Chris Witter wrote
at 12:37pm yesterday
Hola!
I am not sure that it would be right of us to appropriate (co-opt) the title 'Situationist International'. I'm not comfortable with the idea that we might call ourselves 'situationists', and so on. Particularly because I cannot feel good about any association that exist only via the Disneyland of Facebook. But also because I don't want SI safely recuperated by 793 happy little capitalists (I am including myself in this, you see). Finally, I don't wish to contribute to the ongoing bastardisation of Situationist International and its texts.
I hope, though, that we might discuss our thoughts and go from there.I've only just begun to digest the texts of Debord. Many of these, and other SI texts, can be found here:
Another interesting writer (I have been informed on good faith):
Cornelius Castoriadis:
Mike Quinlan (Boston, MA) wrote
at 3:00pm yesterday
Geez, I never took it that seriously, Chris. After all, as you point out, this is Facebook. I don't believe anyone takes that seriously.
But it gives you a clue about what sort of discussion might take place here and could result in the birthing of an actual situationist or two, so why not. I've pulled out my dilapidated 'Society of the Spectacle' and 'The Veritable Split in the International' and am giving myself headaches again thanks to this site...
Mike Quinlan (Boston, MA) wrote
at 7:33pm yesterday
Pseudo-cyclical time is actually no more than the 'consumable disguise' of the commodity-time of production. It contains the essential properties of commodity-time, namely exchangeable homogenous units and the suppression of the qualitative dimension. But being the byproduct of this time which aims to retard concrete daily life and to keep it retarded, it must be charged with pseudo-valuations and appear in a sequence of falsely individualized moments.
Get my drift?
Chris Witter wrote
at 8:45am
Perhaps, perhaps not. I think, for example, that ideas of 'pseudo' and 'false' are problematic. In one short story by Donald Barthelme the narrator comments that 'signs are signs, and some of them are lies' (Me and Miss Mandible). My thoughts are:
1/ That it obvious that we cannot stand outside of representation; ideas of 'true' and 'false' are, thus, irrelevant.
2/ All representations are political.
Thus, it is not a case that capitalism deludes us because it presents us only with signs; we cannot do away with a 'false' sign system in order to access 'the real'. The capitalist system does, however, have an invested interest in normalising this system of signs, restricting 'play', ascribing meaning, shoring up authority. This is a lie we must break down, certainly...
Chris Witter wrote
at 8:52am
But, the irony of the Barthelme quotation, is that, when faced with the society of spectacle, we cannot say: this is an illusion we must replace with truth. Instead we must be self-affirming: this is a representation that we do not like, and so we must replace it. This is a lie that serves self-interested fat cats, we must break it and make something better in its place.
I think that this is one of the things Guy Debord it suggesting in Society of the Spectacle. For example:
The spectacle cannot be understood as an abuse of the world of vision, as a product of the techniques of mass dissemination of images. It is, rather, a Weltanschauung which has become actual, materially translated. It is a world vision which has become objectified.
And:
The spectacle grasped in its totality is both the result and the project of the existing mode of production. It is not a supplement to the real world, an additional decoration. It is the heart of the unrealism of the real society.
Chris Witter wrote
at 8:59am
What do you think?
p.s. It's not that I do not think we're 'true' situationists. It's simply that the term, the group, the people, the texts, all had a specificity; a political moment. I don't want to smother this. And I don't want to re-chew the already digested. I'd rather find a new name.
Mike Quinlan (Boston, MA) wrote
at 2:46pm
I believe you are correct. Certainly digesting all of these intellectual underpinnings is in no way a necessary precondition to be a revolutionary, and I often wonder if it simply isn't a sidetrack to paralysis.
"Revolutionary theory is now the enemy of all revolutionary ideology and knows it." S. of S. #124 in its entirety.
But you do seem to hold the situationists to another standard than say, Marx or Kropotkin, who we can certainly read and use as we see fit and call ourselves marxists (boo) or anarchists (yay), proudly carrying on in their tradition.
Chris Witter wrote
at 9:58pm
Certainly this is a common, a traditional, critique that some academics seem to have based their careers upon. I disagree strongly. 'Theorizing' in this case is discussion; discussion seems positive. That discussion is positive is a presupposition of the left; what is (true) democracy? Apart from access to necessities - water, food, medicine - it is also access to education and freedom to discuss. What is fascism? Etc.
I think what paralyses us is much more scary than 'excessive navel gazing'. It is the comfort and distractions that keep those who might act and be heard content. It is the way that in this capitalist system the 'true enemy' is always kept out of sight, always deferred. It is the fear that we have of being marginalised, of stepping outside of the social order. It is the political lies we are told - for example, that Britain and America are democratic.
Certainly, though, it is also the excessive complication of matters by self-appointed 'experts'.
Chris Witter wrote
at 10:04pm
For example, many will talk about 'the Economy' as though it is this hideously complex thing, subject to processes that must be regulated in such a way, that cannot be changed because, that intrinsically, transcandentally must be in this manner. This is bullshit. In this case the essential points are all very simple: that, for example, people must be able to eat, must be able to drink clean water, must be able to afford medical care, must be able to work safely, must be able to work without fear of molestation, must be able to rest, must be able to excerise human dignity. &c.
These things a 3 year old can understand.
But, to theorise is to speak, and to act - even if ineffectually - and so the fascile critiques should be laid to rest.
Chris Witter wrote
at 10:11pm
Oh - I didn't address your last point. Certainly use and abuse the SI texts. They're not sacred. But, Marx and his texts are a good example of something that has been appropriated in many different ways, not all, we might argue, 'accurate'.
What I would hope, as I began to say, is that if we were to pursue such and such a cause, we might dispense with the various pledges of allegiance and instead find and use our own names; view the SI as a point of departure, not a ragged old flag to be waved.
