Guy Debord [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

13th February 2007, 11:36

The book is essentially a critique of consumerist society and what we perceive as reality. The book propositions the decline of "being" into "having" and "having" into "appearing."

The book argues that our 'social life' has been replaced by an "image" that represents an historical point in which comodification replaces social being. Essentially we no longer exist as social animals but as commodities.

When Debord refers to "The Spectacle" he means that society has created an "image" of itself in which relations between commodities have taken over relations between people.

Simply, the Spectacle is the social relationship between humans and an image of being human (commodification of humanity).

Getting more complex into it, Debord argues that The Spectacle then creates an "Image" of the very thing it is forcing to change through it's existence.

Debord uses the example of the Russian revolution - When the bureaucracy arose essentially destroying the revolution: "An image of the working class arose in radical opposition to the working class itself."

This same argument is used in western societies. That capitalism creates commodities and then creates an image of uniqueness giving the impression that by buying the same object we will all become individuals. Which of course is totally ridiculous, yet it is perceived as reality.

Both of those examples show how reality is inverted by our forced perception of reality. It's called Hyperreality, which is a post modern concept that basically refers to when the distinction between what is real and what is not can no longer be defined.

The Feral Underclass

14th February 2007, 00:45

Anyone else?

black magick hustla

14th February 2007, 00:52

Guy Debord isn't a philosopher, he is a theorist. This shouldn't be in the philosophy forum, I am offended :(

Anyway, there are some things you need to take into account:

1) Debord, some few years before commiting suicide, said that the only thing that has changed regarding the spectacle is the very continuity of it--it has become much more powerful right now.

2) The spectacle is bad not only because TELECOMMUNICATION dominates our life--but because the spectacle is the materialization of alienation in the sense that workers do not have control over it..rendering them to passivity. In the realm of the spectacle, every one of the important decisions regarding your life have already been made.

3) Debord argued that the only way to destroy the spectacle is through communist revolution--total workers' control.

4) The spectacle is not a philosophical concept, it is a material reality, in the same way class division is also a material reality.

The Feral Underclass

14th February 2007, 00:55

I wish you liked me more, Marmot.

black magick hustla

14th February 2007, 00:57

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14, 2007 12:55 am
I wish you liked me more, Marmot.
why do you think i hate you???

i dont hate you. :P

The Feral Underclass

14th February 2007, 00:58

Originally posted by Marmot+February 14, 2007 01:57 am--> (Marmot @ February 14, 2007 01:57 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 14, 2007 12:55 am
I wish you liked me more, Marmot.
why do you think i hate you???

i dont hate you. :P [/b]
Oh good! :)

Would you regard yourself as a Situationist (in theory or praxis?)

black magick hustla

14th February 2007, 01:01

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 14, 2007 12:58 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ February 14, 2007 12:58 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:57 am

The Anarchist [email protected] 14, 2007 12:55 am
I wish you liked me more, Marmot.
why do you think i hate you???

i dont hate you. :P
Oh good! :)

Would you regard yourself as a Situationist (in theory or praxis?) [/b]
Sometimes in praxis, but just sometimes. Just when I am bold enough!

The Feral Underclass

14th February 2007, 01:03

Debord shot himself in the heart...

I think there should be more Situationists on this forum.

black magick hustla

14th February 2007, 01:04

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14, 2007 01:03 am
Debord shot himself in the heart...

I think there should be more Situationists on this forum.
yeah he shot himself because his ALCOHOLISM was taking toll and his nerves SWELLED.

i like to think that he commited suicide because he found the spectacle unberable though

The Feral Underclass

14th February 2007, 01:06

Originally posted by Marmot+February 14, 2007 02:04 am--> (Marmot @ February 14, 2007 02:04 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 14, 2007 01:03 am
Debord shot himself in the heart...

I think there should be more Situationists on this forum.
yeah he shot himself because his ALCOHOLISM was taking toll and his nerves SWELLED.

i like to think that he commited suicide because he found the spectacle unberable though [/b]
I think it is more likely that he killed himself because of his addiction to alcohol. Alas.

black magick hustla

14th February 2007, 01:18

another thing

the spectacle is not just images in the LITERAL SENSE, like it is not just MASS MEDIA. The mass media is just a face of it. For example, politics are spectacular in the sense that just specalized people make any meaningful decisions, and you are rendered into a spectator.

Some stupid primitivists interpret situationist theory wrong, thinking that MEDIA, and INTERNET are awful inventions and should be destroyed. Far from that--it is not that TELECOMMUNICATION is inherently wrong, just that it is centralized in its current state, and through it, ideology is manufactured by the specialists of the spectacle just for be bought by you as a commodity. I really like things like youtube because they have a potential to be detourned and be used against the spectacle in the sense that they are actually interactive tools where genuine communication is made.

Also, the spectacle is not a huge conspiracy, (although conspiracy does takes part in it, in the same way conspiracy takes part by the bouirgeosie). it is not about a few people planning a way to make people stupid, in the same way the bourgeosie isnt really a conspiracy force that consciously manufactures lies (they believe their own lies). the spectacle is simply the manifestation of current productive forces--a product of material reality. It wasnt planned by anyone or anything similar.

The Feral Underclass

14th February 2007, 01:19

I'm hot for Marmot!

(That rhymes)

which doctor

14th February 2007, 02:17

Originally posted by Marmot+February 13, 2007 08:18 pm--> (Marmot @ February 13, 2007 08:18 pm)

Some stupid primitivists interpret situationist theory wrong, thinking that MEDIA, and INTERNET are awful inventions and should be destroyed. Far from that--it is not that TELECOMMUNICATION is inherently wrong, just that it is centralized in its current state, and through it, ideology is manufactured by the specialists of the spectacle just for be bought by you as a commodity. I really like things like youtube because they have a potential to be detourned and be used against the spectacle in the sense that they are actually interactive tools where genuine communication is made. [/b]
Not just primitivists, but all sorts of post-leftists.

Read some Crimethinc and the link to situ-theory is quite evident. For the most part they entirely ignore the class-struggle part of situ-theory, which is probably the most important part.

TATYTATAT
I think there should be more Situationists on this forum.
I didn't know you considered yourself a situationist? There are a few situationists on revleft, me, marmot, leo, hopscotch, and probably a few other in the closet.

cenv

14th February 2007, 02:34

Hmm... I consider myself a situationist of sorts.

And yeah, it's incredible how many people have decided to misinterpret situationist texts and mold them into whatever form is convenient. Part of the problem is that situationist theorists tended to write in a style that was somewhat vague and open to interpretation. They definitely made some important theoretical and practical contributions though.

YSR

14th February 2007, 16:12

I've increasingly been trying to trace the link from Situationism to post-leftism, and find, as other you indicate, FoB, that there seems to be a strong reinterpretation of Situationist ideas within the post-left milieu. My only problem has been getting post-leftists to acknowledge this. They claim a distinct theoretical history, but I haven't had the urge to really look it up that much, since I dislike most post-leftism anyhow.

Bob Black was involved with the Situationists somehow, no? I know I've seen some writings by him discussing Situationist ideas.

There are a few situationists on revleft, me, marmot, leo, hopscotch, and probably a few other in the closet.

I'm preparing to leave the closet.

Hate Is Art

14th February 2007, 16:23

I've been reading a lot of situationist texts recently, and have been really enlightened by it, I wouldn't call my self a situationist though but some of their concepts and ideas are amazing. The spectacle, the situation and dentournament especially.

coda

14th February 2007, 18:51

I like to think the spectacle is summed as this:

in a world that *really* has been turned on it's head, truth is a moment of falsehood. SS~9

From Commentaries of the Spectacle:

The spectacle has two main foundations: "incessant technological renewal" and the "integration of State and economy". And in it's most recent phase, it has three main consequences: "generalized secrecy, unanswerable lies, an eternal present."

It is the entirety of social activity that is appropriated by the spectacle for it's own ends. From city planning to political parties of every tendency, from arts to science, from everyday life to human passion and desires, everywhere we find reality replaced by images. - Anselm Jappe.

<<<I've increasingly been trying to trace the link from Situationism to post-leftism,>>>

I can't help you there, but if you trace back to the roots of Situationist thought, you will run straight into Theodor Adorno

hoopla

14th February 2007, 22:00

As a work of art, I'm thinknig at the moment that the concept was obviosuly there, but it lacks in real artistic beauty. Maybe anyway, I was a while since I read anything. As a philosophy I'm sure there lots that beats it - true or not there is no rigorous argumentation or what-not. As a praxis (or whatever the term is) I assume that all one has to do is mention Guy Debord and one has created a situation (or mini-revolution or what-not) <_<

:lol:

rouchambeau

15th February 2007, 01:57

I just downloaded Society of the Spectacle. I hope there is more discussion on Debord in the future.

/dr00nks post

black magick hustla

15th February 2007, 02:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:00 pm
As a work of art, I'm thinknig at the moment that the concept was obviosuly there, but it lacks in real artistic beauty. Maybe anyway, I was a while since I read anything. As a philosophy I'm sure there lots that beats it - true or not there is no rigorous argumentation or what-not. As a praxis (or whatever the term is) I assume that all one has to do is mention Guy Debord and one has created a situation (or mini-revolution or what-not) <_<

:lol:
i think the concept of the situation is purposely vague.

if you mention situationist stuff between people that not know about it, you are building a situation, same if you mention marxist shit etc

however i think that the concept of the situation is much better applied in revolutionary action--for example building a factory commitee is a huge situation.

or in art, if you do something original and revolutionary, yoiu are building situations

redcannon

15th February 2007, 05:36

well, i got through the first chapter, absolutely fantastic. i swear, having your life's status quo changed by words on a page is better then sex... :wub:

i'm downloading chapter two in five minutes

Guerrilla22

15th February 2007, 08:12

where are you guys downloading it from? I found it on line, however the site has this really gaudy blue background that fucks with my eyes.

Hit The North

15th February 2007, 11:37

As ever, the best on-line source for revolutionary literature is MIA.

You can find Debord here: LINK (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm)

JazzRemington

15th February 2007, 12:37

Don't forget the Situationist theory of history. Thanks to the Spectacle, and those "revolutionary governments," history is generally either forgotten or subverted to suit their own ends. For example, with capitalism one can only understand capitalism as a thing that has existed for all time and will exist, which ignores the dynamics of history. The same thing in most of the "communist countries" when the governments began "tweeking" history and theory to make it seem that their way is the only way or that they've always existed. Think of the "memory hole" from 1984.

Second, the concepts of detournment and the situation. Detournment is an artistic concept in which one "reuses" old art by subverting its original message with revolutionary concepts. Ex. punk rock art in the 1970s (especially the Dead Kennedys and Crass) and the film "Can Dialectics Break Bricks?" The situation is an event, carefully staged, that is designed to temporarily pull back the curtin that the Spectacle has over everyday life adn expose the emptiness. The student uprisings in France in 1968 and the riots last year are examples.

http://www.bopsecrets.org/comics/index.htm (esp. LuLu's Public Secrets)

coda

15th February 2007, 17:48

Yes, let's keep this thread current. Anyone up for a study group of the Society of the Spectacle and the whole SI theory?

There are various translations-- you'll want to read them all! Also: Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, The Society of the Situation, and a Google video of Society of the Spectacle.

Ken Knabb translation (non-copyrighted) http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/16

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm

better read of the ken Knabb translationhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

VoxFux translation
http://www.voxfux.com/features/situationists/sos/sos.html

Comments on the Soceity of the Spectacle
http://www.notbored.org/commentaires.html

Society of the Spectacle video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5776914999756420568

The Society of the Situation
http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/situationism.htm

The SI Library
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/

Leo

15th February 2007, 20:14

i swear, having your life's status quo changed by words on a page is better then sex...

Eh, no it's not :lol:

More Fire for the People

15th February 2007, 20:35

I posted this earlier but it got deleted. While we're talking about situationism I'd like to add my two cents. Situationism may not be true in the sense that it is a proper lense from which to view the world but it is an effective libertarian counter-hegemony. While demands like 'abolish work' may be utopian 'demanding the impossible' may be emancipatory. I think its important to look at the potential of situationism and take influence from the experiences of the movement.

Guerrilla22

15th February 2007, 21:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:48 pm
Yes, let's keep this thread current. Anyone up for a study group of the Society of the Spectacle and the whole SI theory?

There are various translations-- you'll want to read them all! Also: Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, The Society of the Situation, and a Google video of Society of the Spectacle.

Ken Knabb translation (non-copyrighted) http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/16

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm

better read of the ken Knabb translationhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

VoxFux translation
http://www.voxfux.com/features/situationists/sos/sos.html

Comments on the Soceity of the Spectacle
http://www.notbored.org/commentaires.html

Society of the Spectacle video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5776914999756420568

The Society of the Situation
http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/situationism.htm

The SI Library
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/
I definitely am up for a study group on this book. I know some people at school who want to establish one also, so I might as well participate in both.

YSR

15th February 2007, 22:44

I would be down for a study group. If we could compile a syllabus, that would be fantastic. I'm thinking about maybe organizing a class with the local experimental college to teach this.

which doctor

15th February 2007, 23:29

A situationist syllabus :lol:

A revleft class on SI theory would have to be quite extensive.

It would have to talk about the influences of situ theory such as COBRA, dadaism, Letterism, socialisme ou barbarie, surrealism, etc. It would also have to discuss SI contemporaries in the USA such as the Rebel Worker in Chicago (which I could help with) and possibly even the beats. And add in all the post-situ groups and current which exist to this day, in addition to the actual SI history and theory. Its certainly an ambitious task.

Brownfist

16th February 2007, 00:01

My reading of Debord is that he is talking about the reification of consciousness through alienation and the mediation of social relations vis-a-vis commodities and commodity fetishism. Thus, he focuses on everyday life and the moment of commodity seen as spectacle. Furthermore, he argues that through "detournement", in the moment of the spectacle there can be a slippage which results in a momentary breaking of this reified consciousness.

redcannon

16th February 2007, 03:50

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 15, 2007 12:14 pm

i swear, having your life's status quo changed by words on a page is better then sex...

Eh, no it's not :lol:
well when you get it as much as i do ;)

angus_mor

16th February 2007, 08:42

I think you guys would like acid, shrooms and peyote way too much... :D :lol:

BreadBros

19th February 2007, 02:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:12 am
where are you guys downloading it from? I found it on line, however the site has this really gaudy blue background that fucks with my eyes.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

Wikisource has a nice black text on white version.

BreadBros

24th February 2007, 01:20

OK, so I've been reading 'Society of the Spectacle' and I have a question: What is Debord's view of dialectics? Debord opens up Chapter 3 of SotS (Unity and Division Within Appearances) with this quote from China:

“A lively new polemic about the concepts ‘one divides into two’ and ‘two fuse into one’ is unfolding on the philosophical front in this country. This debate is a struggle between those who are for and those who are against the materialist dialectic, a struggle between two conceptions of the world: the proletarian conception and the bourgeois conception. Those who maintain that ‘one divides into two’ is the fundamental law of things are on the side of the materialist dialectic; those who maintain that the fundamental law of things is that ‘two fuse into one’ are against the materialist dialectic. The two sides have drawn a clear line of demarcation between them, and their arguments are diametrically opposed. This polemic is a reflection, on the ideological level, of the acute and complex class struggle taking place in China and in the world.”

—Red Flag (Beijing), 21 September 1964

So he opens it up by presenting the conflicting views of those who support a materialist dialectic and those who support an idealist dialectic. However, Debord continues and argues:

54

The spectacle, like modern society itself, is at once united and divided. The unity of each is based on violent divisions. But when this contradiction emerges in the spectacle, it is itself contradicted by a reversal of its meaning: the division it presents is unitary, while the unity it presents is divided.

55

Although the struggles between different powers for control of the same socio-economic system are officially presented as irreconcilable antagonisms, they actually reflect that system’s fundamental unity, both internationally and within each nation.

In the rest of Chapter 3 Debord mostly focuses on how the third world is dominated by a spectacle that is fundamentally a part of the overall spectacle or goals of capitalism internationally, the role of celebrities, the role of the beuaracracy, etc. So my question is, can someone elaborate on Debord (and the Situationists in general) take on dialectics? Is he arguing that this is a false division between dialectical models that are both fundamentally products of capitalism? I understand it may be somewhat over my head but Im looking for some general understanding of his viewpoint to provide a bit more context to everything else hes arguing. Can anyone provide help? Anyone with a bit more knowledge on Situationism?

coda

25th February 2007, 06:57

angus mor, I like your avatar. Pretty nice!!

BB: Debord, there in Ch. 3 is straight in line with Marx's dialetical materialism. He is arguing the unity of opposites, the contradictions within that, to negation-- thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis. As to your question: Is he arguing that this is a false division between dialectical models that are both fundamentally products of capitalism?

yes. That's what it seems to me he is saying.

Interesting though, this commentary from nothing.org, (who are apparently social anarchists {?} but house the SI library) says he is railing against dialectics.

<<Debord is working in the revolutionary tradition of Marx, Bakunin and Stirner (fellow Young Hegelians), so it is not surprising that he insists, in theory, on continuing the tradition of Hegelian dialectics while in practice his methods vary.

I contend that it is precisely here, at the fundamental level of methodology, that tradition must be broken if revolutionary theory is to advance. Dialectics is, to my mind, one of the very reifying models that Debord rails against. Reality is messy, open-ended and always contextual, whereas dialectics are abstract - a central contradiction for a thinker who would privilege the situation and everyday life, which is always particular. Dialectical thinking may have engendered historical acts, but history is not dialectical; it is - as the Debord of Comments observes - subject to surprise and may yet reappear.>>

Guess, it depends on who's interpretation and understanding.

If we can pull together atleast a group of 4, a study group would be worth having.

coda

25th February 2007, 07:32

The link to the nothingness reference

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI...ay_printable/76 (http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display_printable/76)

BreadBros

25th February 2007, 10:51

Thanks a lot for the link and reply Indigo. I also agree on the study group idea, I'm in.

Lamanov

25th February 2007, 13:10

:star: Don't forget the Situationist Library - everything you need is here! (http://situationist.cjb.net)

krakatoan

1st March 2007, 05:29

I found the Spectacular Times by Larry Law helpful, actually, it's what introduced me to situationist theory. They may be over-sipmlified, but they give you concrete examples, not like SoS, which is pure theory in a thechnical language. They are also fun to read.

http://www.burngreave.net/~aland/personal/...culartimes.html (http://www.burngreave.net/~aland/personal/spectaculartimes/cornersoul.com/spectaculartimes.html)

Another text I found helpful is Raoul Veneigem's Revolution of Everyday life.

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/5

Right now I am reading SoS, but I'm having trouble with ch 4

What I do to read is- take the book to the bathroom and read one or two thesis and think about it. You may also find that helpful.

krakatoan

2nd March 2007, 07:43

There are several situ movies.

I have seen this one an liked it:
http://metamedia.stanford.edu/~mshanks/call-it-sleep/

You can also find "Call It Sleep" on youtube

FRESH!

hoopla

27th March 2007, 09:23

thing about situs (there's a dscussion on libcom at the mo, which i don'tpost on anymore)... but imvho a lot of criticism of the is based on a pile of crap. i mean to say, that I think alot of criticism of them is based around the individual in question thinking that they are more talented/creative/etc. which is logically insane. its an art movement ffs. if someone was to say to you "I am more talented/creative/etc. than expressionism", you would tell them to gtfo.

Hate Is Art

6th April 2007, 14:50