Re: AUT: Me and my interests

[kubhlai <kubhlai@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not really qualified to answer your questions Erik as I dont yet know
enough about the autonomist position, but I can make a few comments from
the situ perspective, and give the autonomists plenty of scope to find my
inadequacies....

>*First there is the refusal of work as a (anti)political strategy.

There are differences of interpretation of the never-work ethos even
amongst situationists of a more orthodox bent. For Bob Black it seems to
be a political strategy aimed particularly at industrial workers, for
others it has certainly been an excuse for simple hedonism and
bohemianism (though this is a misreading, I think, of Vaneigem which is
clear from the second half of The Book Of Pleasures). The majority of
situs and post-situs however interpret it with a pinch of salt -- seeing
it as hinging upon the definition of "work". As used by Vaneigem in
particular it simply appears to denote inauthentic activity -- that is,
having to live by doing things you don't enjoy doing, which contain none
of your own creativity. It does not therefore refute the value of
production so long as you are able to gain genuine satisfaction from it.
It also needs to be stressed that the reason for this argument does not
derive just from an elevation of the principle of hedonistic
self-indulgence for its own sake, but rather because in the situationist
view alienation is a method of social control in itself, and the
overcoming of alienation is part of the process of overcoming the state.

>  This
>might be related to both being influensed by the councilist communist
>tradition.

Dont know. The situs are often criticized by other anarchists as well as
marxists for their rather vague proposition in favour of councils.
Personally I am generally in favour of workers councils rather than (say)
trade unionism because they seem to have a better record in motivating
communities to defend themselves -- which derives from the fact that they
tend to be more representative of the community itself than a trade union
ever can be. But I agree that the actual model is vague. On the other
hand -- situationism is primarily concerned *not* with drafting a
legoland model of utopia but with creating the social and psychological
conditions for the free creativity of the people. I think it is fair to
say that situationists dont give a damn about what forms future societies
exhibit, so long as the people who create and transform them can live
authentically in the process of their perpetual genesis. Those glimpses
of situ fantasies about the future city have a deliberate air of
unreality (such as that in Chtcheglov's "Formulary for a New Urbanism")
they are devices rather than prescriptions.

>*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.

I cant think of where "theft" as such is overtly "exhorted". All the same
we do what we can in this regard.....

>*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.

I would very much appreciate a definition of this a.m. self-valorisation.

For me personally, the S.I's definition of detournement was a weakness --
it is ambiguous in two respects. First with respect to whether a
detourned 'image' (or whatever) is necessarily a *novelty*. The
definition given by Debord in the early works seems to leave open an
alternative possibility, that of "redemption" -- that is of liberating a
true meaning (use) in an image (or cetera) which was there before being
mystified and recuperated ; whereas its interpretation by most situs
since has been almost entirely in a more post-modern vein of eclectic
recombination and juxtaposition. (The reactionary nature of much
post-modernism is the main reason I think that the situationist current
fell into the doldrums).
The second weakness, and this is a personal not orthodox opinion, is that
the opposition of "detournement" and "recuperation" does not hold up very
well. So long as you have a dualistic two-class image of society, then it
is reasonable to say that if the ruling class appropriate something and
mystify its connection with its producer -- that is recuperation, and
conversely if the worker seizes the image (or other commodity) and makes
creative use of it - -that is detournment. However this breaks down if
you regard the bulk of humanity as partaking of both class characters --
and therefore of all being engaged in *both* recuperation and
detournement simultaneously --- a competitive free-for-all society
(reminiscent of the existentialist novel "La Guerre"  by LeClezio). In
this view, the meaning of images and ideas is the subject of constant
struggle on an individual level.

And this struggle, incidentally, predates Capitalism. Although Debord
clearly links the production and commodification of images and ideas to
the economic forces of production -- to the same model as Marx's
economics of material production and exchange, this does not necessarily
mean that this manipulation of values begins with capitalism -- only that
capitalism is its contemporary dominant feature. Vaneigem seems to be
exploring in that direction in his recent book -- the Movement of the
Free Spirit.

>*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.

Again, curiously, I cannot think of a particular place in the writings of
the SI where "situation" is given any kind of specialized redefinition.
It is more a self-evident condition -- that of seeing the situation for
what it really is. It is pretty much taken for granted that this is also
a creative leap into a different future world.
However this is where I think the SI left off their "Unfinished Work".
And presumably this is where Hakim Bey comes in : seeing that
apprehending the truth is not enough in itself to permit you to live
authentically happy ever after and therefore proposing the Temporary
Autonomous Zone as some kind of stop-gap until a *mass* situation finally
arises. Alas I am not happy with that either : it seems to me that saving
up for a fortnight in Benidorm also constitutes a TAZ under that
definition, and therefore that ordinary people have always been doing
this irrespective of their level of situational consciousness.

>*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.

The sacrificial aspect of christian tradition is central. In Vaneigem in
particular, it is inhibition against joy which is most despised, and in
the setting up of (joyless) labour as a value in itself (the work ethic).
It is the idea that suffering can be good and joy sinful which he
violently despises.
However the christian influence in modern thought is more pervasive and
subtle than that. The very idea of "morality" (which as Nietzsche said
originates in the God myth) is still prevalent everywhere; increasingly
used (under the contemporary guise of "Humanism") as the propaganda
justification for the authority of governments (eg the moral imperative
to bomb jugoslavia) and even in the rationale of political vanguards of
the Left ("political correctness"). Expunging the vestiges of this
conditioned cultural pattern of thought is therefore a high priority for
situationism (as it has long been for most anarchists). Lots of echoes of
Foucault here.


>*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'd love to believe that. Unfortunately I think the SI's (and most
current situationists) record in respect of valuing the "rank and file"
has been poor. The SI emerges from intellectual and artistic circles --
it never entirely shook off the mentality which goes with that priveleged
background. (I exclude myself from the criticism naturally!). This is not
to say that the likes of Debord and Vaneigem are/were arrogant to the
working class -- far from it, they consider the worker better able to
enjoy sheer pleasure for its own sake than can the middle class (and
therefore one might say that they have a more revolutionary
consciousness, contrasting sharply with Leninists in this respect), but
they have little idea how to reach out to them -- because so much of
their own joy and creative effort was  channelled into Art and anti-Art.


>*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.

I'm inclined to agree with this. The writings of the SI, as I said
earlier, do retain a certain simplicity with regard to class relations
which sits rather uncomfortably with their individualism. I incline to
the belief that they simply didn't get round to dealing with this in more
detail. In any case the SI critique does not hinge in any way upon a
classical class model although some of its rhetoric avails itself of it.

>*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.

Again we seem to agree. This is pretty much what I was saying above with
regard to what the SI meant by the word "work".
However to be fair, they had less to say about work and production
precisely because it was already well covered by Marxism in general. It
was the role of *consumption* which was new and unplotted and so it is to
this that they gave their energy. A lot of people forget that
situationism stems directly from Marxism (or at least believed that it
did) and regarded itself as a new development of critique, not a separate
movement. There are however several modern "situationists", (for example
I had a serious run in with New York Debordian Bill Brown who runs the
Not Bored website over this), who have often been heard to say that
marxism is the "least interesting" historical feature of the SI, or that
Debord's marxism was a bit "regrettable". My own feeling is that
something needs to be done to redress this neglect of certain Marxist
strands in the situationist tradition -- especially dialectical
materialism and the brass-tacks of re-organization of the economy.

> 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.

Again I have to confess my ignorance. I'm not familiar with Lazzarato.
But it sounds to me as if you're right -- that this again strikes at the
dualistic impression left by the original S.I.'s works -- the cast-iron
antithesis of situation and 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.

I hope we can find something we dont agree on Erik -- else what are we
going to argue about! However, the dualistic tendency in the SI is *not*
a structural part of situationist thought so much as a quirk. The
concepts of spectacle, recuperation, detournement and so forth very much
show the way for the beginnings of a more complex critique of society,
and human nature, as a whole. Once they shift from the delusion /
revelation polarity they provide some very clear insights as to how to
deal with spectacles and ideologies.
This is exactly where I start calling myself *post* situationist; (but
just as postmodernismism was an integral component of modernism from the
very start, so is the supercession of situationism integral to
situationism. Just thought I'd get that little bit of sophistry in whilst
passing....)

>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.

This is true (at the moment) because these commercially successful sites
are the ones integrated with server side databases -- technology beyond
the reach of most web-designers. Thus its not really a fair comparison
anyway -- it takes money to make money and these companies have got the
commodities that make money to begin with. However I am VERY interested
in the subject of how to develop a multimedia "web-neighbourhood" -- a
Chtcheglovian urbanity in cyberspace. But thats another subject....
Anyway -- there is no mystery in the fact that empowerment sells. We
sacrifice our labour principally NOT because of christian programming
about work-ethic, but for the "freedom" which is returned to us in our
pay-packet. In new technological terms, interactive websites, on-line
supermarkets and computer-games return to us some of the excitements and
uncertainties of life which have been stolen from us. I dont think this
actually poses a problem for the situ-ified re-invention of marxian
economics, but rather confirms it.

> 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?

I dont get the bit about "humanism". This is probably just a difference
of semantics -- I tend to think of "humanism" as a recuperative
retrenchment of morality in the long historical process of the decay of
(Nietzsche's) exploded myth. (I would say Sit-ism is too individualistic
to be considered humanistic).

Apart from that, the "image as dead-labor".... is this distinct from the
position of the SI? I'm not sure: perhaps you will expand on this for me?

It is certainly crucial for understanding the *spectacle* to appreciate
that it does NOT mean simply Illusion (and there are plenty of
self-proclaimed situationists who simply do not grasp this) but that
images and ideas are commodities encapsulating *real* value. It is easy
to demonstrate this by considering a ten dollar bill. IF you say to the
worker extracting this ten dollar bill from his wage packet "Ah hah! you
see you've been swindled -- all you've got in your hand is a piece of
paper!" he will look at you as if you are an imbecile and he will be
right. The image on the note does indeed possess *real* power, just as do
material commodities. Paper-money, Guchi designer-labels, ostentatious
motor-cars, medals, titles, educational certificates......
In fact it is easy I think to redefine economics entirely in situationist
terms --
if you give me ten dollars (doesnt matter if its paper-money or solid
gold) in exchange for a sack of my potatoes (they are very good potatoes
too) where is the "material event" which constitutes this commercial
exchange? Is it the act of the customer taking the potatoes? or of my
taking the money?
Neither -- I believe it is in the change of attitude in the participants.
In the beginning I regard the potatoes as "mine", but now my idea is that
they are "his" -- so instead of hitting him with the baseball bat that I
keep to defend myself, I instead open the door for him and help him get
them into his car. It is the "image" or "idea " of "property" which has
exchanged -- this is the key to the event, and it is the influence of
ideas over our material behaviour patterns in this kind of way which
constitutes their "real value". (Thus capitalism itself depends upon
"spectacle" rather than vice versa).
A little radical a proposition on the face of it -- but actually it
changes nothing, just illustrates the social power of images -- and the
magnitude of their importance (close to omnipotence most of the time) in
human life.

Ideas have additional power linked to the existential quality of the
human condition -- to our need for a parsimonious worldview. But this is
too complex to address here.


Sorry to be so long-winded in a maiden post. But hopefully it will give
you autonomists plenty of scope to enlighten me of my shortcomings.


-- kubhlai


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