Firstly, I am tired of people calling Situationist theory, "Situationism". As many people have said, the Situationist International never called their theory that in order prevent their association with ideologies that pretended to be revolutionary, that is, at the time in which they existed. Secondly, I will respond to some of the comments that have been posted.
Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim) Debord formed the SI in 1957, and it disbanded it 1972.
He was in SouB for a couple of years in the mid-sixties, maybe 63-65[/b]
No, he was in Socialisme ou Barbarie between 1961 to 1962.
Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)Situationist praxis is meaningless without genuine, class struggle politics. I think the best thing, rather than creating an all encompassing "situationist group" is for situationists to join more developed, communist groups. Situationist groups would work alright while the members are in other communist groups I guess.[/b]
That is a pretty hard condemnation, Marmot. To say that it is meaningless, especially in this environment, is something that can be said to be going a bit too far. Granted that the words that they used were very complex and their attitude towards certain things were "unusual", to say the least, it is ridiculous to absolutely dismiss Situationist theory, or praxis, as you call it, out of hand. The reason why I say this is because its main theoretical premise, the Spectacle, does actually describe a very real phenomena in modern Capitalist societies, both in the stage of mass industrial production and of the stage of the "Social Factory", or the factory without walls. It is just that its main theoretical premise is cluttered with some irrelevant stuff that either went out of the window with the end of the revolutionary wave of the 1960's and 1970's or with the end of the Cold War.
Also, to say that there was no class struggle element in it, that is going a bit too far as well. It was not direct, but it does possess it, otherwise it would not have called for the development of generalized working class self-management, or in other words, workers' councils.
What needs to be done is to remove whatever is irrelevant from it, take whatever is relevant from it and combine that with other relevant revolutionary currents that have the goal of the establishment of both Socialism and Communism through instruments of working class power. It is really, the only way to prevent its total recuperation into Capitalist society.
[email protected]
Its true that they did some agitation that lead to may 68, but their role is often exaggerated.
Yes, it is often exaggerated, but, I think the reason for that is because of the fact that there is some truth to that exaggeration. It must be remembered that one of the situations which caused the development of the student revolt that actually led to the events of May-June of 1968 in France was specifically the "Strasbourg Incident" of November 1966, the distribution of a text that the Situationist International authored, with some individuals from the local student union, that is, the Poverty of Student Life, and, the fact that the students that were working with the Situationist International to author that text used the funds of the student union used to publish it. Now, do I think that if the Situationist International did not get involved with such a situation, that the student revolt would have happen irregardless? It would have, because of the crisis that the school system in France was experiencing because of its overpopulation and its unwillingness to change substantially. But, the content would not have been that rebellious nor that psychologically developed.
Jello
I've been meaning to read some Situationist works, but I have been busy with other material. Apparently the theories behind it are quite complex?
No. The only thing that is complex about Situationist theory is its language, not the ideas that are behind it.