Part 8: The 'real domination' of capitalism and the real confusions of the proletarian milieu

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Non ex hoc mundi
Part 8: The 'real domination' of capitalism and the real confusions of the proletarian milieu
Printer-friendly versionSend by email

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: Part 8: The 'real domination' of capitalism and the real confusions of the proletarian milieu. The discussion was initiated by Non ex hoc mundi.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

Non ex hoc mundi
Within the last discussion on

Within the last discussion on the other thread regarding decadence, KT made the following comments:

[Non ex hoc mundi] can continue to roar his [sic] anti-marxist, essentially anti human species message until he [sic] is pale blue in the face...'

(No-one on these forums knows my gender, sexuality, nor is it very relevant...which makes this bad grammar among other things.)

Nevertheless, having agreed to move on in discussion later, KT shared the link formerly attached above, which I have read and reflected upon. And for the record, the notion that I'm 'anti-marxist' isn't exactly correct. I'm not a marxist, but that doesn't mean I reject other marxists and marxism en masse or am somehow immune to its influence. I am though very much 'anti-history' as much as I can be (ideally), a la Fredy Perlman's Against Leviathan. I reject the Enlightenment liberalism of Newton, Bacon, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Paine, etc. etc. which the ICC seems to embrace or at least acknowledge in part and in some positive way.

But, getting back to the text in question which KT shared, I will begin with a few direct responses:

For the modernist Camatte, ‘real-domination’ had come to mean the total, omnipresent triumph of capital, the integration of the proletariat, the end of the perspective of working class revolution.

I agree with Camatte here. I think the real subsumption of labor completely within the wage system has resulted in nothing less than the near-complete domestication of all of Earth, meaning the bourgeoisie as well as workers. I tend to disagree with the specific notion of a 'stalemate' between classes, however. The bourgeoisie seem to be winning/on the offensive from my view.

Henceforward, the hope for communism lay as much with the animals and the trees as with the proletariat.

Yes, in fact, as asanine as this may sound if all animals were to withdraw themselves from the capitalist system, as with the general withdrawl of proletarian labor, the system would come crashing down. 75% or more of the planets food supply for example comes from just 12 species; 5 animal species and 7 plants (UN 2014, Uppsala University, many others, various dates).

Today’s pioneers of the concept don’t identify with the modernist Invariance...

I understand the article was written in response to EFICC/IP, but I just wanted to make clear I do identify with the modern Invariance and Camatte.

To sum up: the “epochal” change from the formal to the real domination of capital was one which had already occurred when Marx was writing, since it was the same thing as the transition from manufacture to modern industry, which took place at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century.

I think this is a mischaracterization. How would you all respond to me proposing real subsumption began in total much later than that...perhaps like the early `90s?

Non ex hoc mundi
One more bit.

Just to clarify that last sentence or two; (after damn near confusing myself with it) I've come to the point of feeling comfortable to the point of relaying/proposing a 'third' demarcation after formal and real domination. Real domination of course started as early as the original ICC article points out. I'd still suggest the process of real domination is now complete in total. Which brings us to this 'third' demarcation again.

This is after all the function of decadence and decomposition, yes?

capitalism's world conquest

I think I see what you are getting at....the point of the article you quote was to show that the process of real domination begins in the ascendant phase of capital. But it's also true that the process continues throughout the next two centuries. I think that this could be seen as a dimension of what Rosa Luxemburg is getting at - that as the capital/labour relationship reaches total domination of all aspects of economic and social life across the planet, the closer the system comes towards a dead end. 

Non ex hoc mundi
Right, so, does the ICC's

Yes, thanks Alf.

Right, so, does the ICC's decadence theory have the main purpose of describing this period after real domination becomes total, or is it meant for something else?

As far as I know, Marx did not mention a specific process which would come between the real domination of capital and hypothetical communism.

Put another way, when (my pal) Camatte describes the beginning of a new period or epoch being reached today, one of 'domestication', marked by what he describes as a process of 'capital becoming autonomous', is this attempting to describe the same phenomena the ICC describes in its decadence theory?