Re: AUT: Me and my interests

[kubhlai <kubhlai@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx


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