/lit/ - Literature

more?

he was tedpilled

>>11800951
"In the era of its real domination, capital has run away (as the cyberneticians put it), it has escaped. [7] It is no longer controlled by human beings. (Human beings in the form of proletarians might, at least passively, represent a barrier to capital.) It is no longer limited by nature. Some production processes carried out over periods of time lead to clashes with natural barriers: increase in the number of human beings, destruction of nature, pollution. But these barriers cannot be theoretically regarded as barriers which capital cannot supersede. At present there are three possible courses for the capitalist mode of production (in addition to the destruction of humanity - a hypothesis that cannot be ignored):

complete autonomy of capital: a mechanistic utopia where human beings become simple accessories of an automated system, though still retaining an executive role;
mutation of the human being, or rather a change of the species: production of a perfectly programmable being which has lost all the characteristics of the species Homo sapiens. This would not require an automatized system, since this perfect human being would be made to do whatever is required;
generalized lunacy: in the place of human beings, and on the basis of their present limitations, capital realizes everything they desire (normal or abnormal), but human beings cannot find themselves and enjoyment continually lies in the future. The human being is carried off in the run-away of capital, and keeps it going."

Camatte is great and tedpilled.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/agdom.htm

great now take it somewhere on the next level, make a convincing argument about what we should do about it, and why

How about just this.............. capital is capital...

techno jihad now. capital must be ended, german idealism must be ended, rational discourse must be restored.

>>11800999
>t. hasn't read Camatte

>>11800999
Anglos are anti-intellectual at heart. They are ennemies of everything that is True. Nietzsche understood this. He saw the anglo as nothing more than a corrupted soul only capable of movement and action. The protestant mindset is detached from everything that composes the human experience.

>do something, act, move, work!
>but do not contemplate, do not think!

There is nothing to be 'done' against Capitalism. If we all stopped mindlessly agitating ourselves and working today, the entire system would collapse.

is capital some kind of eldritch abomination?

>>11800999
lmao you can't be the same fucker who never read Ted but keeps polluting the thread? Because you obviously haven't read camatte as well

>>11801024
true, but even the decision to not do, is to do, in a way. it is still a choice, a conscious action

good point tho

collapse scares people though. people need security. they need to see the alternative, the steps to get there, and how realistically attainable the alternative it is

that's our job to delineate

>>11801024
Where does Nietzsche say this?

>>11801051
He disses Anglos in Beyond Good and Evil for one.

>>11801020
why don't you just relay the important bits for the sake of conversation and saving time

that's why we have fucking forums, to share fucking ideas. i'm not going to spend the time to read some shit that i haven't been sold on yet. there's a million other books i am in the process of reading

its called the marketplace of idea asshole. be a good marketer for the best ideas instead of a fucking elitist.

>>11801113
>spoon feed me
stopped reading there.

>>11801113
https://youtu.be/R8mcBdBL-t0

>>11801134
not asking to spoonfeed

take a minute to explain an idea you care about the way you understand so that other people can understand it. because you care more about the idea than being an elitist

clearly you are a stupid fucking elitist.

fuck you.

>>11801201
Powerful.

>>11801113
"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)."
1/2

>>11801709
"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."

Capital is lunacy.

I think an iteration of your understanding of something in your own words is more valuable than just copy-paste

>>11801782
You have a lot of thoughts it seems, but most of them are the lunacy of dragging others down.
That's why you did not get what you want.

>>11801967
Maybe actually, you are a fuck.

shut the fuck up you old french faggot. I'm tired of you people bitching about capital as if it was something real. Such fucking derelict relics with nothing real to say. France has a shitton to apologize for wrt philosophy

>>11801967
if you care about an idea, you will take care to transmit it to other people

or are you one of those people who only pursues knowledge selfishly?

piece of shit.

>>11802374
Back to dreddit now.

And back on topic:
“All human life, from the very beginning of its development within capitalist society, has undergone an impoverishment. More than this, capitalist society is death organized with all the appearances of life. Here it is not a question of death as the extinction of life, but death-in-life, death with all the substance of power of life. The human being is dead and is no more than a ritual of capital.”

Capital is lunacy.

>>11801716

Restoration of monarchy. Oh boy.

Wow. All of the sane people have left the planet. Sorry, I haven't been on this forum in a while. Sure has gone down the tubes.

>>11802759
>neo-liberals
>sane
Pick one.
Also:
>according to them
Learn to read.

>>11801024
The collapse would kill us.

>>11800966
How is this different from what land proposes?

Capital is nice

>>11802817
It was written forty years earlier.
It's not post-ironic.
It's not seen as a good thing.
There is no presupposition of humanity.
It understands what capital is.
It's an actual theory rather than Mad Lib mumbo jumbo.
It's not pure economic pseudery.
It's not liberalism/humanism.

I feel humanity must destroy itself, what you say may indeed be true. But the human desire to expand, explore and consume is without end. Even if you were to construct such a system, there would be elements that wish to over throw it, indeed these elements would be the most active and able to accomplish their goal as they would consist of the naturally gifted who wish to transcend the limits placed upon them. That is why I feel even if victory is achieved it will be temporary.

Capital is lunacy.

"The study of all these works shows that Marx confronted the critique of political economy in four different ways. The first is that of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts: wage labour is the basis of capitalist society, since capital is merely objectified labour. Marx explains the alienation about which Hegel wrote: all history is the product of human labour, not only of theoretical and intellectual labour, but also of all labour, of real human activity. Alienation exists in practical life, in real life. It derives from the fact that man has become a commodity in bourgeois society. However, Marx remains largely on the enemy's terrain, in the sense that, like the philosophers and therefore Hegel, he confronts the problem starting from man, from the subject, while the question is: how is the subject itself produced? This also explains why he speaks first of wages, then of capital and landed property, going on later to analyse property in bourgeois society and in communist society. To some extent, therefore, it is the opposite to what he will do later:

"...my analytic method, which does not start from Man but from the economically given period of society, has nothing in common..." (Notes on Wagner p. 52)"

>>11805041
"The procedure is, therefore, still subjective. It is true that man lies at the centre of the problem (not man as an isolated individual, but rather, social man, the human species; this being already a refutation of the bourgeois position), but one must also show the economic conditions that produce him. It was still too much just a simple refutation of Hegel. Now man can only be the subject in communist society. In class society he is alienated and therefore an object. Whether one is dealing with a proletarian or a bourgeois, it simply means that capital is the subject:

"He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as the capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent on business; the other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and now has nothing else to expect but - a tanning." (Capital I p. 280)

The importance of the Manuscripts lies in the fact that they register the birth-certificate of communism. In the polemic with the economists, Marx discovers the future form of society, just as he had seen it, felt it in his struggle against Hegel's philosophy and in On the Jewish Question. But now he goes further, because he defines its economic base."

>>11805045
"The second way of confronting the critique of political economy is that provided by the Contribution and by Capital Marx starts with something that can easily be established - the commodity (as Lenin says), so as to be able to introduce the problem of value, its different forms, and then to return to simple commodity circulation and to the appearance of capital. Wage-labour, inasmuch as it produces surplus value, then appears to explain the genesis of capital, the genesis of the increase in value without which no formation of capital can occur. This is done by analysing the immediate process of production:

"What I start from is the simplest social form in which the labour product is represented in contemporary society, and this is the 'commodity'. I analyse this, and indeed, first in the form in which it appears." (Notes on Wagner p. 50)

The third way is in the fragment of the original version (Urtext) of the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Marx confronts the problem in the most general way possible the birth of value - and poses the question: how can value achieve autonomy (an established fact in bourgeois society), ceasing to be strictly dependent on the conditions that generated it?

The fourth and last way is to be found in the chapter of the Grundrisse, 'Forms which precede capitalist production'. Capitalism can only develop on condition that it frees man and makes him into a commodity. But to do so, it has to destroy the various communities which encompassed him, which were governed, in a more or less debased way, by an economy in which man was the aim of production. In a certain sense, this means the study of the obstacles which hindered capitalist development, the social inertia caused by the various communities, most especially in the Asiatic mode of production, which still survives in India, for example, and makes the economic development of that country so difficult."
Introduction to Capital and Community
https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/capcom/introduction.htm

|"The immediate process of production is the indissoluble unity of the labour process and the valorization process; here the characteristics therefore proceed to the level of production.

"The process of production is the immediate unity of labour process and valorization prc,cess, just as its immediate result, the commodity, is the is the immediate unity of use-value and exchange-value." (ibid.)

To get a better grasp of this becoming of value that valorizes itself in the course of the production process, two more concepts should be specified: dead labour and living labour. We have seen that to understand circulation, we needed to know that every commodity has a use-value and an exchange-value, corresponding respectively to concrete and abstract labour. To understand the transformation of money into capital, it was necessary to go into the production process, which divides into labour process (use-aspect) and valorization process (exchangeaspect); now, inside this labour process, we must distinguish between labour that is dead, accumulated, objectified; that is the means of production have the character of exchange-value (constant capital), and living labour, labour-power with the character of use (variable capital)."

""The distinction between objectified and living labour manifests itself in the actual process of labour... Furthermore, in the labour process, objectified labour constitutes an objective factor an element for the realization of living labour. (ibid. p. 993)

In this sense, dead labour has a use-aspect, nevertheless it primarily appears with the determination of exchange-value.

So this is the becoming:

"To the extent to which past labour replaces living labour, it itself becomes a process, valorizes itself it becomes a fluens that creates a fluxion. This absorption into itself of additional living labour is the process of self-valorization, its authentic transformation into capital, into value generating itself; its transformation from a constant amount of value (Wertgrösse) into a variable amount of value in process. (ibid. p. 994)

Thus, after the definition derived from circulation, we have the one that comes from production. Capital is objectified dead labour and is repeatedly brought back to life by the living labour that it incorporates; in a seemingly endless cycle. This last definition includes the first, provided by the Urtext - capital as value in process - because now we know that this process comprises; it can only take place by subjugating labour.

"On the other hand, an existing amount of value - or money - becomes real capital only when; firstly as self-valorizing value, represented as value in process and this it achieves when the activity of labour-capacity (Arbeits- vermögens) labour, is incorporated in the production process and becomes its property; secondly it must yield surplus-value as distinct from its original value, and this in turn is again the product of the objectification of surplus labour." (ibid. p. 1016)"
Capital and Community

The importance of "Capital and Community" lies within its focus on value-in-process and the valorisation of machines. The texts released in the 1960s reveal a greater depth to Marx's thinking, and Camatte grasped the whole picture of capital and valorisation better than anyone else.

If you want to understand Marx then you should read Camatte. And this is all the better considering his critique of the leftist racket form.

>>11800947
Capital is lunacy.
>accelerationists eternally BTFO by the futurising basilisk which had already been rendered as a corpse before them

Capital is Sentient (so long as humans are capable of producing a mechanical object which retroactively plagiarizes their stupidity).