Do you want me to speculate on the logical conclusions of certain ideological perspectives such as Bordigism and Camatte's critiques, or do you want me to draw my own conclusions without regard for fidelity to them? Because I can attempt either, but I prefer the latter because I have no interest in upholding Bordigist thought or defending Camatte's primitivism (both of which I am also ruthlessly critical) nor in constraining myself within conceptual scopes that are more about dead textualism than living thought. I loot and appropriate what I want from Camatte's texts, as I do from all the others, with disregard for their intent and goals and a desire to draw my own conclusions through my own heterodox, syncretic theorisations therefrom. I am just as hostile to Camatte's reactionary primitivism as I am toward Bordiga's Leninist antidemocratism, even though both have influenced my thought and shaped it through my responses to them. So again, if what you want is for me to trip into a trance and bind my mind to a particular dogma so that I can see through its eyes and consider the thoughts therein, I can try, but I would rather my thoughts be my own and examine these ideas through my own vision.
In brief, I think Camatte provides a critical Marxian (and, later, post-Marxian) critique of Capital, the possibility for global revolution, and the timeline we currently inhabit in a way more palatable to Marxist and leftist perspectives than Nick Land likely would be. Nonetheless, both theoreticians resort to conclusions to which I am opposed, but I know that simply endeavouring against them is intellectually insufficient (and dialectically constipated); and for that reason I have sought to work through
them toward the end of drawing conclusions which better satisfy my desires, often by reading them through the various lenses I create and collect.
As for Camatte's primitivist communism being a logical conclusion of Bordigism? In brief, I hesitate to connect the two in any direct and linear trajectory because both are more complex than such an analysis assumes (and Bordigism is not as monolithic and orthodox as it may initially seem). Moreover, Camatte's own conclusions seem to be drawn from his own readings and theorisations beyond
the Bordigist framework -- if that were not the case, then he would have never broke from Bordigism and, eventually, Marxism entirely and toward a new theory of primitive communal living.
This may not be surprising, however, given that every model, framework, ideology, or narrative -- except, perhaps, those defined by their own recursive processual overcoming -- has its limits and will eventually "conclude" at a cul-de-sac of theory and praxis which will only continue to deepen and thicken where it finally takes root and whose further horizontal pursuit necessitates its own overcoming and thus its own sublation/abolition (specifically: Aufheben
). Camatte seemed to have reached that conclusion, or at least a
conclusion, and broke through it
into a radically new perspective. In this sense, Camatte's own conclusions are less a logical conclusion of Bordigism as it is a possible line of flight out
of it, a
Bordigism that itself derives historically from
Bordigism yet is no longer bound to
it (and thus Bordigism is not bound by
So, if you are worried that you or those around you who may be Bordigists may someday metamorphose into Camattean primitivists, perhaps this indeterminacy -- this contingency -- will allay your fears. Yes, one can
lead to the other, at least in part, as Camatte himself shows; but this is not the only way. Anyway, one can be influenced by Bordiga and Camatte while not succumbing to either's conclusions, and indeed synthesise entirely new conclusions that pursue radically different directions. I am a testament to that fact.
Does that suffice?