Raoul Vaneigem letter of resignation

[which doctor]

In 1970 Raoul Vaneigem, one of the most prominent members of the SI, left the Situationist International. When he resigned he wrote a letter discussing the SI's failures as well as Vaneigem's own failures in the organization. His friendship with Debord soured.

I've always enjoyed Vaneigem's works better than Debord's works. I've never been a huge fan of the SI either, it seems like an intellectual old boys club to me.

I've looked for his resignation letter critiqueing the SI, but I've never been able to find it.

Does anyone have this text available?

[RevolverNo9]

I may well, I have quite a lot, I'll check later. Have you not checked Ken Knabb's excellent online Situationist Archive?

However I seriously object to any analysis that values Vaneigem more highly than Debord. 'La traite de savoir-vivre' ('The Revolution of Everyday Life') is genuinely insightful but often its playfulness or role as propoganda is limiting, if not indicative of a deeper-seated idealism. Debord on the other hand - as a theoretician - did strictly pursue a materialist analysis built upon the strongest elements of the Marxist tradition and perhaps more impressively he did so firmly in reply to the challenges of contemporary material conditions (something revolutionaries are often loathe to do). His development of Marx's theories of alienation and Luckas' writing was masterful and the models he presented, most obviously 'spectacular society' can still be utilised.

This is all much more than can be said of Vaneigem. Nor of course do I prepose to whitewash Debord, a character who tended towards both intellectual elitism and extreme organisational authoritarianism.

[which doctor]

Oh yeah. I found the letter.

I haven't read it yet but I will and maybe it can be discussed.

http://www.notbored.org/resignation.html

[RevolverNo9]

It's a document which says little on its own (and rather torturously written! what happened to the grandiose but pithy imagery of his great work?!) and only means anything significant thanks to the rich history surronding it. I suppose the only thing of note is Vaneigem's identification of his own self in his critique of the SI.

The SI had already effectively been destoryed as an effective revolutionary organ. The following total resignation of its members was a mere reflex reaction.

[black magick hustla]

I like much more vaneigem than Debord. Vaneigem dwelt more in the existencial and human side of the anti-capitalist movement than Debord. Debord gave a much more marxian analysis of modern capitalism.

I that that analyzing it objectively though, Debord's work was much more theoretically rich.

Shame the SI was a club of elitist intellectuals.

[RevolverNo9]

Vaneigem dwelt more in the existencial and human side of the anti-capitalist movement than Debord.

Which is subjective and therefore an obstacle as a position to take in the material, historical process of revolution!

As you say, Debord was above that.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:55 PM

Vaneigem dwelt more in the existencial and human side of the anti-capitalist movement than Debord.

Which is subjective and therefore an obstacle as a position to take in the material, historical process of revolution!

As you say, Debord was above that.
Er.

I think Vaneigem's position is perfectly compatible with a materialist conception of the world and history.

Communism will lead to a world of subjectivity and pleasure, where normal people could engage in pleasing activities they weren't able to because capitalism restraints humanity's potential.

Debord was much more about analyzing capitalism hollistically, while Vaneigem was more about analyzing the individual.

The collective is not more important than the individual, and viceversa. A collective is formed by individuals--it isn't some sort of higher ideal that we are meant to serve.

[RevolverNo9]

Vaneigem is not as rigorous a thinker as Debord, that's the bottom line. The individual without society is unhistorical and abstract. Vaneigem's subjective impressions on the individual in capitalism are insightful to a degree, I don't deny it, but they are limited by that very subjectivity. One is roused by Vaneigem but one's understanding of class-society is much more aided by Debord because his analysis strives for objectivity.


The collective is not more important than the individual, and viceversa. A collective is formed by individuals--it isn't some sort of higher ideal that we are meant to serve.

? I never mentioned any 'ideal'. I agree with Marx that man's 'species-being' necessitates that man is only truly an individual when his existence is truly social. I am not sure that your reasoning follows: just because Debord worked out theories that analysed society does not mean he somehow neglected the individual. On the contrary, he accepted Marx's view on the individual, which is why 'seperation' and 'spectacular society' form the core of Debord's analysis.

Compared Debord's method, Vaneigem's work is observational, anecdotal and deeply personal. There is much to recommend in reading him, it just doesn't compare to the original and rigorous thoeretical work of Debord.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:15 PM
Vaneigem is not as rigorous a thinker as Debord, that's the bottom line. The individual without society is unhistorical and abstract. Vaneigem's subjective impressions on the individual in capitalism are insightful to a degree, I don't deny it, but they are limited by that very subjectivity. One is roused by Vaneigem but one's understanding of class-society is much more aided by Debord because his analysis strives for objectivity.


The collective is not more important than the individual, and viceversa. A collective is formed by individuals--it isn't some sort of higher ideal that we are meant to serve.

? I never mentioned any 'ideal'. I agree with Marx that man's 'species-being' necessitates that man is only truly an individual when his existence is truly social. I am not sure that your reasoning follows: just because Debord worked out theories that analysed society does not mean he somehow neglected the individual. On the contrary, he accepted Marx's view on the individual, which is why 'seperation' and 'spectacular society' form the core of Debord's analysis.

Compared Debord's method, Vaneigem's work is observational, anecdotal and deeply personal. There is much to recommend in reading him, it just doesn't compare to the original and rigorous thoeretical work of Debord.
Of course!

I never denied Debord had much more theoretical merit over Vaneigem, however I prefer much more Vaneigem because I can relate to him through a much more personal level than Debord.

Debord's analysis--although extremely insightful, was very dry, and thus it is not very appealing to me.

I think both works, the Society of the Spectacle, and RoE, should be read to get a much more complete message from the situationists. SoS is the scientific work, while RoE is the subjective work.

The message of RoE is a much useful for the individual's personal revolution, while SoS serves as a way to understand objectively modern relations of production.

[Leo]

Originally posted by FoB
Oh yeah. I found the letter.

Hmm, I always thought that Debord kicked Vaneigem.

Anyways, when the occupations in Paris started, apparently Vaneigem didn't take them seriously at all and he said nothing would come from it and went to southern France for holiday. When he admitted that he was wrong and thought it would be a good idea to return to see the atmosphere at least, it was too late, as the transit workers were already in strike :lol: It must have been so horrible to miss May 68 like that :lol: