Subject: Re: AUT: Me and my interests
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 00 03:37:15 +0000
From: kubhlai <kubhlai-AT-proweb.co.uk>


I acknowledge what you say about "classical anarchism" Harald and their 
efforts to devise "organizational structures. I didnt mean to disparage 
this and, as you discerned anyway, it was the
>....post-68 anarchism on the other hand,
as encountered mostly on the streets (and in a UK context) which I had in 
mind. (I've never been impressed by any of the groupings that have arisen 
here since the early 70s, eg the AWA or the CBA....)

>As for "situationism" today, I am no longer sure what
>that is.

In a formal organizational sense it doesn't exist. However there are a 
lot of loose networks of "situationists" around and many spin-off groups, 
(such as those featured in Stewart Homes "Mind Invaders") as well as 
(dubiously) a strong current in "intellectual" circles in general 
(especially in architecture and urban design circles). There are some 
small politically active groups such as the "Nottingham 
Psychogeographical Society" (which, true to form, has no apparent 
connection to the city of Nottingham) and these appear in the trees on 
antiroad demos and the like. There is of course great difficulty in 
saying which group *is* and which is *not* situationist, since the SI 
demanded its own supercession in the first place, but certainly there is 
neither any one organization which could clearly and simply be described 
as such, nor any likelihood, at the moment, of a concensus re-emerging 
upon which one could reform (though many hoping).

> I have an affinity to the old SI and then in
>particular the Guy Debord tendency within it. As for
>the post-SI Vaneigem, I have hard to see that he has
>any longer any political relevance,

I think the implied distinction between Debord and Vaneigem is a false 
one. Though they undoubtedly had a very different style 
(objective/subjective one might say) I dont know of any point at any time 
when they actually crossed the line and disagreed with each other.
The same has *not* been altogether true of their latter-day followers. 
There has definitely been a tendency for groups to congregate around one 
or the other. Bill Brown in New York is  a well-known "Debordian" in the 
sense that he has concentrated almost exclusively on the words of Debord 
and compiled an exhaustive collection of all things associated with him. 
He specifically dislikes the "mysticism" he thinks he detects in 
Vaneigem. By contrast there was barely a single etext of Vaneigem 
available on the Net (only a small extraction from the 1984 translation 
of Revolution of Everyday Life) until less than two years ago :in fact I 
sent out the rest of ROEL plus Book of Pleasures myself, and a few other 
short texts (new translations) have since been added on Reuben Keehan's 
new situationist archive at.. 
<http://situationist.cjb.net>
This lack of available texts however does not reflect any lack of current 
interest in Vaneigem. On the street one tends to hear "I always preferred 
Vaneigem myself" far more often than the converse. No doubt it is the 
hedonism which gives him the more instant appeal, but there is in that 
aspect of Vaneigem an extension of Wilhelm Reich's argument that only 
through orgasmic emancipation can Man free himself from his tendency to 
erect false and distorting ideologies. If you sympathise with that view, 
then Vaneigem's passion for self liberation is far more awe inspiring, at 
the end of the day, than Debord's more intellectual social critique and 
that explains his wider and more immediate appeal.

>And when it comes to Hakim Bey, all I
>can say is that I prefer Allan Ginsberg as a writer
>of fiction.

Well I agree with you! Yet Hakim Bey's influence seems currently more 
pervasive than that of either Debord or Vaneigem -- if the sheer tally of 
references to him is any guide, (and that despite some very dubious 
stories of his prior connections with certain security forces). I think 
Bey consists mostly of cleverly written statements of the obvious 
combined with a tendency to follow trends and then pretend to have 
thought of it first. There is some good stuff in all these writers -- 
Deleuze Guattari Virilio -- but they also serve as sloganeers, and for 
the most part -- only for the consumption of academics (which means that 
they are quite happy to feed you sheer bullshit if they think they can 
get away with it). Baudrillard still rules -- but even he got a smack in 
the gob (mostly undeserved I thought) in Sokal's "Intellectual 
Impostures".

> I have general feeling that if you take the
>class perspective out of situationist theory it lends
>itself to just about everything, not at least, para-
>doxially enough, to the culture industry, and then of
>course to "lifestylism" as an ideology. On the other
>hand it provides excellent instruments for a critique
>of such phenomema, or for that sake to end with what
>is perhaps a provocation and an overstatement: the
>spectacle of events such as in Seattle.

I'm quite sure you're right. There is nothing to stop you using insights 
into the manipulation of images in order to manipulate images (and this 
in part is why I've always questioned the distinction between 
detournement and recuperation). But its every bit as true Harald that 
there is nothing to prevent you using Marx's insights into the corporate 
tendencies of Capitalism (for example) to adjust society in order to 
avoid such tendencies bringing down Capitalism. In fact -- I am quite 
sure that this has been happening, our priveleged classes have been aware 
of Marxist writings for generations; they have enacted anti-trust laws 
and inheritance taxes which have greatly retarded corporatism, they have 
broken up the homogenous threat posed by a majority working class by 
creating a tiered middle class, and they have retrenched the voting 
support for their political parties on lower and lower levels of this 
more complex hierarchy so as to retain a populist grip upon office.
Therefore I feel this is not a very valid criticism of situationism -- 
any popularized social critique can potentially be used by anyone to 
their own end.
Nevertheless I've been engaged for the past couple of years in a group 
which has been striving to deepen the understanding of spectacular 
society. What we had in common to start with was indeed this feeling that 
the SI did not get to the bottom of the dynamic processes of social and 
psychological control, but had at least set the fuse. (Oh and the other 
thing we had in common was a contempt for their failure to organize -- 
which is not necessarily a different subject though we've made less 
progress on it, its a fact -- but then we are scattered across several 
continents). In our view the fact that Seattle partakes in part of 
"Spectacle" is both true and yet not necessarily fatal (no phenomenon can 
be said to be entirely and permanently one or the other but an object of 
constant warfare). But this may take us into unusual waters for AUT 
marxists.....?


In solidarity

kubhlai-AT-geosophy.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---