User loginAnarchist LibraryAnarchist Events
|
Towards a New Situationist International
2. However, as well as submission, there is also a profound but buried discontent with the petty and idiotic lives that a world subordinated to the production and consumption of commodities obliges us to lead. This misery that dares not speak its name, this festering sense that we are utterly wasting our limited time on earth, may be evaded, repressed, or concealed behind a mask of happiness. It may be treated with therapies, religions, permitted holidays or forbidden drugs, a new family or a new job, or one of a multitude of other changes in our consumption of goods and ideologies. And yet, after everything, it remains. Indeed, a history of the changing means by which our sense of the profound inadequacy of life has been confusedly expressed, avoided and recuperated would be a history of much of the individual and social life of our epoch. As a corollary, the revival of revolutionary contestation precisely depends on the degree to which contemporary dissatisfaction can extricate itself from the consumerist, reformist and escapist forms into which it has been diverted and seduced over the last 30 or more years. In place of revolution, discontent with everyday life has attempted to find remedies in the new forms of work and consumption held out by a rejuvenated and increasingly sophisticated capitalism. The practical negation of this misadventure is the road to social revolution in our times. 3. As one response to this desperate state of affairs, I propose the formation of an international association of situationist revolutionaries, a new situationist international. Such an association would in the first instance seek to catalyze the efforts of its presently scattered and isolated members by bringing them into intensive collaboration and discussion with each other. The efforts of revolutionaries to understand and contest the impoverishment of everyday life under contemporary capitalism (and first and foremost the impoverishment of their own everyday lives) have proved palpably inadequate. Notably, over the past several decades, revolutionary theory has almost completely failed to keep abreast of developments within advanced capitalism. In particular, it has failed to engage with the devastatingly stultifying notions of consumable happiness and human possibility with which the spectacle has come to secure an uneasy acquiescence amongst much of the working class. The new international would seek to intensify and deepen the theory and practice of its members; and to give them a cumulative breadth and power. At the same time, it would aim to catalyze dissatisfaction outside its ranks by providing inspiration to dissent, disquiet to obedience, and the beginnings of a practical theory to individuals who are moving towards the conclusion that social revolution is the only remedy for the poverty of their lives. 4. The emphasis on a situationist international is a reflection of the simple fact that the thought of the first situationist international provides an unsurpassed theoretical resource for revolutionaries seeking to engage with capitalism under conditions of commodity abundance. In the twenty five or so years since the development of the situationist project was largely abandoned, other theoretical lineages have had free reign to develop a more acute successor to it. Their efforts have only served to demonstrate the startling bankruptcy of Marxism, anarchism, academia, the new social movements, and the arts. Of course, here and there one can find small fragments of insight that can be put to good use when torn out of their original context and reintegrated into a new critique. In general, however, the legacy of self-styled revolutionary thought in the last quarter of a century is one of anachronism, obscurantism and timid reformism. It has not advanced the revolutionary critique of the capitalism that actually exists but fled from it. 5. In 1964 the Situationist International said of the term ‘situationist’: “For the moment, however ridiculous a label may be, ours has the merit of drawing a sharp line between the previous incoherence and a new level of rigour” (Questionnaire, Internationale Situationniste #9, 1964). One can hardly say the same today. As situationist thought has been abandoned by individuals with revolutionary intent, it has been taken up in traduced form by legions of students, academics, architects, artists and commentators. Its critique of alienated everyday life has been discarded, attenuated or rendered devoid of subversive consequences for the everyday lives of those who handle it. As a result, far from being a badge of rigour, the adjective ‘situationist’ is now typically to be found attached to specialised tools of toothless analysis or justifications for inane artistic or leisure activities. This may seem to make it an unpropitious moment to take up again the situationist label. However, revolutionary theory cannot simply ignore or lament its recuperation by the dominant society; rather, it must confront it. One virtue of a revival of an avowedly situationist revolutionary movement is precisely that it will bring these two hostile forces into open conflict with each other. In this way, the sophisticated critique of modern conditions can be cleansed of the repellent taint of academicism and returned to the streets, where it belongs. At the same time, a revivified situationist theoretico-practice must engage with the proliferating reformist ideologies that address the distinctively modern maladies of everyday life without indulging in any overt reference to situationist theory. As the more obvious costs and miseries of the expanded consumer society of the past thirty years become flagrant, pseudo-critiques of (and pseudo-remedies for) ‘consumerism’, ‘affluenza’ and stubbornly static levels of ‘happiness’ and ‘well-being’ increasingly clamour for the attention of the spectator and the policy-maker. In response, those who believe that the poverties of everyday life are matters of correctable excesses within the world of alienated work and alienated consumption must find themselves opposed by the proponents of a revolutionary solution for the interconnected misery of everything that exists. Those who would reform social, political and economic life so as to prevent our uniquely modern discontents from running out of control must be met as enemies by those who would have such discontents develop a conscious, coherent and practical expression. 6. There can be no question of simply reviving the Situationist International that was dissolved in 1972. It would be absurd to think of the practices, organizational form and theoretical propositions of the situationists as providing a fixed set of prescriptions that need only be dusted down and put back into use. Indeed, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that revolutionary theory and practice stands at present in a state of perfectly scandalous dereliction. For example, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2009 American children aged 8-18 spend an average of 7.38 hours a day, seven days a week, using the various media the society of the spectacle makes available. The corresponding statistics for adults are hardly more encouraging. Where can one find radical critiques of the particular ideas of contentment and excitement, or the general forms of desirable life, that this torrent of alienated representation endlessly parades before its spectators? Where might the satisfied spectator or the burgeoning malcontent encounter a revolutionary theory that is sympathetically alive to what contemporary spectacles promise (and to some degree deliver) and yet is uncompromising in its critique of the lived realities? Where might workers weary of their unhappy dance to an unchosen dirge find a critique of work that extends as far as the well-paid and secure employment that remains preponderant in the advanced western economies? It would not be very much of an exaggeration to answer: nowhere. Inaugurating a modernized contestation of the advanced, affluent capitalism of our era will be at the heart of what the new international seeks to do. Everything must be reconsidered and brought up to date so as to ensure we have the theoretical and practical tools that are required today. The lessons of the past (including those of the failure of the Situationist International) must be learned. The real social changes that have occurred since the heyday of the Situationist International (and their consequences for revolutionary theory and practice) must be recognized. 7. The new situationist international cannot be a collectivity that serves as a cause for the militant, a shelter for the passive, a source of vicarious status or activity for its members generally, or a self-perpetuating mechanism for organizing the organization. As an association of individuals, it would serve to bring together the particular persons who happen to be its members at any given time for the particular purposes of producing theory (both individually or in concert with one or more other members) and carrying out actions (both individually and in concert with other members). Theoretical statements and other practical actions would be carried out in the individual names of those who produce them, and on their responsibility alone. Every member would be expected to participate in the life of the association by using it for one or more of the purposes for which it was created. Every decision that concerns the association should be taken by the members as a whole, either directly or by way of mandated delegates, and in general the association should be egalitarian in nature. Members would be free to carry out projects outside the framework of the international and to form other associations to do so. 8. The new international must recognize that there are no currents within the intelligentsia or amongst artists from which an ‘avant-garde’ might be formed. That is all dead and gone; art and the academy are now wholly integrated within the dominant society. In any event, every last vestige of the unmitigatedly disastrous notion of the vanguard party must now be repudiated. The new international would not be “a general staff”, not even one “that does not want troops” (The Counter-Situationist Campaign in Various Countries, Internationale Situationniste #8, 1963). It would not be a separate grouping of intellectuals whose thought and instructions the proletariat need only absorb and act on. It would not consist of individuals who claim to possess unusual abilities or see themselves as having already transcended the sordid, stupid and miserable lives that everybody else leads. Rather, its members would be, and would see themselves as being, perfectly ordinary proletarians. Their arrival at the view that social revolution is necessary, desirable and possible in advance of others is of no more significance than the lumps that sometimes appear when a sauce is first stirred; they may be early but they are not special. As can be seen from the long history of failed revolutions (a history that has repeatedly seen revolutionary workers fatally abandon the making of decisions to specialised bodies who claim to represent them), social revolution depends on proletarians acting and thinking at all stages by and for themselves. For this reason, although the new situationist international will publish its theory, it must do so solely in order to encourage other proletarians who wish to understand and suppress their misery to pursue an autonomous contestation of their own alienation. In the revolutionary army without officers, drills or uniforms, there must only be foot-soldiers. 9. It might be objected that a proposal such as this one can avoid an abhorrent abstraction only to the extent that it is an immediately realizable suggestion for a collaboration between known individuals. It might also be objected that it is not obvious whether and where associates in a new international can at present be found. If I fail to heed these weighty objections, it is because I hope that the public appearance of the notion of a new international will, over time, help to crystallize from the currents of history the forces it needs for its realization. 10. In the event that individuals prepared to create and work actively within a twenty-first century situationist international do come forward, I would suggest that the next step should be a conference between the interested parties. This should preferably be a face-to-face meeting; but if that proves impracticable, it could be conducted by post or e-mail. Each participant should be required to present beforehand his or her written views on (a) the minimum definition of ‘situationist’ for the purposes of the association; (b) the best organizational structure and procedures to be adopted; (c) the practical purposes to which the association should be put; (d) the contribution (theoretical, practical or financial) that he or she personally proposes to make to the association in its initial stages; and (e) any other questions that he or she wishes to have discussed at the conference. Individuals who are unable or unwilling to do this, or cannot specify any concrete steps which they themselves would take within the proposed association, should be excluded from the conference. We might save ourselves a little time by excluding from the outset anyone who holds an academic position or is a public practitioner of art. Such assiduous prostration before the dominant forms of diminished thought and action is necessarily inconsistent with participation in an association whose only goal is the revolutionary transformation of the totality of everyday life. At the same time, it may well be necessary to defend the incipient association from being overwhelmed by that widespread credulousness that seems prepared to believe almost anything, as long as it places capitalism or the state in an unfavourable light. As a convenient rule of thumb, the new international might reject anyone who believes that the attacks of 11th September, 2001 were orchestrated by the American state. Nothing but confusion can be expected from an individual whose standards of acceptable evidence and argument are this low. 11. If an accord can at length be reached as to the terms and form of a new international, its inauguration should be made contingent on the successful production of a first issue of a journal. A journal is, of course, not an end in itself. On the contrary, it is merely one of the means by which its writers and readers seek to develop firstly a practical understanding of the constituent elements of contemporary alienation and the forces of repression, mystification, seduction and pseudo-critique that it brings to bear against dissatisfaction and revolt, and secondly a practical communication with other radically disaffected individuals and groups. Yet, an association that cannot even produce a single issue of a journal is unlikely to achieve anything else of substance. It would be better if it never was born. 12. If serious discussions about the creation of a new situationist international are entered into, everything written above will be open to debate and alteration. Wayne Spencer No copyright. |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the monthly Anarchist News Digest. |
Hey author dude, you
Hey author dude, you probably should check out notbored.org. Bill Brown wrote a pro-situationist manifesto not too long ago and it was pretty good.
how can he be
how can he be proto-situationist if there was a situationist international in the 50s and 60s?
in any case he's a nü proto-situationist if the term even makes sense...
reread, zurv.
reread, zurv.
it says "pro-situationist",
it says "pro-situationist", not "proto-situationist".
Also, I'm glad to see the Situationists coming back into "popularity" (if you can call it that). Hopefully, though, we don't try to repeat their existence, but rather learn from it. Just like the rest of history.
I think Womabt meant the
I think Womabt meant the thing about the virtual spectacle http://www.notbored.org/virtual-spectacle.html
Yes, more 1968 France
Yes, more 1968 France worship is definitely what this community needs.
NEW IDEAS ARE COUNTER REVOLUTIONARY
"GENERIC COMMUNIST
"GENERIC COMMUNIST ENCOURAGEMENT CHEER! (always try to keep it under 5 words please).
That's a better chant than
That's a better chant than most leftist ones. The anti-war ones are always terrible.
Which is why the anti-war movement failed. People are too embarrassed to go out and protest because of the stupidity of the chants.
Seriously though. Chants suck. Next person that says "two four six eight don't wage war, educate!" is going to get a rock tossed at them.
at my campus, the people who
at my campus, the people who had organized the rally and deigned them selves its "marshals" would chant the mmost boring inane shit
(what do we want...higher education! when do we want it...now!)
and then curse at all of their rally-mates for not participating in the chant they started.
who needs the cops and repressive governments when we are our own worst enemies?
Chanting should be done
Chanting should be done anarchistically so that instead of hearing a pathetically simple rhythmically structured platitude (whose streets?....) authorities and passersby hear a mass of inarticulate rage as everyone shouts their own various opinions.
It should be an obvious conclusion by now that even if a black bloc was to memorize some work by Kropotkin, or Tiqqun, or the Situationists, etc. and all manage to shout it in perfect time (or have some duesch with a megaphone yell it perfectly clearly) the media and most people informed by them would still say “I dunno, you can never tell what these people are saying.”
So since we don’t think that there is a benign government of people listening to what we are saying or hordes of angry proles ready to join in, why don’t we just use marches for our own enjoyment? Simply for the purpose of being in a public place together, like one of those meetings or bookfairs, but in people’s faces? We wouldn’t need to be a group of conscientious citizens trying to raise social consciousness (cause that would be lame). Instead we would just be a large group of people taking a night out on the town.
So next time you are at a march and some liberal is trying to get you to yell some conformist slogan that may mean almost nothing to you, just turn to the nearest prole that your march is trying to enlighten and yell "Yar@a*#baha!braba-the government"
I think they'll know what you mean.
I nominate the preceding as
I nominate the preceding as the official reply of the day :)
and if we are doing it for
and if we are doing it for the lulz and not for the enlightenment of the masses or to demand things from a government who doesn't care, WE CAN MAKE DIVERSIONS TO FULFILL OUR NEEDS:
-a quick stop into a sweatshop-using clothes store to loot
-a swarm through a grocery store for food and alcohol
-a swarm through an electronics store and out the back door with laptops and new cameras
etc...
etc...
why march through the streets, when the good stuff is inside the stores we are passing?
BRING ON THE LOOTING-AS-PROTEST MOVEMENT.
Exactly. For all this time
Exactly. For all this time we have observed more than anyone else how willing authorities are to put a completely illogical amount of cops and money against people who only threaten them symbolically, and how often have we taken advantage of it? Instead of thinking "hey they'll put hundreds of their people in a place where nothing is really happening, how can we take advantage?" we get starry eyed people who say "look, they are throwing an entire army against our symbolic force, it is obviously because they are very concerned about symbolic defeat."
Not really. Ever watched a black bloc sandwiched between a mass group of neutral protesters and an army in football gear and wondered: why the fuck don't they just go break shit somewhere else while everyone is preoccupied with this stupid prick waving fight?
I suppose almost all of us have. I have often wondered whether anarchists could develop smart-mob tactics, and use the collective efforts of many unidentified people to cause real physical damage and expropriate property in a short window of time. Then you actually start discussing it with people and you realize they have bought into the symbolic ritualized resistance hook line and sinker. I don't think that there is necessarily no use for it but we have allowed it to take our struggle to a symbolic and ideological realm totally separate from our everyday lives through the mythical idea of a revolution to come, and then we wonder why people aren't eager to join in.
IMHO if revolution is a useful concept at all it could only be as an everyday struggle and not a prophecy about the imagined future. A looting-as-protest movement sounds like a great way of doing that.
welcome to the nouveau
welcome to the nouveau situationiste
http://vruz.tumblr.com/search/situationist
Is it anarchy if I mix
Is it anarchy if I mix cherry's in with generic soda?
captcha: OJ WUZ INOCENT
Didn't they disband? Oh
Didn't they disband? Oh well, SDS is back, why not?
My captcha is "be nonunion"
"The efforts of
"The efforts of revolutionaries to understand and contest the impoverishment of everyday life under contemporary capitalism (and first and foremost the impoverishment of their own everyday lives) have proved palpably inadequate. Notably, over the past several decades, revolutionary theory has almost completely failed to keep abreast of developments within advanced capitalism."
Before writing manifestos, it is useful to come out from under one's rock:
http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/
Whether 'The Coming
Whether 'The Coming Insurrection' is a successful analysis of developments within advanced capitalism seems a pretty debatable question. .
no it doesn't.
no it doesn't.
I love TCI - but its just
I love TCI - but its just not nihilistic or materialist enough for me to be satisfied... Throw that in and you got yourself a deal!
materialist! *gasp* that's
materialist! *gasp* that's like a swear word 'round these parts! EVERYONE knows that as long as you have the right ideas it doesn't matter what you do, because you're THINKING the right things!
...right...?
...somebody...?
for real though, good to see other materialists out there (other than leninists, who aren't really materialists anyway).
And i agree 100%. Nihilist Communism FTW.
word, i'm totally somewhere
word, i'm totally somewhere between NC and TCI. trying to figure out how to knit it all together...
There's more than a few out
There's more than a few out there. At some point in thinking about this shit you have to get beyond the moralizing ideology of traditional anarchism. Georges Bataille is fascinating, his nihilistic materialism seems to run parallel to anarchist thought in many ways, but where anarchists see what they want to see Bataille sees the visceral, unrelenting catastrophe of existence that is based on contradiction and doesn't necessarily offer any escape. Can't remember whether it was WeWillWin Anarchy or Saint Schmidt that first posted about him on this site, but thanks to whichever it was for introducing him to me. Who knows perhaps we will yet reach a point where we see communes with actions based on ideas of transgression and sovereignty as opposed to traditional ideas of building a utopian movement that will continue after we die.
"Who knows perhaps we will
"Who knows perhaps we will yet reach a point where we see communes with actions based on ideas of transgression and sovereignty as opposed to traditional ideas of building a utopian movement that will continue after we die."
That would be wonderful. The amount of negativity that has arose recently is inspiring, but will always be frustrated so long as it remains purely ideal. Dialectical materialism is all well and good, but as far as negation goes, base materialism must be terribly embraced.
"Can't remember whether it was WeWillWin Anarchy or Saint Schmidt that first posted about him on this site, but thanks to whichever it was for introducing him to me."
It was Saint Schimdt and it was him that made me look further into Bataille than I had beforehand.
contributing: FUCK YOU
contributing:
FUCK YOU
Antonin Artaud's Theater of
Antonin Artaud's Theater of Cruelty. Read that shit. You can find it somewhere online, it's from the Theatre and it's Double.
Perhaps you'd be interested
Perhaps you'd be interested in Georges Bataille, the sage of expenditure?
http://aaaaarg.org/files/textz/5250-visions_of_excess.pdf
p. 116
I know this is old, but I
I know this is old, but I just stumbled on this discussion now when narcissistically searching myself. I am working on a huge research project on Georges Bataille. I will let you know when I am finished if you'd like.
I don't know about retaining
I don't know about retaining the name "situationist". But this, along with a call for a new International I saw put out over the Anarchist Academics list seem like two ideas that would mix well. As for a new International with strong situ and anarchu substance... maybe with how much is going on globally right now that would be really important to try out! Can we realy discuss this here without the stereotyping please?
Btw: I like the specificly anti-avant gard idea here in this call.
-Squee
construyez le parti
construyez le parti
'The Coming Insurrection' in
'The Coming Insurrection' in my view is not a serious or substantive contribution to modern revolutionary theory. It just makes things too damned easy for itself! After showing us all these zombie voter-worker-shoppers in thrall to the system, it waives a magic want and proclaims that everyone (including all those contented zombies) knows the system is fucked and is even busy planning for a general civil war. Worse still, this generalized civil war exists only in their heads. But it has its uses. Notably it allows them to imagine that the very ordinary self-sufficient communes they advocate are revolutionary, despite the fact that they have been around for decades and have changed nothing. C'mon, we gotta do better than wishful thinking and rank self-contradiction dressed up in obscurantist scraps left over from French philosophy seminars!
here here!
here here!
tl;dr Create something new,
tl;dr
Create something new, don't revive a failed meme. Even if it's only in name, reusing the Situationist International is counter to the point of the Situationist International. It was. It isn't. Something new can be.
I'm joining right now, and
I'm joining right now, and as my first task, I am ex-communicating all of you.
Disbanded.
/thread
pro-situ joke of the year:
pro-situ joke of the year: "At the same time, it may well be necessary to defend the incipient association from being overwhelmed by that widespread credulousness that seems prepared to believe almost anything, as long as it places capitalism or the state in an unfavourable light." har-dee-har-har. It would seem that Wayne's "the incipient association" ain't being "overwhelmed" by anything other than yawns and giggles.
Your use of the phrase
Your use of the phrase "pro-situ" seems pretty loose, but otherwise you're on the money. Wonder what this (lack of) response tells us? What don't comrades like about the idea of a new SI adapated for modern times? What are they up to that's better, in their own eyes?
>Wonder what this (lack of)
>Wonder what this (lack of) response tells us?
maybe people don't respond to something allegedly "collective" that is issued by only one person, not a group of co-signatories?
>What don't comrades like about the idea of a new SI adapated for modern times?
maybe the SI was already "adapted for modern times"?
>What are they up to that's better, in their own eyes?
GREECE?
Fair point about the lack of
Fair point about the lack of signatories, although the number of people who sign something doesn't affect whether it's a good idea or not.
SI may well have been up-to-date right down to 1972, but is there really nothing new to say since? Even the SI itself never saw its work and complete. Isn't that kind of complacency just what promoted Debord to come up with the notion of the pro-situ?
Ah, Greece, the most lovely of countries when bathed in flames. But what about those of us who don't live there? And even in Greece itself, don't the insurgents need to develop a better understanding of their practice and the world of the working people who did not join them if they are to go further? A year has now passed with no real development beyond what the first month of riots achieved.
"but is there really nothing
"but is there really nothing new to say since?" since 1972? you've got to be kiddin right? Lots and lots new since 1972. Does 1989 mean anything to do? Or 2001? Course not.
His para 12 suggests he
His para 12 suggests he guessed it wouldn't be standing-room only. It seems more of a medium-term or long-term project.
doesn't para 12 by its very
doesn't para 12 by its very existence violate the Theses on Fuerbach Rule which limits contestants to 11 numbered theses?
By all the dead deities, why
By all the dead deities, why on earth should 'anon' above take such malicious pleasure from the failure of a revolutionary project? This is just the sort of mean spirit that discourages people from trying to launch something new.
by definition, the work of
by definition, the work of the solitary individual Wayne Spencer is not a revolutionary project. any/all revolutionary projects are collective or they is nuthin. As for my malicious pleasure, I takes it where I finds it, not much around these days.
-- Lollipop Man, alias the Long-Haired Sucker.
Fine, Mr Lollipop, but does
Fine, Mr Lollipop, but does that mean that no proposal for a revolutionary project can be entertained until it has been proposed by two or more people? You can see 'em in Greece. Some person cries out "the bastard cops have killed someone, are we gonna let 'em get away with this". But the 50 people standing around reply: "Sorry, until someone seconds you, this is not a revolutionary project and we are only prepared to laugh at your oh so contemptible individualism".
Sounds like a poor excuse for cowardice by a timid soul can't do anything unless someone holds his hand first.
"no proposal for a
"no proposal for a revolutionary project can be entertained until it has been proposed by two or more people?" of course not.
-- Mr Lollipop Man
By insisting that a
By insisting that a revolutionary project be collective from the very point of conception, you've just come up with a new anarchist twist on the old catch 22: "no job without experience, no experience without a job". But your point of view is completely arbitrary. A revolutionary project is one that becomes collective by expressing and involving people's sense of revolt. It's not whether it starts in one person's head that's important, but whether it remains in that person's head. Otherwise we're just hanging around waiting for a miracle to occur, a miracle in which the very same idea enters two or more people's heads and mouths at the same time and place. Why the hell should we insist on such nonsense? ALL revolutionary projects start with one person coming up with them first and then proposing them to others.
Thankfully, as Lollipop is evidently speaking only for himself, by his own standards his views are not part of a revolutionary project. They can therefore be disregarged as the crippling bourgeois nonsense they patently are.
anything you say, Kid,
anything you say, Kid, anything you say.
Mr. L, aka LHS
Situationist International:
Situationist International: Form a New One?
Let’s Not and Say We Did
Wayne Spencer’s call for the formation of a “new Situationist International” (5 March 2010) is an embarrassment. It embodies everything that is wrong with post-situationist thought, and I wouldn’t blame anyone if they dismissed that thought on the basis of it.
Towards a New Situationist International is wrong about the proletariat: the “defining quality of proletarian life” is not “a craven acceptance of the separate commodity economy and the state as unchangeable givens” (Spencer’s thesis #1), but a constant struggle to make a living in an unlivable world. Spencer’s attention is on ideology, not socio-economic conditions, and -- with respect to the proletariat -- he places himself outside of it, as a nay-sayer to its "craven" acceptance, not inside, as an inmate in the same prison.
His text is wrong about the current state of the class struggle: the “discontent with the petty and idiotic lives” that we are obliged to lead is not “buried” (thesis #2), but front-page news: the student occupations movement in America; the on-going rioting and social strife in Greece; the popular demonstrations against the government in Iceland; the social movements in France against detention centers and expulsions; et al. Spencer speaks of a world that was destroyed more than 40 years ago.
His text is wrong about the current state of critical theory: “revolutionary theory” has not “almost completely failed to keep abreast of developments within advanced capitalism” (thesis #3); it is incorrect to say “revolutionary theory and practice stands at present in a state of perfectly scandalous dereliction” (thesis #6). In point of fact, since the dissolution of the SI, revolutionary theory has gone on to produce useful critiques of artificial terrorism, nuclear power, and political sovereignty, as well as such useful concepts as biopolitics, deterritorialization, and the integrated spectacle. Spencer speaks as if revolutionary theory stopped cold in 1972, which of course would come as a surprise (or insult) to Guy Debord, the ex-situationist who continued to develop “situationist” theory well after the SI dissolved and who personally associated with at least one other major critical theorist of the era (Giorgio Agamben). As for revolutionary practice, which Spencer hardly mentions, the revolutionary movement has produced tactics that were unknown before 1972: Black Blocs, flashmobs, and computer viruses, among many others.
His text is wrong about the situationists: one cannot speak of “the thought” of the SI, as Spencer does (thesis #4), because that “thought” changed several times between 1957 and 1972: after Debord’s contact with Socialisme ou Barbarie in 1960 (the theme of workers councils); after the admission of Raoul Vaneigem in 1961 (the critique of everyday life); after the break with Henri Lefebvre in 1963 (the abandonment of unitary urbanism); after the admission of young revolutionaries and anarchists in 1966 and then again in 1968 (the emphasis on student life, occupations and general assemblies); and, of course, after the birth of the “pro-situ” phenomenon (the critique of the cadre). Spencer speaks as if everyone understands what “situationist theory” is, but he himself fails to outline its basic principles.
His text is wrong about post-situationists: “situationist thought” has not been “abandoned by individuals with revolutionary intent” (thesis #5). It certainly hasn’t been “abandoned” by ex-situs such as Raoul Vaneigem, Jacqueline de Jong, Donald Nicholson-Smith, and T.J. Clark, or by first-generation pro-situs such as Michel Bounan, Ken Knabb and Michel Prigent (not to mention yours truly, who accounts himself a second-generation pro-situ). Spencer makes no mention of the French anarchist website Jura Libertaire: it consistently mixes together news items about current anti-capitalist and/or anti-state actions with situationist texts from long ago. The situationists are also dear to those (do not doubt their “revolutionary intent”!) who maintain the websites called Les Amis des Nemesis, Jules Bonnot de la Bande, and Debord-Encore. Spencer writes as if he doesn’t read any other language than English. (Was his text translated into any other language? Not even French?! How “international” can this be?)
His text is anti-situationist when it comes to matters of organization: the SI never allowed its members the abilities to carry out “theoretical and other practical actions […] in the individual names of those who produce them, and on their responsibility alone” and/or “carry out projects outside the framework of the international and to form other associations to do so” (thesis #7). Spencer writes as if he wants to found an organization that is “situationist” in name only, no matter how well he recites certain catechisms (thesis #8).
Last, but not least, his text is worse than a monologue: it is a sterile dialogue with himself (“it might be objected that such a proposal”; “it might also be objected”; “if I fail to heed these weighty objections”) (thesis #9). This echoes Spencer’s own situation: not a member of any organization, no matter how small, but an isolated individual. It is easy to foresee what would take place at a “conference between interested parties” that was based upon written answers to Spencer’s five questions, so much so that a face-to-face meeting wouldn’t be necessary (or so he claims): there would be a deluge of useless paper. Everyone would read what had been written and submitted, sure. But who would judge what was good and what was bad? Spencer himself? Note well his sudden recourse to the word “we” when the subject of whom to “exclud[e] from the outset” comes up. “We might save ourselves a little time by excluding from the outset anyone who . . .” (thesis #10). I have a better idea. Let’s exclude from the outset anyone who would exclude anyone else from the outset.
Bill Not Bored
16 March 2010
A point-by-point rejoinder
A point-by-point rejoinder to this critique can be found at http://significantfailure.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-break-seals-of-mute-despair.html.