3:17]

Apparently he was an influence on Fifth Estate -- which could be totally great or those guys could drive me effin nuts.... They were probably on to something

http://www.fifthestate.org/