Situationist International - Insurrection/revolution

[Hivemind]

So I stumbled upon this piece a while ago and I thought it would be cool to post it and see what people think. It's called "Contributions to The Revolutionary Struggle, Intended To Be Discussed, Corrected, And Principally, Put Into Practice Without Delay".

As backwards as it seems, I think I'd recommend starting with part 2 and then read part 1, as I think part 1 is just a rehash of ideas that a lot of people already know. Part 2 is where the meat is, but you don't have to listen to me, read it in whatever order you want Check it out:

part 2: http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/123
part 1: http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/121

It goes fairly in depth in the theory and praxis of the occupation and re-adaptation of factories, how to organize and defend against counter revolution, and a whole slew of other interesting things.

I think that the SI has a handful of really good reads that are to the point and not heavily laced with the post-modernist BS that a lot of the other reads are. This website has a good number of reads: http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/

[SonofRage]

I've only skimmed it, but I've loved what I've read so far. Perhaps this would be good to read and discuss as a group

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

[Hivemind]

I'm surprised that only one person's replied so far. Is this not an important topic to communists/anarchists? I can see how some of the name-ist subsets of communism wouldn't really bat an eye cause the SI and their writings are not aligned with some of their major views but the general idea of revolution should still be on the table, no?

[Sea]

I skimmed it a bit and it looks like it's just some selections from From Wildcat Strike to Total Self-Management. Right? Well, if that is what it is, I certainly encourage all to give it a critical read. There are a few "ultra-left" bits in it but with a little common sense there is a lot to gain from Vaneigem's work. SI produced a lot of great tactics and material and is way under-mentioned on this forum.

[nizan]

What would you actually care to discuss in relation to the SI?

And yes, there are invariably going to be some 'ultra-left' bits to the work of the SI. Honestly, they never really associated with leftism in general, but in Leninist phraseology, they're an outright 'ultra-left' group, worthless as the ideological catchphrase is. If you have a problem with some scary anti-Leninist parts (spoiler alert, they all are, if you understand them), then you should probably fuck off back to your branch, maybe throw some more cum on your copies of State and the Revolution. You can't read situationist works, that's it.

[Sea]

What would you actually care to discuss in relation to the SI?

And yes, there are invariably going to be some 'ultra-left' bits to the work of the SI. Honestly, they never really associated with leftism in general, but in Leninist phraseology, they're an outright 'ultra-left' group, worthless as the ideological catchphrase is. If you have a problem with some scary anti-Leninist parts (spoiler alert, they all are, if you understand them), then you should probably fuck off back to your branch, maybe throw some more cum on your copies of State and the Revolution. You can't read situationist works, that's it.There's a reason I put ultra-left in quotation marks. I think the phrase is a useless way to make categories and nothing more. I never objected to anything because of it being "ultra-left". I simply used the term because it gives people a better chance at being able to say "ooh, that's what he's talking about" than if I did what you did and just put "it has stuff I don't like". If you want me to give some quotes to discuss (if you can keep calm for that) I will but I'd have to re-read the work as it was a long time ago. Mind you, the more cultish MLs would surely describe me as an "ultra-leftist".

Would it make you feel any better if I changed my signiture to a Bordiga quote? How about a Luxemborg quote? Or, if you really want me to hit home, I can snatch something from Debord himself. Either way, on its own, it would still say nothing about my own politics and would still give you no right to insult me.

Don't be so closed-minded. There is a lot to learn beyond the confines of what you're thinking right now. That goes just as much for someone stuck in the legacy of the Comintern as it does for someone stuck in the legacy of the SI.

[blake 3:17]

They never worked a day in their lives!

[blake 3:17]

I love the SI and CoBra, We had a memorial when Debord offed himself, but wtf their influence on workers at work was nil

[nizan]

There's a reason I put ultra-left in quotation marks. I think the phrase is a useless way to make categories and nothing more. I never objected to anything because of it being "ultra-left". I simply used the term because it gives people a better chance at being able to say "ooh, that's what he's talking about" than if I did what you did and just put "it has stuff I don't like". If you want me to give some quotes to discuss (if you can keep calm for that) I will but I'd have to re-read the work as it was a long time ago. Mind you, the more cultish MLs would surely describe me as an "ultra-leftist".

Would it make you feel any better if I changed my signiture to a Bordiga quote? How about a Luxemborg quote? Or, if you really want me to hit home, I can snatch something from Debord himself. Either way, on its own, it would still say nothing about my own politics and would still give you no right to insult me.

Don't be so closed-minded. There is a lot to learn beyond the confines of what you're thinking right now. That goes just as much for someone stuck in the legacy of the Comintern as it does for someone stuck in the legacy of the SI.

I've actually seen a lot of ML and Trot types quote from the SI without so much as batting an eyelash, if you want to change your sig, you'd hardly be the first. Another contradiction to add to an ideology of contradiction.

As for the legacy of the SI, "Those who would like people to believe that they are members of the SI should only be treated with suspicion. As for everybody else who does not lead a practical undertaking in some part of the world organized with the SI, what can make the best revolutionaries 'situationists' is looking after themselves (and therefore looking after the mounting proletarian movement); this is what meets with our approval, as perspective and as method. It is not a matter of evoking us as a reference, but, on the contrary, of forgetting us a little."

I really don't give a shit about the 'legacy' of the SI, but if we're going to recall it, lets recall it as it was, should we hope to take some use of it.

[Hivemind]

I don't think that this should be a thread about the SI or its legacy; that should be done in a separate thread. I think that this thread should remain about the piece in question and related ideas with respect to revolutionary praxis (that was my intention with the thread) just because it doesn't come up as much as it probably should, and when it does it ends up being very vague, you know?

[nizan]

I don't think that this should be a thread about the SI or its legacy; that should be done in a separate thread. I think that this thread should remain about the piece in question and related ideas with respect to revolutionary praxis (that was my intention with the thread) just because it doesn't come up as much as it probably should, and when it does it ends up being very vague, you know?

If you want a discussion on the SI and praxis, Vaneigem really isn't the best theoretical source to refer to. His prose is excellent, no doubt, but he more or less was dependent upon the larger basis of formulations prepared by the rest of the SI.

[lautréamont]

I don't think that this should be a thread about the SI or its legacy; that should be done in a separate thread. I think that this thread should remain about the piece in question and related ideas with respect to revolutionary praxis (that was my intention with the thread) just because it doesn't come up as much as it probably should, and when it does it ends up being very vague, you know?
"Legacy" - a term that implies that the past dominates the present. "Détournement" - a term that implies the use of what has been done to use it or negate it to agitate a general dialectic of history. In other words, fuck legacy. Anyone who says they are a part of Debord's legacy didn't understand Debord.

[Sea]

I've actually seen a lot of ML and Trot types quote from the SI without so much as batting an eyelash, if you want to change your sig, you'd hardly be the first. Another contradiction to add to an ideology of contradiction.So, you think that I'm an ML or Trot type? Well, if you did, that certainly explains why you thought I "can't read situationist works", and certainly explains your hostility towards me, though it doesn't excuse your rudeness.

You would also be dearly mistaken.

If anything, I'd be the last person to conform to the stereotype of tendency. Marxism-Leninism, for one, doesn't exist! It is a buzzword, found nowhere in the work of Lenin, much less that of Marx. As for Trotskyism, the tendency of poorly-told jokes, I wouldn't be caught dead with that label on my back. The last thing I need is your assumptions, your attacks against that elusive Leninist devil that you imagine to be in me.

You make good posts on this forum. I am not a dogmatist and I am not an ideologue. I would appreciate it if you would not assume me to be one, such that perhaps we could actually engage in some meaningful discussion. Is this a fair request?


"Legacy" - a term that implies that the past dominates the present. "Détournement" - a term that implies the use of what has been done to use it or negate it to agitate a general dialectic of history. In other words, fuck legacy. Anyone who says they are a part of Debord's legacy didn't understand Debord.YES, FINALLY!

That's my point exactly. I am not assuming Nizan to be bent on the imaginary legacy of Debord, any more than I should be assumed to be trailing the "legacy" of Lenin!

[blake 3:17]

My friends at recordism.com have been detourned comics of late. some are real nice

We had a little pro-Situ group here a while back -- did some fun stuff -- made flyers with times dates and locations for swanky bourgeois cultural events with free food and drink and posted them by and gave them out at unemployment offices

Did some pretty sharp satirical leaflets for book launches of right wing authors -- a couple of times we were asked to leave and asked why we had to, and nobody could tell us -- remember this is Toronto -- so we just stayed or stepped outside and helped people come in, "You here for the book launch? Oh! Great! Here, you should look at this! Have a great night!"

[blake 3:17]

From the OP's article I especially like:

12. Our aim is to thwart all violence against the movement for universal self-management and not to spread that movement by force of arms. It is more important that we should disarm the enemy rather than liquidate him physically. The more resolute and swift our action, the less blood will be spilled.

30. Factories will be reconverted and automated, or, in the case of parasitic sectors, destroyed. Almost, everywhere, small workshops for free creative labour will be at the disposal of everyone who wants to use them

38. The true meaning of any strike lies in its rejection of alienated labour and of the commodity which it produces and which produces it.

56. Every worker is fully entitled to sabotage everything which serves to destroy him.

60. The more complicated the commodity system becomes, the simpler the means that suffice to destroy it.

[nizan]

So, you think that I'm an ML or Trot type? Well, if you did, that certainly explains why you thought I "can't read situationist works", and certainly explains your hostility towards me, though it doesn't excuse your rudeness.

You would also be dearly mistaken.

If anything, I'd be the last person to conform to the stereotype of tendency. Marxism-Leninism, for one, doesn't exist! It is a buzzword, found nowhere in the work of Lenin, much less that of Marx. As for Trotskyism, the tendency of poorly-told jokes, I wouldn't be caught dead with that label on my back. The last thing I need is your assumptions, your attacks against that elusive Leninist devil that you imagine to be in me.

You make good posts on this forum. I am not a dogmatist and I am not an ideologue. I would appreciate it if you would not assume me to be one, such that perhaps we could actually engage in some meaningful discussion. Is this a fair request?

That's my point exactly. I am not assuming Nizan to be bent on the imaginary legacy of Debord, any more than I should be assumed to be trailing the "legacy" of Lenin!

Fair enough then, I don't think I care to argue against any of this, but I'm sure you are quite aware of the ideological effect which an unqualified Lenin quote generally implies in leftist circles. Lenin never used the phrase Marxist-Leninist, surely, he was even quite modest about his fame within the party before his death, but it doesn't change the basic reality that his service to the bureaucratic class was decidedly non-revolutionary either which way. The very measure which he promoted of the 'revolutionary' party cadre, while certainly properly suited to promoting the mentality which later made a god of him, was one which simply cannot be taken as anything separate from the world of the old, from the world of alienation. A self reflexive bureaucrat remains a bureaucrat, pamphlets and collected works not being terribly relevant factors in the realm of the formal.

[blake 3:17]

Get a room you two!