Situationists

What is the general Left Communist perspective on situationist theory?

I've tried to read that before and found it very hard going (ironically like most situationist writing!). Could some one sum it up?

Quick response, maybe too trite:the situationists were a product of the rememerging proletarian struggle of the 60s, and made some interesting critiques of bourgeois culture, but they were also strongly coloured by a kind of artistic, individualist ethos; they, like Socialisme ou Barbarie, also failed to understand that capitalism was still wracked by economic crisis, making the mistake of believing that they had gone beyond marxism.

I am probably not the best person to comment on this because I really dislike situationism, and personally disliked Debord, so maybe I am a bit biased.

Looking at our website, I could only find one article on the subject, and that quite recent:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/316/situationism

I agree mostly with Alf.

I've tried to read that before and found it very hard going (ironically like most situationist writing!). Could some one sum it up?

Yes, it is not easy going, is it?

Devrim

they, like Socialisme ou Barbarie, also failed to understand that capitalism was still wracked by economic crisis, making the mistake of believing that they had gone beyond marxism.

I'm not sure this is necessarily the case, for example the intro to 'From Wildcat Strike to Total Self Management;

THE FOLLOWING PAGES are addressed exclusively to revolutionary workers. To workers, because no one except those who are directlyinvolved in the processes of production is in a position to break the bonds of commodity domination.

To me Situationist thought seems not about breaking with class analysis and class struggle rather recognising the new forms of proletarianisation and criticising the ways in which culture, media etc form integral parts of control. It's interesting that you see them as going beyond Marxism as most people I have come across these days who feel an affinity with Situationist thought are anarchists. Despite what some might like to claim Debord, Vaneigem et al were not anarchists so it is intriguing that their legacy has gone this way.

I am probably not the best person to comment on this because I really dislike situationism, and personally disliked Debord, so maybe I am a bit biased.

Personally, as in personally met him?

Looking at our website, I could only find one article on the subject, and that quite recent:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/316/situationism

That article seems to be more about the legacy of the Situationists and present day Situationists than the movement and thinkers themselves. I’m sure it’s the best critique out there.

Yes, it is not easy going, is it?

No but then I find neither is most thing people recommend to read.

I'm not sure this is necessarily the case, for example the intro to 'From Wildcat Strike to Total Self Management;

I don't think this was an SI article though. Wasn't it written by Ratgeb a few years after it was wound up. It can't really reflect on what the SI was.

they, like Socialisme ou Barbarie, also failed to understand that capitalism was still wracked by economic crisis, making the mistake of believing that they had gone beyond marxism.

To me Situationist thought seems not about breaking with class analysis and class struggle rather recognising the new forms of proletarianisation and criticising the ways in which culture, media etc form integral parts of control. It's interesting that you see them as going beyond Marxism as most people I have come across these days who feel an affinity with Situationist thought are anarchists. Despite what some might like to claim Debord, Vaneigem et al were not anarchists so it is intriguing that their legacy has gone this way.

I think what Alf is talking about here is the idea that capitalism had gone beyond its economic contradictions, and that now the contradictions are between order givers and order takers. This was the idea upheld by Castoriadis and SouB, and was picked up by Debord during his time in that group. It seemed vaguely reasonable at the time, but stopped appearing so when the idea was kicked in the teeth with the return of open crisis in the 1970s.

Personally, as in personally met him?

Unfortunately yes. Only the once. He was a very unpleasant man, and was particularly rude to my mother.

That article seems to be more about the legacy of the Situationists and present day Situationists than the movement and thinkers themselves. I’m sure it’s the best critique out there.

Yes, I am surprised we don't have more things. Maybe if I look through the old copies of the review from the 1970s I can find something scan it and put it on line for you.

No but then I find neither is most thing people recommend to read.

That, in my opinion, reflects a big problem with how people write.

Devrim

there's this one, written at the time of Debord's death

http://en.internationalism.org/node/3624

there's this one, written at the time of Debord's death

http://en.internationalism.org/node/3624

No tags Alf. How do you expect people to find it?

Devrim

The best situationist was ratgeb/Vaneigem. There is a reason why the bosses' academia was able to integrate Debord but never ratgeb.

One of the reasons I became a communist was after reading Vaneigem and I cannot recommend it more than anything else.

you may be right, but the text that interested me most was Society of the Spectacle

you may be right, but the text that interested me most was Society of the Spectacle

I can understand why. I read the situationists when I was 16 and an alienated kid in high school. The person that spoke the most to me was Vaneigem, not Debord. (After all, its called in spanish treatsie for the know how of living for younger generations) It would be to little to say that Vaneigem influenced me. Vaneigem was one of the reasons why I became a communist.

Let me elaborate a bit. To me SoS felt like a theoretical treatise. There are better theorists out there. RoE to me was a poetic manifesto of a man who hated the current state of things and wished to destroy it. There where no theoretical pretensions, no apologies. I don't think I ever read something like that, ever. It just blew my mind. Never felt so questioned. Never felt like opening my eyes a bit more.

Actually if you read Lukacs is probably easier to read the situationists. Deboid was a big Hegelian like Lukacs. Personally, I think hegel is a really bnad influence but that is just me.

I don't think this was an SI article though. Wasn't it written by Ratgeb a few years after it was wound up. It can't really reflect on what the SI was.

Not sure really, I should really look at dates though.
I think still though even in SoS (perhaps the most abstract Situationist work), Chapter 4 for example still seems very committed to class struggle.

I think what Alf is talking about here is the idea that capitalism had gone beyond its economic contradictions, and that now the contradictions are between order givers and order takers. This was the idea upheld by Castoriadis and SouB, and was picked up by Debord during his time in that group. It seemed vaguely reasonable at the time, but stopped appearing so when the idea was kicked in the teeth with the return of open crisis in the 1970s.

What do you mean by order gives and order takers?

That, in my opinion, reflects a big problem with how people write.

Yes I'd say so, this is a bit off topic but I've seen you be quite critical of ICC material and the way it is written but I don't think this is really confined to your organisation. There seems to be a depressing option of incomprehensible ramblings versus patronising tabloid leftism. I don't think either are very good. I'm sure I'm the best to speak here I can be quite pretentious when I write and quite enjoy a fair bit of insurrectionist poetics but then again I don't really think they are that useful.

The best situationist was ratgeb/Vaneigem. There is a reason why the bosses' academia was able to integrate Debord but never ratgeb.

One of the reasons I became a communist was after reading Vaneigem and I cannot recommend it more than anything else.

Yes I have heard this, I actually have a copy of Revolution of Everyday Life downloaded on my computer, I need to get around to reading it.

Not sure really, I should really look at dates though.
I think still though even in SoS (perhaps the most abstract Situationist work), Chapter 4 for example still seems very committed to class struggle.

I have just checked. I am right about the dates. I think that they did still see that there was a class struggle, and yes they were committed to it. I think that they didn't understand the nature of capitalism though. Basically the idea was that modern capitalism had triumphed over scarcity, and it would continue to materially improve peoples lives. The struggle in the future would not be particularly one to defend workers living standards, but to overcome alienation.

What do you mean by order gives and order takers?

If class ceases to be the motor of history, the struggle is no longer about class, but about 'order gives and order takers' (Castoriadis' term not mine), a struggle for people to have power in their lives and to overcome alienation. This of course exists, but is not the prime force.

Yes I'd say so, this is a bit off topic but I've seen you be quite critical of ICC material and the way it is written but I don't think this is really confined to your organisation.

I have just looked at what ı wrote above and had the same thoughts. Do you understand what I am getting at because maybe it isn't that clear.

Devrim