Jacques Camatte

Yeah, if you look at Sorel who was a major influence for fascism, Gentile's conception of fascism, or, most prominently, the Falange in Spain and the Asserists in Germany. I guess some of it has to with romanticism of the worker.

Leftcoms/Bordigists are hardcore authoritarian. Their criticism of democratic centralism and their proposed alternative of "organic centralism" is less democratic than the Marxist-Leninist model.

It's really just the Bordigists. The German/Dutch leftcoms insisted on democracy. And the contemporary communization current mostly eschews organic centralism.

Is he actually a primmie now?

No, no he isn’t worth checking out.

Isn't that the univeralist argument though?

I don't view Camatte as currently correct, but I do see him as inevitably correct if capital is allowed to continue to the point it completely leaves the control of humans (A.I., algorithmic investmant/hedge funds, etc.)

Attached: 6e684d001a894fcbcdde4dc36a8c00082907e77845c7b881bd412c7cfd153ff4.png (368x367, 322.61K)

*Blocks your path*

Attached: 198384.jpg (171x266, 11.44K)

So wait, Camatte was a holodenier? Fuck.

Source?

Camatte and Nick Land are a funny dichotomy to each other. One sees the horrifying future of what capital might become and seeks to exit the process of technological advancement entirely to avoid it, and the other sees the same thing and want to jump right in.

Most of the ultra-left denialists were at some point close to the same org: La Vieille Taupe, a French political library that had its start as a place for councilists and situationists to hang out until 1972 but was eventually revived by its founder — who eventually drifted towards the neo-Fascist milieu IIRC.

I still don't understand Nick Land and his motivation for his fucked up brand of accelerationism. I need a quick rundown without the vague memes.

what is is with leftists and holodomor denial

Its kinda strange honestly since these days they tend to be more philosemitic if anything. I just look at what the Mukeist have to say about Pierre Tru Dank

Wut? I've never heard him mention leftcom authors or theory.

How is the contemporary ultra-left "philosemitic" exactly?
Muke is not a leftcom. Just because you're not a tänkie doesn't mean you're a leftcom.

He uses the exact same talking points you only come up with if you were exposed to Leftcom theory, not if you just read Marx by himself.

Like what? I don't remember him making "leftcom" points.

In short, Land believes that any and all attempts to stop or subvert capital, including going full Unabomber-tier, are futile. Given its incredible ability to adapt and absorb, something even Marx noted, he's probably right.

He uses the same Libcom article and the same Japanese Leftcom article in every single argument. He's got an unhealthy obsession with the sphere of circulation which is the same Wertkritiker do, he's said that Marxism is not about class struggle, etc. - it's definitely a very unorthodox reading of Marx that you only have if you've already been exposed to such ideas. I'm sorry, I can't really give you a list of things because Muke hasn't read anything, he just uses these two articles all the time and that's it.

I mean depends on how you define Leftcom, if that's just Bordigists for you, then fine, but that's semantics.

But why accelerate it if it's inevitable? The real nihilist praxis would be to do nothing because there's nothing to do.

I suppose it's the same logic of trying to speed up getting over a cold when you will eventually anyway. Remember that Land's brain is beyond fried with amphetamines.

Uh? The Wertkritiker believe orthodox Marxism (which defines socialism solely as "seizing the means of production") is insufficiently concerned with the production process. Their whole point is that labor itself is a capitalist category and that most self-described communists don't go far enough and effectively end up content with radical wealth redistribution. See Endnotes: endnotes.org.uk/issues/2/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory

No Wertkritiker argues that class struggle is not an important part of the Marxist framework. They just don't see "the working class" and "class struggle" with the same rose-tinted glasses as activists LARPing as 19th-century union leaders — the very same who are baffled with the historical revolutionary left's decline in relevance and popularity. Wertkritiker follow Marx when they say the victory of the proletariat can only be at the same time the self-abolition of the proletariat. See Postone: anejkorsika.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/interview-with-moishe-postone-critique-and-dogmatism/

…
…
…

no but he has some really strange beliefs now. not quite primitivist but he's given up Marxism in total pretty much.

Is this a satirical take on selective cherry-picking or…?

Bordiga was NAZBOL

Attached: nazchair.png (375x288, 8.35K)

Which is a strawman because every Marxist-Leninist wants to change the mode of production, this is why we came up with the planned economy as a sufficient way to do so.

Uff. Star Trek just called, they want their utopia back.

Which goes blatantly against Marx and his historical materialism itself. Class society is the ultimate predicament of our historical conditions, and so are the contradictions between labor and capital.

Value-based exchange is not dislodged from the historical horizon of class society, it's inherently reciprocally imprinted into it. But I guess it's easier to call everybody daring to use the word "class" a LARPer, the same way bourgeois economists do it.

The proletarian condition has as such ended in the USSR as domestic matters were concerned, but not in the global perspective. As long as the capitalist siege exists, self-abolition of the proletariat can not fully happen (which is mere rhetoric anyway because the latter happens automatically as the bourgeois right in production is fully abolished).

See Endnotes: "On this [orthodox] view labour is something that exists quasi-naturalistically in the product, and exploitation is seen as an issue of the distribution of that product — thus the 'solution' to capitalism is seen as workers, via the state or other means, shifting that distribution in their favour. If exploitation is a matter of the deduction of a portion of the social product by a parasitic ruling class then socialism does not have to substantially alter the form of commodity production; but may simply take it over, eliminate the parasitic class, and distribute the product equitably."
Just like capitalism isn't the same thing as "exchanging stuff", labor isn't the same thing as "doing stuff". Marxism is not a critique of capital from the standpoint of labor, it's a critique of labor. See Marx: "[For crude communism] the community is only a community of labour, and equality of wages paid out by communal capital – by the community as the universal capitalist. Both sides of the relationship are raised to an imagined universality – labour as the category in which every person is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community. […] The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things."
I made it clear that no author associated with the Wertkritik ever claimed that class struggle was irrelevant or secondary. Why are you holding onto that line of argument?
I didn't associate LARPing with class struggle and you know it; you're being disingenuous. What's LARPing is to insist that capitalism couldn't possibly have changed since the end of the Fordist era and to dogmatically stick to outmoded theory and praxis.
No, it didn't. You even directly contradict yourself in the very next sentence.
This is required but no sufficient. Seizing the means of production will not by itself allow the proletariat to self-abolish.

This is just a huge strawman to justify your USSR=socdem meme.

It is not a strawman.

Yeah, not thinking Jews are the problem means you're a Zionist. right.

Can anyone in this thread provide PDFs of Camatte's books?

No.

>endnotes.org.uk/issues/2/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory
I've seen this article at least three times on here. Here's a reply to it saved from an earlier thread:

Why not?

It's not "leftcoms and Holocaust denial", it's literally just Camatte and some other French cronies around this time.

Bump

I personally don't support communisation, I find it much too voluntarist. I just think Endnotes are right when they say reducing socialism to seizing the means of production is a flawed approach.
You're proving Endnotes right by saying this. You don't want to change the fundamental basis on which capitalism operates, you're just upset that capitalists use their ownership of the MoP to pocket unearned income — which again makes sense but is also blatantly superficial.

Gabriel Cohn-Bendit (Daniel's brother) was actually involved with the denialist-era Vieille Taupe. Yes, a Jew lowkey supported Holocaust denial.

What he wants is not said and not the point. The point is the incoherence of espousing two particular positions at once (not that either position is good or bad in itself): claiming that market pressure will immediately destroy any niceties that a group starting a co-op got over standard firms while at the same time advocating for experimenting with free access.