Some thoughts for Monsieur Dupont - by Monsieur Dubois

Further contribution to the debate between Monsieur Dupont and Red and Black Notes by a Red and Black Notes reader.

A "Red and Black Notes" reader's comments on some of the material published by Monsieur Dupont

For Monsieur Dupont the enemy occupies every inch. I feel this too, but I don't think it. (Not to imply a separation between mind and body). Every act is only partially determined by the conditions from which it was born. In any case the present conditions are not exclusively determined by the rule of capital. Social conditions are only dominated by capital, but we still dream, create our own spaces, experience moments of genuine freedom, act outside the market, etc. It is true that capital is nearly omniscient, but in the end capitalism is still a knowable system, with a structure and a history, that is organized by directors and managers, and overseen by humans who are not each as competent or as authoritarian as the other. They make mistakes and can neglect or be unaware of growing threats. In so far as it rules over territory, both social and geographical, it is nearly universal. But like any occupying force, capital's strength varies from zone to zone, and occasionally a local population takes advantage of the relative weaknesses of its domination.

In Europe and North America many of capitals subjects have been so deeply colonized and indoctrinated as to believe that its rule is a necessary evil. Some even believe that liberal democracy and techno-industrial capitalism represent the end of history. For every worker who engages in sabotage or absenteeism, there is another who finds such acts irresponsible and self-indulgent. For every act of resistance committed by a worker, he/she commits many more that indicate not only voluntary submission to our domination by capital, but an actual belief in it. Coercion and bribery have paid off. Over half of the Canadian working class invests in the stock market. They phone the cops on their neighbours. They defend the patriarchal nuclear family, cheer for imperial wars, curse the faggots and punks, etc. Yet each one of them also has moments of hatred toward those at the helm for our condition, moments of reflection and insight that unmask the true nature and basis of our society. The population only appears defeated and its self-esteem decimated.

[Read more here]

An interesting text I think, I will pick out a few parts I consider interesting and comment on them a bit.

For Monsieur Dupont the enemy occupies every inch. I feel this too, but I don't think it. (Not to imply a separation between mind and body). Every act is only partially determined by the conditions from which it was born.

I think this is particularly interesting to keep in mind. Mr. Dupont's work seems very deterministic, stemming largely from his conviction Capital's presence occupies every inch of life. Sure, Capital has expanded beyond the factory, into society to create the 'social factory', it has expanded into the field of ideas and convictions through cultural hegemony and it has even expanded into the sphere of biopolitics. This does not mean, however, it is omnipresent. Capital's inner functioning intrinsically generates conflict with those it exploits, this is when class struggle arises. It is the generation of this conflict that produces certain subjectivities that break Capital's own fabric and hegemony.

What exactly dominates us? Does all domination begin and end only with the rule of state and capital? What are the various forms authority takes? Are there identifiable origins of domination?

This is an interesting point as well, especially for Anarchists. The question whether Power (Capital-P Power being Power-as-such) exists is an interesting one, i'm increasingly inclined to say that power exists as a property of relationships, rather than as a property of objects. If this is the case, it means that we as Anarchists should indeed pay extra attention to the reproduction of authoritarianism in our own structures through the way we relate to eachother in addition to being critical of existing structures.

Is it possible that Monsieur Dupont still believe that technical solutions are primary in solving social problems? Is a different 'economics" the solution? Why not no economics? Is a world of giving and sharing, without commodities or value, not in their dreams?

I disagree severly here. Technical solutions can certainly ease and help solving social problems. The core problem, however, is they need to be applied correctly, which is impossible under Capitalism. Secondly, which technologies are actively pushed and which not is the result of the logic of Capital as well. Dismissing technology as a contribution to the solving of social problems, however, is nonsense.

I also disagree with the notion of a 'world of giving and sharing', which is too obscure and utopian for me to do anything with. I desire highly democratic world free of Capital's dominance, where 'work' in it's current form is abolished and replaced by labor under collective control.

I also disagree with the desire to do away with 'value' alltogether. I believe that isn't even possible. Value is nothing else but the degree one wants something. Unless we aim for nihilism or nirvana, we are going to crave certain things, if only because of our biological nature. Hence, we will 'value' things. If we are talking about seperating Capital-induced Sign values from the actual Use value of objects, I concur however.

I'll continue tomorrow, it's late enough as it is

not that I disagree with the points towards primitivism but, the sci-fi utopian strawman ideal he evokes is about as off base as the core of his vague primitivism sentiments.