Situationists/ 1968 Paris

[Stain]

So I recently read The Society of Spectacle and loved it. But I'm interested in the opposing view that is usually offered by the Orthodox Marxists. Does anybody know a well balanced critique of them or of why 1968 failed to be a revolution?

[Ostrinski]

I read Society of the Spectacle a couple months ago and I can't say I noted anything worth remembering. Debord basically just says the same thing over and over, which is that what we perceive as reality is really just an artificial representation of itself.. or something. Honestly I don't see how a work of intellectual masturbation such as Society of the Spectacle is supposed to be practically useful to us.

[Stain]

I read Society of the Spectacle a couple months ago and I can't say I noted anything worth remembering. Debord basically just says the same thing over and over, which is that what we perceive as reality is really just an artificial representation of itself.. or something. Honestly I don't see how a work of intellectual masturbation such as Society of the Spectacle is supposed to be practically useful to us.

I personally liked how he equated the working class having bourgeoise culture when they participate in bourgeoise actives in their free time. About how even the culture is alienated, not just the production process. Especially when I look at that reading in our current societal decay with neoliberal mindset, sports culture, reality telesion shows, music being a marketing ploy than authentic, anti-intellectualism in masses, etc. But I agree that I'm not sure of what practical use to the masses.

[ed miliband]

So I recently read The Society of Spectacle and loved it. But I'm interested in the opposing view that is usually offered by the Orthodox Marxists. Does anybody know a well balanced critique of them or of why 1968 failed to be a revolution?

where have you heard about this "opposing view ... offered by the orthodox marxists"? i'm not sure many "orthodox marxists" have engaged with debord's work, and in fact, beyond all the art stuff and that, debord wasn't quite an "unorthodox marxist" himself.

secondly, it's wrong to tie up '68, the spectacle and the situationists. yes, there was situationist involvement in may '68, but they were hardly a factor in the failure of '68 "to be a revolution".


I personally liked how he equated the working class having bourgeoise culture when they participate in bourgeoise actives in their free time. About how even the culture is alienated, not just the production process. Especially when I look at that reading in our current societal decay with neoliberal mindset, sports culture, reality telesion shows, music being a marketing ploy than authentic, anti-intellectualism in masses, etc. But I agree that I'm not sure of what practical use to the masses.

well there's one of the problems; the idea that beyond "bourgeoise culture", beyond the spectacle, there's a real culture/society/world view/whatever, "real desires", waiting to be discovered, stripped away. there's something essentialist about that. i mean "music being a marketing ploy than authentic" -- what's authenticity?

secondly, see folk like clr james who offer an alternative idea to the one that mass culture is a sign the working class have all been brainwashed or whatever... mass culture is shaped by working class activity.

[Blake's Baby]

So I recently read The Society of Spectacle and loved it. But I'm interested in the opposing view that is usually offered by the Orthodox Marxists. Does anybody know a well balanced critique of them or of why 1968 failed to be a revolution?

There was no possibility of 1968 being a revolution as at that point the working class was emerging from a profound 45-year period of counter-revolution; furthermore the post-war boom was only just beginning to unravel.

The working class was in no position to launch a revolution, because of both the subjective conditions (the consciousness of the proletariat) and the objective conditions (the post-war boom had temporarily allowed for the stabilisation of the economy); '68 ws the beginning of a process not the end (more like 1905 or even 1871, than 1917, in that sense). It's a source of lessons, and inspiration, and even the source of the refoundation of revolutionary politics, but it's not a 'failed revolution'.

[l'Enfermé]

There was no revolutionary period in 1968, moreover, there was no mass working class party movement to lead and organize the proletariat. The best case scenario in 1968 was a regime change, but the French weren't even able to achieve that, so you have to ask yourself, was May 1968 really this glorious event that "the left" tries to paint it as, or should this myth be disregarded and instead we be made to open our eyes and see 1968 for what it was: an impotent blunder.

[ed miliband]

There was no revolutionary period in 1968, moreover, there was no mass working class party movement to lead and organize the proletariat. The best case scenario in 1968 was a regime change, but the French weren't even able to achieve that, so you have to ask yourself, was May 1968 really this glorious event that "the left" tries to paint it as, or should this myth be disregarded and instead we be made to open our eyes and see 1968 for what it was: an impotent blunder.

ya of course the biggest wildcat strike in history can simply be reduced to an "impotent blunder" cos youse weren't there to lead the ignorant masses.

[The Douche]

I read Society of the Spectacle a couple months ago and I can't say I noted anything worth remembering. Debord basically just says the same thing over and over, which is that what we perceive as reality is really just an artificial representation of itself.. or something. Honestly I don't see how a work of intellectual masturbation such as Society of the Spectacle is supposed to be practically useful to us.

Now, I don't mean this to be rude, but... you just didn't get it (and there is nothing wrong with that, I still don't feel like I have fully grasped all that it presents and I've read it twice). Its not "intellectual masturbation" (well, not any more than any other piece of higher theory) its about alienation and mediation, and those are pretty important topics if you want to deal with mass society and the post-fordist world.

[ed miliband]

society of the spectacle is more useful to the working class than lars lih on lenin.

[The Douche]

society of the spectacle is more useful to the working class than lars lih on lenin.

I haven't read Lars Lih, but society of the spectacle is a bit wordy and the language is a bit academic. I don't know how much use the text itself has to the class (in a broad way, like, I dunno how useful the book is to the high school dropout who rings people up at burger king), but the ideas in it are extremely useful to the militants of the class, and we ought to figure out a way to make those ideas accessible to the cashier at burger king.

I know I'm being pedantic, but yeah...

To write it off as intellectual masturbation is foolish, but understandable.

[ed miliband]

I haven't read Lars Lih, but society of the spectacle is a bit wordy and the language is a bit academic. I don't know how much use the text itself has to the class (in a broad way, like, I dunno how useful the book is to the high school dropout who rings people up at burger king), but the ideas in it are extremely useful to the militants of the class, and we ought to figure out a way to make those ideas accessible to the cashier at burger king.

I know I'm being pedantic, but yeah...

To write it off as intellectual masturbation is foolish, but understandable.

i was trolling, don't worry.

i agree with what you said, but i can't really remember much about society of the spectacle. i remember reading it and enjoying it because i dug debord's dialectical turns of phrase, but yeah... i don't remember much else about it, other than finding the idea of "real desires" or whatever a bit dodgy and detecting a bit too much frankfurt school snobbery for my liking.

that said, as to making its ideas "accessible to the cashier at burger king", check out the british show 'black mirror' -- in particular the second episode. the writers had definitely been reading sots.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

When I first read it I also thought it was intellectual masturbation. On my second reading years later I found that it was just Debord's writing style that I took issue with and was preventing me from grasping his points. Reading anything the French write can be rage inducing if you're not ready to put up with some bullshit from the get-go.

[l'Enfermé]

ya of course the biggest wildcat strike in history can simply be reduced to an "impotent blunder" cos youse weren't there to lead the ignorant masses.
Seeing as how it didn't amount to anything and actually further weakened the position of the proletariat in France, yeah, there's nothing else to call it but a fucking blunder, since you know, it was a defeat for us. Not only did May 68 not damage the Gaullist government, the Gaullist party actually came out stronger out of it(and won the greatest victory in French history several weeks after the May spectacle - they gained 110 fucking seats in the June 23-30 legislative elections 1968). Just because anarchists like to masturbate about it in the 21st century that doesn't mean May 1968 wasn't a blunder and total failure and a crushing defeat for the working class.

[ed miliband]

Seeing as how it didn't amount to anything and actually further weakened the position of the proletariat in France, yeah, there's nothing else to call it but a fucking blunder, since you know, it was a defeat for us. Not only did May 68 not damage the Gaullist government, the Gaullist party actually came out stronger out of it(and won the greatest victory in French history several weeks after the May spectacle - they gained 110 fucking seats in the June 23-30 legislative elections 1968). Just because anarchists like to masturbate about it in the 21st century that doesn't mean May 1968 wasn't a blunder and total failure and a crushing defeat for the working class.

better than 1917 leading to the deaths of thousands of revolutionaries, you know?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

68 was a victory against Leninism, in a matter of weeks class conciousness spread amongst workers in a way that eclipsed what the pcf had accomplished in decades.

[ed miliband]

68 was a victory against Leninism, in a matter of weeks class conciousness spread amongst workers in a way that eclipsed what the pcf had accomplished in decades.

and it marked the start of the crisis of keynesianism, what eric hobsbawm would call the 'syndicalism without the syndicalists' of the 70s.

[Ostrinski]

Meh, maybe I was talking out of my ass, or maybe I'm just an idiot and didn't understand it. It also didn't interest me very much, which probably handicapped my motivation to understand it.

That point about the translation from French to English making it harder to understand is probably pretty valid, as I'd heard that before with regard to other French writers.

Also I shouldn't have made that comment about "practical use," as there are many texts that aren't at all practically useful but are helpful for understanding things academically (like Lars Lih, as another comrade said).

[l'Enfermé]

68 was a victory against Leninism, in a matter of weeks class conciousness spread amongst workers in a way that eclipsed what the pcf had accomplished in decades.
What's Lenin got to do with the PCF?


better than 1917 leading to the deaths of thousands of revolutionaries, you know?
The Bolshevik revolutionaries lasted 2 decades before the Stalinists killed them, the Parisian Communards got killed in 2 months, I'd say October 1917 was an a major improvement.

[Mr. Natural]

ed miliband, You wrote that CLR James offered "an alternative idea to the one that mass culture is a sign the working class has been brainwashed or whatever ... mass culture has been shaped by working class activity." (emphasis mine)

If James believed this, he was wrong. Mass culture and working class activity are both increasingly shaped and controlled by the institutions and values of a globalized capitalism. The System now rules, and we lefties must first understand this systemization of capitalist values if we are to develop any viable revolutionary processes.

The entire human species is now being systemically brainwashed. The human species is now mentally as well as physically under the control of The System, and one measure of this is the intellectual conservatism and passivity of the left.

Marx was quite aware of capitalism's systemic effects on the minds of its workers: "The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." (preface, A Contribution To The Critique of Political Economy) There are many such passages in Marx's writings.

CLR James' statement that "mass culture is shaped by working class activity" would apply to anarchist and communist societies where labor is honored, but James is radically wrong when it comes to capitalist societies where labor is imprisoned. In fact, his statement constitutes an idealistic abstraction from the real material relations of our current lives.

My red-green best.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What's Lenin got to do with the PCF?

To whatever extent he's responsible for Leninist organizational strategy I guess.

[Ostrinski]

Lenin=/=Leninism

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I know, you'll notice that I was not the one who invoked his name

[theblackmask]

So I recently read The Society of Spectacle and loved it. But I'm interested in the opposing view that is usually offered by the Orthodox Marxists. Does anybody know a well balanced critique of them or of why 1968 failed to be a revolution?

As you can see from the current conversations, the only Marxist critique of May 1968 is to point out that it didn't succeed, and claim that it wasn't as revolutionary as that of the Bolsheviks. Either that, or to single out the faults of Debord as a person. Marxists simply don't like May 1968 because they weren't really involved. As far as I'm concerned, there is no legitimate "Orthodox Marxist" critique of these events because any critique will be made by outsiders sitting on the sidelines.

Fredy Perlman and Roger Gregoire were actual participants in '68 and have probably one of the most insightful pieces on the events.

http://libcom.org/library/worker-student-action-committees-france-1968-perlman-gregoire


When the people who organized their activities inside an occupied university went to "the workers," either on the barricades, or in the factories, and when they said to "the workers" : "YOU should take over YOUR factories,"Essentially, May 1968 was unable to bridge the gap between workers and students. While universities were opened to the public and the ideas of workers and student was eliminated in schools, this was not translated into society as a whole. While in a free university, a janitor could take classes in physics and teach classes in whatever field he was versed in, in a so-called "free" factory, workers will still expected to behave like workers and maintain production, albeit in a self-managed way.


68 was a victory against LeninismI wouldn't go that far. The SI quickly degenerated into something very similar to the existing Leninist cults, and as stated above, the entire movement was unable to move past the Leninist fetishization of production. To quote Perlman and Gregoire:


By going to "the workers" people saw the workers as a specialized sector of society, they accepted the division of labor.Leninism will not be defeated until the division of labor is defeated. Until we can change production to a point where it is no longer even considered production, the specter of Leninism will always haunt our movements.

[l'Enfermé]

To whatever extent he's responsible for Leninist organizational strategy I guess.
"Leninist organizational strategy" is a fiction invented by ultra-lefts, Anarchists, and more importantly, by Stalinists("Marxist-Leninists"). Most of your primitive conceptions of what "leninist organizational strategy" come from Stalin, and Stalin, as we know, butchered practically the entire party that Lenin built.

[Blake's Baby]

As you can see from the current conversations, the only Marxist critique of May 1968 is to point out that it didn't succeed, and claim that it wasn't as revolutionary as that of the Bolsheviks. Either that, or to single out the faults of Debord as a person. Marxists simply don't like May 1968 because they weren't really involved...

I disagree. I'm a Marxist, and I think '68 was pretty aewesome. Not a revolution, but a mass strike of 8-10 million workers isn't to be sniffed at. Obviously, what was also awesome was the total rejection of the PCF and the union apparatus. The fact that the working class in France almost totally rejected the Stalinist shit of the 'official workers' movement' was a great start.

[theblackmask]

I disagree. I'm a Marxist, and I think '68 was pretty aewesome. Not a revolution, but a mass strike of 8-10 million workers isn't to be sniffed at. Obviously, what was also awesome was the total rejection of the PCF and the union apparatus. The fact that the working class in France almost totally rejected the Stalinist shit of the 'official workers' movement' was a great start.

Obviously some Marxists are down with May 1968, but I was referring to the original poster's request for an "Orthodox Marxist" critique. I probably should have been more clear, I guess.

[l'Enfermé]

As you can see from the current conversations, the only Marxist critique of May 1968 is to point out that it didn't succeed, and claim that it wasn't as revolutionary as that of the Bolsheviks. Either that, or to single out the faults of Debord as a person. Marxists simply don't like May 1968 because they weren't really involved. As far as I'm concerned, there is no legitimate "Orthodox Marxist" critique of these events because any critique will be made by outsiders sitting on the sidelines.
That's not the Marxist critique. The Marxist critique is that in 1968 there was no revolutionary period and that it wasn't much more of a labour dispute. A mere labour dispute is not a revolution. It's not a question of liking or not liking 1968, we like as much as we like any other labour dispute.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I wouldn't go that far. The SI quickly degenerated into something very similar to the existing Leninist cults, and as stated above, the entire movement was unable to move past the Leninist fetishization of production. To quote Perlman and Gregoire:

Leninism will not be defeated until the division of labor is defeated. Until we can change production to a point where it is no longer even considered production, the specter of Leninism will always haunt our movements.

I agree about the SI, I wasn't implying that they were the victory, rather the proof that class consciousness can spread rapidly among workers without the need for an enlightened intelligentsia to safe guard it from the wretched masses was the victory.

I don't know too much about the SI's history but I believe it ended up with Debord and one other guy being the last members who spent their time writing snarky letters and generally just trolling European intellectual circles.:lol:

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

"Leninist organizational strategy" is a fiction invented by ultra-lefts, Anarchists, and more importantly, by Stalinists("Marxist-Leninists"). Most of your primitive conceptions of what "leninist organizational strategy" come from Stalin, and Stalin, as we know, butchered practically the entire party that Lenin built.

It's true that my experience with leninism comes from my time in ml organizations but think you're giving a little too much credit to trotskyist parties with this post. In any case I don't spend too much time hating lenin as an individual, only the professional revolutionaries who worship him.

[theblackmask]

That's not the Marxist critique. The Marxist critique is that in 1968 there was no revolutionary period and that it wasn't much more of a labour dispute. A mere labour dispute is not a revolution. It's not a question of liking or not liking 1968, we like as much as we like any other labour dispute.

Then who exactly gets to decide the qualifier for differentiating between a revolutionary period and a "mere labor dispute"? You are doing exactly what I was talking about by making a "my revolution is more revolutionary than yours" statement. While claiming to like May 1968 "as much as we like any other labour dispute," you are proving that you do , in fact, not like it by classifying it as something not on par with real revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

It wasn't a revolution. Honest. It was a massive wildcat strike, the closest thing we've had in 50 years to a real mass strike, but not a revolution that failed. Not even a 'revolutionary situation'. Maybe, just maybe, a 'pre-revolutionary situation'. But what I'm pretty sure about, was that it was the end of the counter-revolutionary period of the mid-20th century, the working class rediscovering its struggle. But not moving from the deepest counter-revolution to a revolutionary situation in a matter of a couple of weeks.

[ed miliband]

actually, for a decent, thorough critique of may '68 check out mouvement communiste's 'may 68: spot the workers autonomy'

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

The Situationist International dismantled itself as it had achieved as much as it could do. Eventually the members either became attracted by their media status (they couldn't resist taking up the media on their celebrity offer) or lacked the theoretical vigour/self discipline that was needed to maintain such an elite group.

The group was responsible for provoking intense civil disorder, not revolution. It was important because it was another social experiment, one that demonstrated the capabilities of the working class for self organisation. Funnily enough, the far left parties were responsible for impeding the self-organisation of the workers as they wrestled with each other to dominate the movement. Anti-unionism was rampant during May '68.

[TheEmancipator]

I thought situationists said that Mai 68 was actually capitalism at its zenith (through the spectacle) or something like that. Situationists are certainly not Marxists though, since their view of history is not materialist but idealist.

Besides, the student movement, although responsible for the start of it all, completely failed in getting a regime change, which is really the best they could hope for. The existentialist ultra-left refused to vote for the French Communist Party despite numerous concessions from them. De Gaulle was elected with a bigger majority, and his legitimacy to govern France was there for all to see. This was, for a bourgeois romanticist like myself, a very pleasant occurrence, but my head tells me that this was not a revolution - cultural or otherwise - in the slightest.

There is a reason why Mai 68ists proclaimed themselves "Groucho Marxists"...

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I thought situationists said that Mai 68 was actually capitalism at its zenith (through the spectacle) or something like that. Situationists are certainly not Marxists though, since their view of history is not materialist but idealist.

Besides, the student movement, although responsible for the start of it all, completely failed in getting a regime change, which is really the best they could hope for. The existentialist ultra-left refused to vote for the French Communist Party despite numerous concessions from them. De Gaulle was elected with a bigger majority, and his legitimacy to govern France was there for all to see. This was, for a bourgeois romanticist like myself, a very pleasant occurrence, but my head tells me that this was not a revolution - cultural or otherwise - in the slightest.

There is a reason why Mai 68ists proclaimed themselves "Groucho Marxists"...

I believe you have misunderstood what the Situationist International was. The Situationists were not Marxists, Anarchists, Left Communists or Councilists. The were simply Situationists. They didn't ascribe to any one ideology, there was no 'Situationism'. They simply took what they needed from existing ideologies in order to provide them with a means for constructing situations. They had a coherent theoretical base with which they attacked the Capitalist system and created situations from but they did not cement these ideas in a rigid fashion to create an ideology.

Ideology is a set of ideas that can be based on political, religious, economic, et cetera, notions. These ideals are usually fixed streams of thought that individuals, groups, or societies consciously identify themselves as being a part of or collectively embody. This rigidity is, as my interpretation of the Situationists, what they rejected. Their lens may have incorporated Libertarian Marxism, but they were not Libertarian Marxists. They were eclectic if you will, minus negative connotations.

As a result of their theoretical and practical work, they acted as a catalyst resulting in mass civil disobedience, the creation of workers councils in the workplace, the rejection of unions and parties, occupation of universities, the creation of a continuous workers council in the Sorbonne that promoted wildcat strikes and so on. It may not have been revolution, but it was a serious political message that demonstrated the working class ability to organise itself without party or union interference.

[TheEmancipator]

I believe you have misunderstood what the Situationist International was. The Situationists were not Marxists, Anarchists, Left Communists or Councilists. The were simply Situationists. They didn't ascribe to any one ideology, there was no 'Situationism'. They simply took what they needed from existing ideologies in order to provide them with a means for constructing situations. They had a coherent theoretical base with which they attacked the Capitalist system and created situations from but they did not cement these ideas in a rigid fashion to create an ideology.

Ideology is a set of ideas that can be based on political, religious, economic, et cetera, notions. These ideals are usually fixed streams of thought that individuals, groups, or societies consciously identify themselves as being a part of or collectively embody. This rigidity is, as my interpretation of the Situationists, what they rejected. Their lens may have incorporated Libertarian Marxism, but they were not Libertarian Marxists. They were eclectic if you will, minus negative connotations.

Yes, that's what I said, but the OP was asking why Orthodox Marxists oppose the Situationists. Simply because Situationists are not Marxists.


As a result of their theoretical and practical work, they acted as a catalyst resulting in mass civil disobedience, the creation of workers councils in the workplace, the rejection of unions and parties, occupation of universities, the creation of a continuous workers council in the Sorbonne that promoted wildcat strikes and so on. It may not have been revolution, but it was a serious political message that demonstrated the working class ability to organise itself without party or union interference.Most working class folk eventually saw the Situationists as exploiters of proletarian revolution rather than an empowerment of the working classes. Much like Marx himself, the Situationists only tried to use the working class to forward revolution for emancipatory politics. They had no interest in the well-being or dictatorship of proletariat. Except unlike Marx, they did not design a realistic plan for worker or student empowerment, they just asked everybody to "divorce themselves from the Spectacle" by actively promoting the Spectacle itself.

I respect, and even adhere, to much of what the Situationists represent, but they ultimately failed in their goal for revolution.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Yes, that's what I said, but the OP was asking why Orthodox Marxists oppose the Situationists. Simply because Situationists are not Marxists.

What I meant was, they had a materialist philosophy and most of their theory was derived from Marx's later writing, influenced by Dialectical Materialism.




Most working class folk eventually saw the Situationists as exploiters of proletarian revolution rather than an empowerment of the working classes. Much like Marx himself, the Situationists only tried to use the working class to forward revolution for emancipatory politics. They had no interest in the well-being or dictatorship of proletariat. Except unlike Marx, they did not design a realistic plan for worker or student empowerment, they just asked everybody to "divorce themselves from the Spectacle" by actively promoting the Spectacle itself.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyn44dlfcn1qbsawfo1_500.png
Example of an image summarising the effect of the Situationists on the working class.

I would appreciate it if you could explain your statement that most working class folk eventually regarded the Situationists to be exploiters a little further. Could you provide some evidence of this please?


they just asked everybody to "divorce themselves from the Spectacle" by actively promoting the Spectacle itself.


This doesn't make sense, it ignores the existence of workers councils, of the 10 million people who went on strike. Could you explain yourself a bit more here?

[TheEmancipator]

What I meant was, they had a materialist philosophy and most of their theory was derived from Marx's later writing, influenced by Dialectical Materialism.

No more so than any other non-Marxist anti-capitalist writing. Hell, even capitalists agree with most of Marx's critique of Capitalism and its flaws.



http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyn44dlfcn1qbsawfo1_500.png
Example of an image summarising the effect of the Situationists on the working class.Sounds like Russian Nihilism. I do not advocate dictatorship of the proletariat or this ridiculous pseudo-trotskyist conception that somehow the working class are this master class/race that have a mandate to rule the world (which is what the Situationists were against, along with Stalinism of course), but The Situationists had far more to offer than insurrectionist agitating.


I would appreciate it if you could explain your statement that most working class folk eventually regarded the Situationists to be exploiters a little further. Could you provide some evidence of this please? Not exploiters, that was a wrong choice of words, I admit. What I meant by exploitation was this sort of opportunism from them, albeit one that has the human race in general at heart.

The evidence can be seen by the fact that the working classes, particularly the ones who were involved in May 68, did not pursue May 68 to its fullest potential for them. And then the Maoist movements at the time were totally opposed to Situationists, as they saw them as bourgeois intellectuals.



This doesn't make sense, it ignores the existence of workers councils, of the 10 million people who went on strike. Could you explain yourself a bit more here?Situationists believe May 68 to be the zenith of capitalism and its unfolding ("dénouement" in french) precisely because they advocated the tactic of détournement, which is to use the tools utilised by the Spectacle against the spectacle itself.

The 10 million people on strike and workers councils ended up doing the square root of nothing. It happened for a month. While it was a great demonstration that we have the power necessary for revolution, the long term effects were ultimately disappointing. especially when you see that most of the May 68 generation are Left-liberal reformists or businessmen.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

No more so than any other non-Marxist anti-capitalist writing. Hell, even capitalists agree with most of Marx's critique of Capitalism and its flaws.


Sounds like Russian Nihilism. I do not advocate dictatorship of the proletariat or this ridiculous pseudo-trotskyist conception that somehow the working class are this master class/race that have a mandate to rule the world (which is what the Situationists were against, along with Stalinism of course), but The Situationists had far more to offer than insurrectionist agitating.

Not exploiters, that was a wrong choice of words, I admit. What I meant by exploitation was this sort of opportunism from them, albeit one that has the human race in general at heart.

The evidence can be seen by the fact that the working classes, particularly the ones who were involved in May 68, did not pursue May 68 to its fullest potential for them. And then the Maoist movements at the time were totally opposed to Situationists, as they saw them as bourgeois intellectuals.


Situationists believe May 68 to be the zenith of capitalism and its unfolding ("dénouement" in french) precisely because they advocated the tactic of détournement, which is to use the tools utilised by the Spectacle against the spectacle itself.

The 10 million people on strike and workers councils ended up doing the square root of nothing. It happened for a month. While it was a great demonstration that we have the power necessary for revolution, the long term effects were ultimately disappointing. especially when you see that most of the May 68 generation are Left-liberal reformists or businessmen.

Well thank you for your criticism of the Situationist International. What positive things do you have to say about the SI? More importantly, which ideology will you be using to answer my question?

The reason why I'm asking this is because I'd like to see the positive side of the SI from your perspective.
EDIT: Because that will provide a balanced criticism.

[TheEmancipator]

Well thank you for your criticism of the Situationist International. What positive things do you have to say about the SI? More importantly, which ideology will you be using to answer my question?

The reason why I'm asking this is because I'd like to see the positive side of the SI from your perspective.
EDIT: Because that will provide a balanced criticism.

There are certainly more positive things about the Situationists than negative, I actually adhere to them more than Marxist analysis on this society. Their analysis of post-war society is fairly spot on and is something Marxists should take in to account.

As a nihilist-communist (meaning I believe there should be no "plan" for after the revolution, just the revolution itself as a means to achieve a classless society, and I do not adhere to Marx's materialist version of History to its fullest) I believe they are not pragmatic enough and are too close to the dangerous depths of Russian political nihilism, which is an unrealistic take on what a revolution should be. Otherwise I completely agree with them and fully support their actions.

There is nothing wrong with them or the theories they proposed. It is just their actions during May 68, which was a huge disappointment and an opportunity missed, that for me was a great shame as they conducted themselves like elitists, and did not engineer a regime change let alone a revolution.

Annoyingly these days you have some "post-situationists" who are reactionary part-time conspiracy theorists, part-time hipster primitivists in France.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I mainly agree with your premises and conclusions. However there are a few things I'd like to discuss.



There is nothing wrong with them or the theories they proposed. It is just their actions during May 68, which was a huge disappointment and an opportunity missed, that for me was a great shame as they conducted themselves like elitists, and did not engineer a regime change let alone a revolution.


I've read that the Communist Party and various affiliated unions/organisations were partly responsible for preventing the civil disorder from becoming a revolution. Especially because of their constant attempts to organise the wildcat strikes and civil disorder on their (CParty) terms.


At 2:30 pm on 30 May Pompidou persuaded de Gaulle to dissolve the National Assembly and call a new election by threatening to resign. At 4:30 pm de Gaulle broadcast his own refusal to resign. He announced an election, scheduled for 23 June, and ordered workers to return to work, threatening to institute a state of emergency if they did not. The government had leaked to the media that the army was outside Paris. Immediately after the speech, about 800,000 supporters marched through the Champs-Elysées waving the national flag; the Gaullists had planned the rally for several days, which attracted a crowd of diverse ages, occupations, and politics. The Communists agreed to the election, and the threat of revolution was over.[8][4][6]:200-201

What do you make of that?

[Devrim]

I believe you have misunderstood what the Situationist International was. The Situationists were not Marxists, Anarchists, Left Communists or Councilists. The were simply Situationists. They didn't ascribe to any one ideology, there was no 'Situationism'.

Of course there was/is a situationism. Them saying that there wasn't didn't make it so. Most of the actual politics of situationism was little more than rehashed Cardanism that Debord picked up when he was in SouB.

Devrim

[TheEmancipator]

I mainly agree with your premises and conclusions. However there are a few things I'd like to discuss.



I've read that the Communist Party and various affiliated unions/organisations were partly responsible for preventing the civil disorder from becoming a revolution. Especially because of their constant attempts to organise the wildcat strikes and civil disorder on their (CParty) terms.



What do you make of that?

No denying the Communist Party hold some if not most of the responsibility for the failure of the revolution, but unlike the Situationist-backed students and intellectuals who were seemingly put off into supporting The (traditional) French Left. The French Communist Party were willing to make concessions and listen to students, while the feeling was not mutual. The PCF were telling the students to vote for them in exchange for radical transformation of french student society as well as revising Marxist proposals. The students would not negotiate.

In the 69 elections, De Gaulle won by a landslide of the PCF because the students refused to vote PCF. If the PCF had won that election, I believe a revolution could have been finalised. Instead, De Gaulle maintained the illusion that he was in power legitimately and that the strikes were useless.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

No denying the Communist Party hold some if not most of the responsibility for the failure of the revolution, but unlike the Situationist-backed students and intellectuals who were seemingly put off into supporting The (traditional) French Left. The French Communist Party were willing to make concessions and listen to students, while the feeling was not mutual. The PCF were telling the students to vote for them in exchange for radical transformation of french student society as well as revising Marxist proposals. The students would not negotiate.

In the 69 elections, De Gaulle won by a landslide of the PCF because the students refused to vote PCF. If the PCF had won that election, I believe a revolution could have been finalised. Instead, De Gaulle maintained the illusion that he was in power legitimately and that the strikes were useless.

So you're saying that the problem was the lack of co-operation between authoritarian and anti-authoritarian far left groups, as they did not identify the common cause shared between them (revolution)?

EDIT: Regime change being the more important goal over ideological difference? I see a contradiction here in terms of method between the Situationist influenced masses and the Communist Party.

[TheEmancipator]

So you're saying that the problem was the lack of co-operation between authoritarian and anti-authoritarian far left groups, as they did not identify the common cause shared between them (revolution)?

Pretty much, as the goal of both the Siuationists and the Communist Party was to get rid of the authoritarian conservative right-wing establishment. The PCF was already quite eurocommunist at the time, having made concessions to the anti-authoritarian revolutionaries and intellectuals. All they asked in return was worker empowerment.


EDIT: Regime change being the more important goal over ideological difference? I see a contradiction here in terms of method between the Situationist influenced masses and the Communist Party.

Weren't the Situationists the ones who were obsessed with changing the right-wing regime, while the Communists were securing their own proletarian interests. This is what I don't understand : why didn't the Situationists kick out de Gaulle once and for all by voting for the PCF?

[subcp]

Weren't the Situationists the ones who were obsessed with changing the right-wing regime, while the Communists were securing their own proletarian interests. This is what I don't understand : why didn't the Situationists kick out de Gaulle once and for all by voting for the PCF?

Because the PCF (and the extra-parliamentary far left; LO, the Maoist groups, and the trade unions in the CGT) are all a part of the spectrum of capital; a main plank of Situationist thought was that the 'Left' had been integrated into capitalism long ago, a spectacle of 'official Opposition' when in reality they were a foundation for the existence of the modern French state after the war (same thing with Italy- and a similar process would repeat in 1969 in the 'Hot Autumn').

Why do you think a revolution could have occurred if the PCF had won an election? They did all they could to bolster the Gaullist apparatus during the May events.

There was no give and take- the PCF and CGT did not 'learn from the students' (even though the young proletariat, rather than 'just students', were at the heart of the general wildcat strike and occupations) or offer them anything- same with the young workers- nothing but offers to negotiate for higher wages through their unions; and when this was rebuffed, they were flabergasted.

Students didn't occupy thousands of workplaces in France and grind the national economy to a halt.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Because the PCF (and the extra-parliamentary far left; LO, the Maoist groups, and the trade unions in the CGT) are all a part of the spectrum of capital; a main plank of Situationist thought was that the 'Left' had been integrated into capitalism long ago, a spectacle of 'official Opposition' when in reality they were a foundation for the existence of the modern French state after the war (same thing with Italy- and a similar process would repeat in 1969 in the 'Hot Autumn').

Why do you think a revolution could have occurred if the PCF had won an election? They did all they could to bolster the Gaullist apparatus during the May events.

There was no give and take- the PCF and CGT did not 'learn from the students' (even though the young proletariat, rather than 'just students', were at the heart of the general wildcat strike and occupations) or offer them anything- same with the young workers- nothing but offers to negotiate for higher wages through their unions; and when this was rebuffed, they were flabergasted.

Students didn't occupy thousands of workplaces in France and grind the national economy to a halt.

Yes I was going to mention that the CGT, PCF, various other left wing ideologies etc had already been recuperated into mainstream society. Che Guevara's famous picture is one such example of recuperation (for those who do not know what recuperation is).

However, I do not believe Political Nihilism has been recuperated at this moment in time. It's very difficult/impossible to recuperate something that refutes everything artificially created by man. All you can do is label it incorrectly - for example that Nihilism is the belief in nothing. This doesn't prevent Nihilism from adapting and improving however.

The reason why I mention Nihilism is because I remember reading somewhere that the Situationists were influenced by it to some extent.


The path from ideology (self-negation) to radical subjectivity (self-affirmation) passes through Point Zero, the capital city of nihilism. This is the windswept still point in social space and time... the social limbo wherein which one recognises that the present is devoid of life; that there is no life in one’s daily existence. A nihilist knows the difference between surviving and living.

Nihilists go through a reversal or perspective on their life and the world. Nothing is true for them but their desires, their will to be. They refuse all ideology in their hatred for the miserable social relations in modern capitalist-global society. From this reversed perspective they see with a newly acquired clarity the upside-down world of reification [1], the inversion of subject and object, of abstract and concrete. It is the theatrical landscape of fetishised commodities, mental projections, separations and ideologies: art, God, city planning, ethics, smile buttons, radio stations that say they love you and detergents that have compassion for your hands.

Daily conversation offers sedatives like: “You can’t always get what you want”, “Life has its ups and downs”, and other dogmas of the secular religion of survival.’Common sense’ is just the nonsense of common alienation. Every day people are denied an authentic life and sold back its representation.

Nihilists constantly feel the urge to destroy the system which destroys them each day. They cannot go on living as they are, their minds are on fire. Soon enough they run up against the fact that they must come up with a coherent set of tactics that will have a practical effect on the world.

But if a nihilist does not know of the historical possibility for the transformation of the world, his or her subjective rage will coralise into a role: the suicide, the solitary murderer, the street hoodlum vandal, the neo-dadaist, the professional mental patient... all seeking compensation for a life of dead time.

The nihilists’ mistake is that they do not realise that there are others who are also nihilists. Consequently they assume that common communication and participation in a project of self-realisation is impossible.
An extract from 'Revolutionary Self-Theory' a situationist influenced work.

The problem the Situationists saw with Nihilism was that of organisation, as described in the last paragraph quoted above. Now I am not a Nihilist so I can't answer say how Nihilists would resolve the question of organisation, but I do know that some Nihilists criticise the far left for repeating an endless cycle of repetition, 'agitate, educate blah blah blah' the conventional methods had not been working for 100 years at the point of May '68. The Situationists came to the same conclusion as the Nihilists here, except the Situationists managed to resolve the problem of organisation by breaking the mould. Wildcat strikes, workers councils, a healthy disregard for organised parties, this set of tactics was what had the revolutionary potential, pulled out a massive bag of possible ideas, all of these tactics utilised by the masses themselves and not by any party. The Communist Party used it's influence to see an end to it, on the basis of the ownership of ideas. 'If it's not ours, it'll never work.' Hence their interference during the entire period, and that of the far left groups during the Spanish Civil War as well (CNT tried to pull it's weight too).

EDIT: The main difference between the Situationists and Political Nihilists is this:

Political Nihilists wish to de-construct society and re-construct it from scratch.
The Situationists wished to build from the ruins of the old society, as opposed to destroying it completely.

Both will result in an equal spread of power into a direct democracy.

[The Douche]

Pretty much, as the goal of both the Siuationists and the Communist Party was to get rid of the authoritarian conservative right-wing establishment.

No. The goal of the PCF "was to get rid of the authoritarian conservative right-wing establishment", the goal of the situs was communism.

[Engels]

Weren't the Situationists the ones who were obsessed with changing the right-wing regime, while the Communists were securing their own proletarian interests. This is what I don't understand : why didn't the Situationists kick out de Gaulle once and for all by voting for the PCF?

This is a strange comment from someone familiar with nihilist communism, particularly since Monsieur Dupont has some very interesting things to say about leftism.

The SI and situationist influenced groups were hostile to the Left for a reason. The PCF, was simply playing its part in the spectacle of opposition.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

This is a strange comment from someone familiar with nihilist communism, particularly since Monsieur Dupont has some very interesting things to say about leftism.

The SI and situationist influenced groups were hostile to the Left for a reason. The PCF, was simply playing its part in the spectacle of opposition.

Read my post above for the link between the Situationists and the Political Nihilists.

[TheEmancipator]

No. The goal of the PCF "was to get rid of the authoritarian conservative right-wing establishment", the goal of the situs was communism.

Can I ask in what way, since Situs do not necessarily plan for post-Revolution society. They want to collapse a system.


This is a strange comment from someone familiar with nihilist communism, particularly since Monsieur Dupont has some very interesting things to say about leftism.

I am not that familiar with Nihilist communism, not fully at least. But I find aspects of it enlightening, particularly in answer to Marxist-Leninism and Orthodox Marxism.

Indeed, and this is what attracted me to nihilist communism. Having read Gramsci, I thought that the traditional Left was almost certainly part of the cultural hegemony that is currently exercised by the ruling classes, and only sought to employer workers instead of pursuing revolutionary emancipation.

The Situationists were trying to engineer a revolution but failed. Why is this? To me, it's precisely because they did not use the opposition force ("The Left", with the Che T-Shirts, etc) against the ruling classes.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Can I ask in what way, since Situs do not necessarily plan for post-Revolution society. They want to collapse a system.

The certainly did have a plan. They wanted a world triumph of worker's councils to bring about a revolutionary society that would embody the best bits of Capitalism and throw away the rest that is no good to humanity.



The Situationists were trying to engineer a revolution but failed. Why is this? To me, it's precisely because they did not use the opposition force ("The Left", with the Che T-Shirts, etc) against the ruling classes.

Because the opposition force meddled with the process of organising wildcat strikes and De Gaulle's government managed to organise a rally that enforced nationalism.

[Engels]

Read my post above for the link between the Situationists and the Political Nihilists.

I always assumed that the common thread between nihilism and the SI was dada, but I admit to not knowing much about that (or letterism, or surrealism). And yes, I'm familiar with the article on self-theory you cited, originally written by For Ourselves. Like their other work, I found it to be very interesting and useful. Regarding the part that you quoted, they're basically echoing Vaneigem (Ch. 18, The Revolution of Everyday Life (http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/61)) on nihilism being the foundational phase of process of self-affirmation.



The individual of ressentiment is a potential revolutionary, but the development of this potentiality entails passing through a phase of larval consciousness: to first become a nihilist. If they do not kill the organizers of their ennui, or at least those people who appear as such in the forefront of their vision (managers, experts, ideologues, etc.), then they will end up killing in the name of an authority, in the name of some reason of state, or in the name of ideological consumption. And if the state of things does not eventually provoke a violent explosion, they will continue to flounder in a sea of roles, locked in the tedious rigidity of their spite, spreading their saw-toothed conformism everywhere and applauding revolt and repression alike; for, in this eventuality, incurable confusion is their only possible fate.


Compare that to the following and their inspiration is clearly visible:


The path from ideology (self-negation) to radical subjectivity (self-affirmation) passes through Point Zero, the capital city of nihilism.
...
But if a nihilist does not know of the historical possibility for the transformation of the world, his or her subjective rage will coralise into a role: the suicide, the solitary murderer, the street hoodlum vandal, the neo-dadaist, the professional mental patient... all seeking compensation for a life of dead time.

[Engels]

I am not that familiar with Nihilist communism, not fully at least. But I find aspects of it enlightening, particularly in answer to Marxist-Leninism and Orthodox Marxism.

Indeed, and this is what attracted me to nihilist communism. Having read Gramsci, I thought that the traditional Left was almost certainly part of the cultural hegemony that is currently exercised by the ruling classes, and only sought to employer workers instead of pursuing revolutionary emancipation.


Monsieur Dupont and the SI provided a starting point for me as I looked to develop a coherent critique of the ‘revolutionary’ left.

I think you would find Jacques Camatte’s “On Organization (http://libcom.org/library/on-organisation-jacques-camatte)” to be useful in better understanding Monsieur Dupont. Basically, Camatte critiques the revolutionary left as comprising of rackets that seek to reproduce themselves and the capitalist forms that they supposedly oppose. MD makes a similar argument and rejects the notion that pro-revolutionary groups can somehow spread consciousness (they compare such belief to the optimism of religious mentality.)

Also, take a look at the article Grey Scholar quoted above – “The Minimum Definition of Intelligence: Theses on the Construction of One’s Own Self-theory (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/for-ourselves-the-minimum-definition-of-intelligence)” – I think you would find it useful too. It was written in the early 1970’s by a pro-situationist group called For Ourselves.

[subcp]

I agree that Dupont's criticism of the proselytizing model or virus model of revolutionary propaganda is spot on; but they seem to throw out the idea of 'class consciousness' with the proselytizing bathwater (but then describe a scenario of growing class consciousness in an indirect way in their description of how a revolution takes place in the future).

What do you think of the SI's organizational model, Engels?

I think the failure to have anything to do with the large number of workers and students who approached them about joining, particularly during and immediately after 1968, aside from mocking them in their journal, was a spectacular failure. A failure to recognize the basic role of communists in an open struggle/pre-revolutionary situation (something the Dupont duo got right in nihcom, also in a roundabout way).

[Engels]

I agree that Dupont's criticism of the proselytizing model or virus model of revolutionary propaganda is spot on; but they seem to throw out the idea of 'class consciousness' with the proselytizing bathwater (but then describe a scenario of growing class consciousness in an indirect way in their description of how a revolution takes place in the future).

That is a good point. Yes, according to MD, the workers will take control of production but they will do so non-consciously for they are incapable of consciousness!

Although they make valid and familiar arguments regarding the revolutionary movement, they don’t succeed in their goal of undermining consciousness itself. I noticed other, similar issues with NihilComm when I read it (it’s been a few months, so I might be wrong in my interpretation) such as their simplistic notion of the core/essential proletariat which leads them to ignore precarious workers, the unemployed etc.

Then, there’s their rejection of all propaganda, which for them is inherently elitist and authoritarian, that only communication within the pro-rev milieu is to be upheld. That is their stated aim in writing the book. They seem to be for what is basically a pro-revolutionary echo chamber. It’s like pro-revs are monks, maintaining the creed until the masses call upon them.

Apparently they’ve changed their views since then. I could only find some information (https://burntbookmobile.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/species-being-and-other-stories-by-frere-dupont/) on a book by Frere Dupont (sadly, I can’t find the actual book online.)


What do you think of the SI's organizational model, Engels?It’s easy to point to the initial split between the more artistically oriented and political factions, the falling out between the Scandinavian and French sections, the exclusion of the Americans etc. as the harbinger of what was to come. Initially, when reading about the SI, it struck me just how bizarre it was - their creation of a formal organisation complete with the imposition of party discipline and perpetual Leninist-style purges which served to encourage their increasingly sect-like behaviour. Debord and the SI, despite all pretences to the contrary, did spend a lot of effort performing priestly duties upholding ideological purity (e.g. the Perlman-Gregoire-Lanphear affair.)

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

That is a good point. Yes, according to MD, the workers will take control of production but they will do so non-consciously for they are incapable of consciousness!

Although they make valid and familiar arguments regarding the revolutionary movement, they don’t succeed in their goal of undermining consciousness itself. I noticed other, similar issues with NihilComm when I read it (it’s been a few months, so I might be wrong in my interpretation) such as their simplistic notion of the core/essential proletariat which leads them to ignore precarious workers, the unemployed etc.

Then, there’s their rejection of all propaganda, which for them is inherently elitist and authoritarian, that only communication within the pro-rev milieu is to be upheld. That is their stated aim in writing the book. They seem to be for what is basically a pro-revolutionary echo chamber. It’s like pro-revs are monks, maintaining the creed until the masses call upon them.

Apparently they’ve changed their views since then. I could only find some information (https://burntbookmobile.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/species-being-and-other-stories-by-frere-dupont/) on a book by Frere Dupont (sadly, I can’t find the actual book online.)

It’s easy to point to the initial split between the more artistically oriented and political factions, the falling out between the Scandinavian and French sections, the exclusion of the Americans etc. as the harbinger of what was to come. Initially, when reading about the SI, it struck me just how bizarre it was - their creation of a formal organisation complete with the imposition of party discipline and perpetual Leninist-style purges which served to encourage their increasingly sect-like behaviour. Debord and the SI, despite all pretences to the contrary, did spend a lot of effort performing priestly duties upholding ideological purity (e.g. the Perlman-Gregoire-Lanphear affair.)

Debord expelled members that had been seduced by the spectacle, members that had been coerced by the media to accept celebrity status. I've already mentioned this by the way :) The SI recruited the most promising people but expelled those who, after a period of time, were failing to make good on their original promises.

[subcp]

It’s easy to point to the initial split between the more artistically oriented and political factions, the falling out between the Scandinavian and French sections, the exclusion of the Americans etc. as the harbinger of what was to come. Initially, when reading about the SI, it struck me just how bizarre it was - their creation of a formal organisation complete with the imposition of party discipline and perpetual Leninist-style purges which served to encourage their increasingly sect-like behaviour. Debord and the SI, despite all pretences to the contrary, did spend a lot of effort performing priestly duties upholding ideological purity (e.g. the Perlman-Gregoire-Lanphear affair.)

Honestly I found myself in much greater agreement with their organizational model after reading the anthology of SI journal articles, leaflets, etc. Expelling the Nashists and others who struggled to leave the terrain of 'we are artists first, communists second' by seeming consensus (lead by the most politically mature sections in France and Belgium) appears to me to be an excellent example of a non-democratic centralist internal functioning of a revolutionary organization.

I agree that the minoritarian conception of the revolutionary organization is the kind of Leninism that parts of the Italian left wanted to uphold- it seems so close to Bordiga's work on organic centralism (complete with 'pure' militants rather than mergers from groups still in 'the swamp'). The number of young workers and students that were attracted to the situ's seems to confirm the place of the class party in a pre-revolutionary type situation (as described in all of the documents from the Italian party from the 20's that the PCI calls the 'unitary and invariant body of Marxism')- the last splits/dissolution in the early '70s seems like a crisis of the councilist organization itself.


That is a good point. Yes, according to MD, the workers will take control of production but they will do so non-consciously for they are incapable of consciousness!

Although they make valid and familiar arguments regarding the revolutionary movement, they don’t succeed in their goal of undermining consciousness itself. I noticed other, similar issues with NihilComm when I read it (it’s been a few months, so I might be wrong in my interpretation) such as their simplistic notion of the core/essential proletariat which leads them to ignore precarious workers, the unemployed etc.

Then, there’s their rejection of all propaganda, which for them is inherently elitist and authoritarian, that only communication within the pro-rev milieu is to be upheld. That is their stated aim in writing the book. They seem to be for what is basically a pro-revolutionary echo chamber. It’s like pro-revs are monks, maintaining the creed until the masses call upon them.

That was my reading as well. Much of it, like a lot of the Situationists political writing, are new packaging for stuff communists had been saying for a long time. The re-hashing of the anti-Kautsky view of consciousness was done many times since the turn of the century. I don't know whether to applaud those who want to re-conceptualize classic communist positions and concepts in new language for adding to the discussion or think of them as 'modernizers' who would rather be anything than an admitted 'vanilla' Marxist (like the 'human strike' stuff and post-1970's autonomists etc) and just end up confusing people.

[Lord Hargreaves]

There was no revolutionary period in 1968

What's a "revolutionary period"? It seems to be like arguing there can't be a revolution because there isn't one under-way already... which is an entirely self-defeating idea.

I don't understand how one distinguishes between a revolutionary situation and one that isn't. If the mass of the working class is out on strike, what else are we supposed to call that?

[Devrim]

Debord expelled members that had been seduced by the spectacle, members that had been coerced by the media to accept celebrity status. I've already mentioned this by the way :) The SI recruited the most promising people but expelled those who, after a period of time, were failing to make good on their original promises.

Debord expelled people who didn't treat him as the boss.

Devrim

[KurtFF8]

No denying the Communist Party hold some if not most of the responsibility for the failure of the revolution, but unlike the Situationist-backed students and intellectuals who were seemingly put off into supporting The (traditional) French Left. The French Communist Party were willing to make concessions and listen to students, while the feeling was not mutual. The PCF were telling the students to vote for them in exchange for radical transformation of french student society as well as revising Marxist proposals. The students would not negotiate.

In the 69 elections, De Gaulle won by a landslide of the PCF because the students refused to vote PCF. If the PCF had won that election, I believe a revolution could have been finalised. Instead, De Gaulle maintained the illusion that he was in power legitimately and that the strikes were useless.

Interesting, I haven't heard of this exchange. I was aware that Althusser had opposed the 68 action initially (although his actual absence wasn't because of this opposition) and had some around to changing his mind. Maybe the struggle amongst the PCF student groups has something to do with this?

[TheEmancipator]

Interesting, I haven't heard of this exchange. I was aware that Althusser had opposed the 68 action initially (although his actual absence wasn't because of this opposition) and had some around to changing his mind. Maybe the struggle amongst the PCF student groups has something to do with this?

Well the PCF student groups took a heavy beating due to its total splintering after the emergence of Maoist and anarchist groups and many hardline Marxist students became situationist/left-liberal after some of the PCF's "antics" that have already been discussed.

But the main reason behind the total failure behind the student movement is precisely because of the students who were not part of the PCF or didn't want anything to do with them. Towards the end, Mitterand started claiming power and getting popular support particularly outside Paris. The PCF, as the 69 elections show, did not progress much.

In the end, the Mai 68 generation voted for Mitterand, a Pétain-loving reactionary. If they had wanted a revolution, they would have voted for the PCF, which to this day stands for what I believe the Mai 68 events were really about (although they sadly miss Robert Hue, who I respect a lot). They just wanted Gaullist France without De Gaulle's paternalism.

[Devrim]

I don't think I have ever read a post on this board that has missed the entire point as much as 'armchair philosopher' has on this thread.

Really what on earth are you on about?

Devrim

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Debord expelled people who didn't treat him as the boss.

Devrim

This might seem a bit blunt but can you point me to a source that demonstrates this? Or is it your opinion?

[TheEmancipator]

I don't think I have ever read a post on this board that has missed the entire point as much as 'armchair philosopher' has on this thread.

Really what on earth are you on about?

Devrim

Please expand.

[l'Enfermé]

What's a "revolutionary period"? It seems to be like arguing there can't be a revolution because there isn't one under-way already... which is an entirely self-defeating idea.

I don't understand how one distinguishes between a revolutionary situation and one that isn't. If the mass of the working class is out on strike, what else are we supposed to call that?
A revolutionary period/situation, according to Marxists, is when a certain set of conditions, which make revolution possible, are met.


1) The great mass of the people must be decisively hostile to a regime.
2) There must be a great organized party in irreconcilable opposition to such a regime.
3) This party must represent the interests of the great majority of the population and possess their confidence.
4) Confidence in the ruling regime, both in its power and in its stability, must have been destroyed by its own tools, by the bureaucracy and the army.

[BTMFPHumanStrike]

Perhaps the reason why past revolutions have all failed (because they have - do you see communism anywhere? Yeah, didn't think so) is because of the fact that workers kept organizing themselves as workers, that is, as an excluded part of capitalist society. Everyone here wants to point to the various maneuverings of the Left as if this actually has anything to do with communism! When a group of people see themselves as an excluded, but integral, part of society, then they are not going to fight for that society's destruction, but rather they are going to fight to be recognized by that society as being integral to it.

The "bright side" to this is that we are seeing the collapse of the worker as an identity (indeed, along with so many others) that really the only thing thatcan be fought for is our bare being-human. I put bright side in quotes because the coming years will be anything but bright.

[Devrim]

This might seem a bit blunt but can you point me to a source that demonstrates this? Or is it your opinion?

It is my opinion, but I think it is pretty widely known.

Devrim

[TheEmancipator]

It is my opinion, but I think it is pretty widely known.

Devrim


I see, so you shout down other people's opinion yet refuse to source your own. Are you some kind of higher, truthful being who was present at the events? I very much doubt it.

[Devrim]

I see, so you shout down other people's opinion yet refuse to source your own. Are you some kind of higher, truthful being who was present at the events? I very much doubt it.

No, but I did meet Debord, and he came across to me pretty much like that.

Devrim

[The Douche]

I see, so you shout down other people's opinion yet refuse to source your own. Are you some kind of higher, truthful being who was present at the events? I very much doubt it.

Do you know anything about the functioning of the SI? I'm pro-situ to a large extent, but, organizationally, it was a mess.

I believe this begins to touch on some of the problems:

http://libcom.org/history/fredy-perlmans-views-situationists-membership-criteria

[TheEmancipator]

Do you know anything about the functioning of the SI? I'm pro-situ to a large extent, but, organizationally, it was a mess.

I believe this begins to touch on some of the problems:

http://libcom.org/history/fredy-perlmans-views-situationists-membership-criteria

Then why do we bother trying to glorify them when they are incapable, disorganised rabble? For all the faults of the PCF, they offered a far more credible platform for revolution.

I have time for situationists and their theories, but Mai 68 was an unmitigated disaster and is the main reason for a huge loss of credibility from the Left.

[BTMFPHumanStrike]

Then why do we bother trying to glorify them when they are incapable, disorganised rabble? For all the faults of the PCF, they offered a far more credible platform for revolution.

I have time for situationists and their theories, but Mai 68 was an unmitigated disaster and is the main reason for a huge loss of credibility from the Left.

Along with developing ideas such as the Spectacle, and writing really fucking excellent books, the reason why the SI remains so interesting and important to a lot of people is precisely because the SI understood that communism and revolution come out of the movements of the class itself, and not the various political parties that seek to represent it, marxist or otherwise.

At best, Leftist parties have been crucial in organizing revolutions that carry a nation from feudal relations to capitalist ones. Which is, of course, not surprising given the fact that so many Leftists model their conception of communist revolution on the way bourgeois revolutions played out.


tl;dr It is not Leftists that create communist revolution, it is the movements of the class.

[TheIrrationalist]

Then why do we bother trying to glorify them when they are incapable, disorganised rabble? For all the faults of the PCF, they offered a far more credible platform for revolution.

I have time for situationists and their theories, but Mai 68 was an unmitigated disaster and is the main reason for a huge loss of credibility from the Left.

Situationist International was not a vanguard party. They didn't lead or try to lead any sort of revolution, but they laid the theoretical foundation that led to the events of May 1968 in France.

[Fionnagáin]

Then why do we bother trying to glorify them when they are incapable, disorganised rabble? For all the faults of the PCF, they offered a far more credible platform for revolution.
The only credibly platform for revolution is workers' councils. The SI, for all its faults, recognised that, which is why they called for workers' councils rather than hoisting themselves into government. The PCF, being a parade of cretins and bureaucrats, did not recognise it (or if they did, feared it), which is why they chose to collaborate with the state.


Situationist International was not a vanguard party. They didn't lead or try to lead any sort of revolution, but they laid the theoretical foundation that led to the events of May 1968 in France.
Oh, come on, that's just vanguard-by-proxy. The SI may have contributed to the revolt, and they certainly helped shape how its participants expressed themselves, but they weren't responsible for it any more than than the Trot and Maoist sects were.


(edit: The original version of this post's abrupt end followed by the word "owl" is a warning of the hazards of wandering off to refill your coffee cup with an unfinished post open on the screen.)

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

The only credibly platform for revolution is workers' councils. The SI, for all its faults, recognised that, which is why they called for workers' councils rather than hoisting themselves into government. The PCF, being a parade of cretins and bureaucrats, did not recognise it (or if they did, feared it), which is why they chose to collaborate with the state.


Oh, come on, that's just vanguard-by-proxy.owl

Those who went on strike didn't represent or act on the behalf of the Situationists. The Situationists merely influenced the course of events by, as TheIrrationalist said, setting up a theoretical foundation that could easily be modified and changed to suit the needs of the people using that foundation.


Absolutism is the total acceptance or rejection of all components of particular ideologies, or indeed, of any set of ideas or concepts. An absolutist cannot see any choice other than complete acceptance or complete rejection; s/he sees things purely as good or bad, black or white. The absolutist wanders along the shelves of the ideological supermarket looking for the ideal commodity, and then buys it lock, stock and barrel. But the ideological supermarket--like any supermarket--is fit only for looting. It is of more practical use to us to move along the shelves, rip open the packets, take out what looks authentic and useful, and dump the rest.

Emphasis is mine for clarity.

[Fionnagáin]

Those who went on strike didn't represent or act on the behalf of the Situationists. The Situationists merely influenced the course of events by, as TheIrrationalist said, setting up a theoretical foundation that could easily be modified and changed to suit the needs of the people using that foundation.
There's an enormous difference between workers taking up the core of the SI's output in their revolt, and the SI delivering the core of the revolt to the workers.


Besides, it's far from clear exactly how deep the influence of the SI was. The only firm evidence we have of their influence is quite superficial, the appearance of SI-esque slogans and graffiti, and even that appears to have been absorbed from the broader milieu of heterodox radicalism, rather than from direct exposure to the output of the SI. More likely, I think, that the SI managed to describe what many workers were already encountering in their own lives, captured the spirit of a revolt already-brewing, rather than revealing some new set of truths like Lenin come again. Aside from anything else, I think that view is a lot more consistent with the SI's actual theoretical output.

[l'Enfermé]

Situationist International was not a vanguard party. They didn't lead or try to lead any sort of revolution, but they laid the theoretical foundation that led to the events of May 1968 in France.
Woah, what? Laid the theoretical foundation? Are you serious? Debord's little sect of intellectuals had some influence over a fraction of the students. Students, however, made up a tiny proportion of the wider events of Mai 196.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Woah, what? Laid the theoretical foundation? Are you serious? Debord's little sect of intellectuals had some influence over a fraction of the students. Students, however, made up a tiny proportion of the wider events of Mai 196.

Read this:


Those who went on strike didn't represent or act on the behalf of the Situationists. The Situationists merely influenced the course of events by, as TheIrrationalist said, setting up a theoretical foundation that could easily be modified and changed to suit the needs of the people using that foundation.

[Fionnagáin]

What does that with to do with TheIrrationalist'ss claim that the SI "laid the theoretical foundation that led to the events of May 1968"?

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

What does that with to do with TheIrrationalist'ss claim that the SI "laid the theoretical foundation that led to the events of May 1968"?

Read it through and give me some constructive criticism instead of tossing the entire thing into the dustbin. The Situationists created a set of usable, implementable ideas. A theoretical foundation that was adaptable, examples of which can be seen in the graffiti of the time as well as the unofficial publishing of a pamphlet on student poverty.

[Revenant]

Read it through and give me some constructive criticism instead of tossing the entire thing into the dustbin. The Situationists created a set of usable, implementable ideas. A theoretical foundation that was adaptable, examples of which can be seen in the graffiti of the time as well as the unofficial publishing of a pamphlet on student poverty.
I watched a documentary recently about the SDS and Weather Underground and it seemed to me in the propaganda that was shown on the documentary there was a definite SI influence.

I also noticed Chris Hedges has taken up some of the SI critique in his new book Empire of Illusion, a lot of what he's talking about reminded me of SOS, I think that has happened a lot, the book seems to have influenced people and gone uncredited, or it pre-empted much of what people have since come to realize, either way i think it's influence is hard to judge and or underestimated.

[Fionnagáin]

If you want constructive criticism, you need to give me something to work with. All we have now is a wholly speculative leap from noting that certain parts of the SI's agitational material were popular among student radicals and some, mostly Parisian workers in the period leading up to and including the May 68 events (which nobody disputes) to the claim that the SI's was in itself responsible for the May 68 events. What can I possibly say about that beyond the fact that it is wholly speculative?

[Art Vandelay]

I watched a documentary recently about the SDS and Weather Underground and it seemed to me in the propaganda that was shown on the documentary there was a definite SI influence.

I also noticed Chris Hedges has taken up some of the SI critique in his new book Empire of Illusion, a lot of what he's talking about reminded me of SOS, I think that has happened a lot, the book seems to have influenced people and gone uncredited, or it pre-empted much of what people have since come to realize, either way i think it's influence is hard to judge and or underestimated.

Chris Hedges and WU were both garbage. Chris Hedges is a full blown liberal and the WU were petite-bourgeois students on a non-lethal bombing campaign; there is nothing revolutionary about either of them. Now I'm not saying that the SI was worthless, or there isn't anything we can learn from it, but I'm not exactly sure how claiming the SI influenced the WU and Chris Hedges, helps your argument what so ever. Chris Hedge's work and stances he has taken in the past, speak for themselves; as for the WU, I think Fred Hampton said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ9zPySHbuY

[The Douche]

Chris Hedges and WU were both garbage. Chris Hedges is a full blown liberal and the WU were petite-bourgeois students on a non-lethal bombing campaign; there is nothing revolutionary about either of them. Now I'm not saying that the SI was worthless, or there isn't anything we can learn from it, but I'm not exactly sure how claiming the SI influenced the WU and Chris Hedges, helps your argument what so ever. Chris Hedge's work and stances he has taken in the past, speak for themselves; as for the WU, I think Fred Hampton said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ9zPySHbuY

If you see the WU, not as a communist revolutionary organization, but as an anti-imperialist 5th column, an extension of the NLF, then I think their existence makes more sense, and I think it helps in understanding how they ended up like they did. (liberal/progressive academia for the most part)

And I think you would be able to paint the experience as some sort of victory for them.


The most important thing to remember when dealing with the WU, is the way that they always, explicitly, say they were trying to end the war in Vietnam, occasionaly they make some comments about revolution here in the US, but generally its about fighting alongside other anti-imperialist movements.

Sorry for the off-topic.

[Lord Hargreaves]

A revolutionary period/situation, according to Marxists, is when a certain set of conditions, which make revolution possible, are met.
1) The great mass of the people must be decisively hostile to a regime.
2) There must be a great organized party in irreconcilable opposition to such a regime.
3) This party must represent the interests of the great majority of the population and possess their confidence.
4) Confidence in the ruling regime, both in its power and in its stability, must have been destroyed by its own tools, by the bureaucracy and the army.

Thank you for the clarifications.

However, looking at these, they seem to mostly consist of truisms that don't really further the cause of analysis.

Yes, a democratic revolution requires a majority to be in favour of it. Yes, a party that isn't interested in overthrowing a regime (being in "irreconcilable opposition" to it) isn't going to do so. Yes, people won't want to overthrow a regime they still feel confident in ("in its power and in its stability"). Well, so what?

There are many difficulties in trying to understand a revolutionary situation in practice. It seems to be that when capitalism is in deep recession and living standards are squeezed, people move right and not left: collapsing confidence in the government does not seem to coincide with people moving to join parties that want to challenge it.

Also as May '68 shows, and the later workerist revolts in Italy against the 'historic compromise' shows, the relationship between strong communist parties and revolutionary fervour among sections of the population seems to be that the latter comes at the expense of former (or even in revolt against it) rather than because of it. The idea that a revolutionary situation can only exist when there is "a" mass revolutionary party, like there could only be one, is tired nonsense.

And so, to be honest, I'm not sure we're really much the wiser on what a "revolutionary situation" is