/lit/ - Literature

Sentient objects are capital

>>11845618
It means that they think they are accelerationists by repeating memes from 100 years ago.
It's a rip-off of the far-left idea that capital is everything, a self-valorising object from which all subjectivity is created. Only they think this should be taken uniornically so that we all larp as Bill Gates.

Blood is sentient.
Soil is sentient.
The nation is sentient.
Sociality is sentient.
Capital is not sentient.
Communists are sentient, but only for the time being.

>>11845618

>>11845640
Neither capital nor communists are sentient.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/capcom/on-org.htm

>>11845671
>m*rxism

>>11845639
>Bill Gates.
i had a dream about him last night

>>11845618
They either: 1) don't mean anything, because it's nonsense, or 2) mean something obviously false. In either case, the proposition is without interest.

>>11845639
lel this is a great image

>>11845740
Camatte was hated by them and one of the best critics of marxist organisation, I don't know why it's on that site desu. The Bordiga and Camatte worldview is only Marxist in its analysis of capital and proposes a break from pure leftist organisations.
Camatte has a better critique of the left than anyone you'll find on the right.
Also:
The struggle of people against capital has only ever been seen through the narrow focus of class. The only way to be regarded as a real adversary of capital has been to actively identify oneself with the proletariat; all else is romantic, petit bourgeois etc . . . But the very act of reasoning in classist terms means that any particular class is confined within the limits of class analysis. This is particularly important when one considers that the working class has as its mission the elimination of all classes. It also avoids the question of how that class will bring about its own autodestruction, since this classist analysis prevents any lessons being drawn from the tragic intellectual fate of those people who set themselves in opposition to capital without even recognising or identifying their enemy (as with Bergson, for example). Today, when the whole classist approach has been deprived of any solid base, it may be worthwhile to reconsider movements of the right and their thinking. The right is a movement of opposition to capital that seeks to restore a moment which is firmly rooted in the past. Hence in order to eliminate class conflict, the excesses of capitalist individualism, speculation and so on, the Action Francaise and the Nouvelle Action Francaise (NAF) envisage a community which can only be guaranteed, according to them, by a system of monarchy. (See particularly the chapter on capitalism in Les Dossiers de l'Action Francaise).

>>11846075
2/2
It seems that every current or group which opposes capital is nonetheless obliged to focus always on the human as the basis of everything. It takes diverse forms, but it has a profoundly consistent basis and is surprisingly uniform wherever human populations are found. Thus by seeking to restore (and install) the volksgemeinschaft, even the Nazis represent an attempt to create such a community (cf. also their ideology of the Urmensh, the "original man"). We believe that the phenomenon of Nazism is widely misunderstood: it is seen by many people only as a demonic expression of totalitarianism. But the Nazis in Germany had reintroduced an old theme originally theorized by German sociologists like Tonnies and Max Weber. And so in response, we find the Frankfurt school, and most notably Adorno, dealing in empty and sterile concepts of "democracy", due to their incapacity to understand the phenomenon of Nazism. They have been unable to grasp Marx's great insight, which was that he posed the necessity of reforming the community, and that he recognised that this reformation must involve the whole of humanity. The problems are there for everybody; they are serious, and they urgently require solutions. People try to work them out from diverse political angles. However, it is not these problems which determine what is revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, but the solutions put forward - i.e. are they effective or not? And here the racketeer's mentality descends upon us once again: each gang of the left or the right carves out its own intellectual territory; anyone straying into one or the other of these territories is automatically branded as a member of the relevant controlling gang. Thus we have reification: the object is determinant, the subject passive.

Are we being raided by leftypol?

>>11845951
Have another:

>>11846092
There is no we in capital. Only i.

At the end of south african apartheid, when Nelson Mandela came to power, the ANC was ready to start a far reaching social program of wealth distribution, healthcare, jobs and industry.

Yet within the space of a year these dreams had been crushed under an economic consensus via the WTO, WB etc that meant that SA had joined the global economy. They could not increase wages (wage restraint programs) they could not sell cheap medicine (patents) and they could not grow local industry (free trade imports).

But at no point did a group of men sit down and say "let's stop the ANC from doing what it promised" and set out a huge conspiracy designed to bring capitalism into the country. Yet that it was happened. Because capitalism, or more accurately neoliberalism, was the only one who could have designed and implemented that plot.

>>11846113
don't fuck with me, commie