Camatte: The Most Original Communist I've Read

Lately I've been trying to get my hands on some of the writings of Jacques Camatte. His stuff is hard to find, but I figure Eugene is the place to be to find it (thank you, Green Anarchy!) But I haven't got a hard copy of any of his work yet, so in the meantime I've been reading through some of his essays online. I think he makes way too many good points to be as obscure as he is, but then again, I understand why he would be obscure because his conclusions are very radical.

The first major point of his that I think distinguishes him from just about every other communist I have read is his belief that as long as revolution means progress, it is not desirable. He says in his essay The Despotism of Capital that "capital, as it constantly overthrows traditional patterns of life, is itself revolution." The whole history of capitalism is one of revolutions instigated or recuperated by capital; in other words, the history of progress. “Every separate revolt now becomes a further stimulus for the movement of capital.” So any steps forward now are only steps forward for capital. We need to step backwards toward traditional forms of community:

Revolution can no longer be taken to mean just the destruction of all that is old and conservative, because capital has accomplished this itself. Rather, it will appear as a return to something (a revolution in the mathematical sense of the term), a return to community, though not in any form which has existed previously. Revolution will make itself felt in the destruction of all that which is most "modern" and "progressive" (because science is capital). Another of its manifestations will involve the reappropriation of all those aspects and qualities of life which have still managed to affirm that which is human. In attempting to grasp what this tendency means, we cannot be aided by any of the old dualistic, manichean categories. (It is the same tendency which in the past had held back the valorization process in its movement towards a situation of complete autonomy.) If the triumph of communism is to bring about the creation of humanity, then it requires that this creation be possible, it must be a desire which has been there all the time, for centuries. (The Despotism of Capital)

As the quote makes clear, he isn’t exactly atavistic. He sees primitive communism as the only effective guide for humanity, not as a model to strictly adhere to. This critique of progress ties in with his critique of science. He makes it clear that “a scientific solution is a capitalist solution, because it eliminates humans and lays open the prospect of a totally controlled society.” (Against Domestication) Basically, rationalization negates what is human and fosters reification.

The other unique argument of his (coming from a communist) is that the identification of a specific group as the most revolutionary subject is a degrading consequence of domestication. He pragmatically remarks that “communist revolution…won't be the activity of one class only, but of humanity rising up against capital.” (The Mythology of the Proletariat) Obviously, certain groups are more exploited by the system, but his emphasis is not on exploitation, but domestication.

This all strikes me as highly original thought for a communist—ideas which were virtually plagiarized by primitivists like Zerzan (not that plagiarism’s a bad thing.) I need to find out more about this guy because I am extremely interested in him. Maybe I’ll drop by Zerzan’z little cabin (I’m not even kidding!) one of these days and ask where I can get me some Camatte.