AUT: Me and my interests

["erik å.j." <badboybubbas@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello, my name is Erik Åsell, I live in Stockholm, Sweden and Ive been
following this list for some time but havent contributed until now.
Id like to follow up on Kubhlais post concerning an interest for parallels
between situationist theory and autonomist marxism. Ive seen that the s.i.
gets mentioned frequently in this list, a couple of times in the anarchism
vs marxism debate for instance. Harry Cleaver mention them in his ?the
inversion of class perspective in marxian theory?. Michael Hardt call for
further study of the society of Guy Debord in his ?the withering of civil
society?. Aufheben writes atleast partly enthusiastically about them. And
maybe more vaguely; there have been several people from the Luther Blissett
multiple name project on this list. I think its safe to say that Kubhlai
shares this interest with alot of people. Including me.
Let me try and delineate some of the more obvious connections between these
two political traditions.
*First there is the refusal of work as a (anti)political strategy.  This
might be related to both being influensed by the councilist communist
tradition.
*Then might s.i.´s exhortation for theft (?the only free choice is the
refusal to pay?) have some resemblance with the self-reduction of prices in
the autonomia movement. This relates to a shared perspective that
class-conflict stretch outside wage-relations (capitals colonization of
leisure-time), which of course isnt something uniquely for these two marxist
traditions.
*The ?detournement? of the s.i. (which from what I understand they didnt
invent but rather picked up from Lautreamont, though they might have been
the first to use this technique in an explicit political context) could, as
Cleaver points out, be considered in terms of the autonomist marxist [from
now on a.m.] ?self-valorisation?.
*The creation of situations in s.i. might also correspond, though a bit
vaguely, to the a.m. focus on the future in the present, maybe even the
existing prerequisites of communism.
*The s.i. critique of the christian remnants within the left, the critique
of the sacrifice, (i.e. ?boredom is always counter-revolutionary?) seems
close to the negrian communism as joy. If Deleuze could be included in the
a.m. camp there might be an interesting link between his reading of
Nietzsche and the s.i.´s ?masters without slaves? (i.e. critique of the man
of ressentiment).
*The s.i.´s loyalty with vandals and the likes might hold a distant
resemblance with the a.m. upgradation of the revolutionary potential of the
lower ranks within the classcomposition.
I might find more threads if I go back to the texts. Though for now; feel
free to complete me. The ones Ive pointed out are ones where I think
situationist theory could enrich a.m.
Now I want to consider some of the more obvious differences.
*First there is the s.i. perspective of class-conflict in terms of a
hegelian master-slave dialectic, wheres a.m. focus on the autonomy of the
working-class (and capital as a vampire). This issue has been debated
exhaustively and I dont think the s.i. could complete a.m. in any
interesting way in this respect.
*Then there is the issue of work within later capitalism. The s.i. doesnt,
from what Ive come across so far, really say that much about work (more then
that we ought to replace it with play). Instead they focus on consumption
and the consumer. Though they elaborate some remarkable insights in this
nexus I think, needles to say in this list, that the way they let go of work
is a major weakness in situationist theory. If we instead look at a text
like ?immaterial labor? by Maurizio Lazzarato we could se how he puts
(immaterial) labor (and with it the potentially revolutionary presence of
the working-class) right at the center of such phenomenon the situationists
would label ?spectacle?.
*The spectacle itself is my final thread. The focus on the omnipresence of a
spectacle might not correspond that well with the ?I dont need to be
persuaded that the world is a prison, but how to get out of it? approach of
a.m. Then the concept of the spectacle follow the dichotomy of truth and
ideology that alot of radical theory since the sixties have been
questioning, a tendencie that alot of autonomist marxists seem to follow.
And under, or within, the spectacle the subjects of the s.i. seems to be
quite ?humanist? (or should I say cartesian) as opposed to, for instance,
Negris materialist subjectivities.
But, and this is my question, doesnt, despite its problems, the concept of
the spectacle capture something momentous in our society, namely the
isolation of the spectatorship. People tell me that the most successful of
the commercial www-sites are the interactive ones, the ones where the
netsurfer participate in the creation of the content of the page. This might
be true, but the interactivity seems to me to be set in such frames as to
not qualifie as un-spectacular. Though the creation of the content of the
page clearly should be defined as labor. This kind of collapse of the
dichotomy production-consumption certainly could have some impact on
situationist theory. But couldnt it also imply the relevance of the concept
of the spectacle, if it is possible to remove it from its humanist
connotations (without winding up in a baudrillardian disillusion), for a.m.?
If we consider the fourths tthesis of the society of the spectacle; ?The
spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship
between people that is mediated by images?. Doesnt this open up a
possibility to consider the spectacle in terms of class-composition? The
image as ?dead-labor??

Im sorry for insufficient english and if Ive offended anyone with such a
basic post.

   Erik











________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---