ANARCHIST PUBLICATIONS:

THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE:

It's been decades since Molly first read Guy Debord's 'Society of the Spectacle'. The years have not been kind to the body of ideas, 'situationism' that spawned this book and many others. Not that the concepts haven't become popular nor that they have been proven wrong. If anything the ideas of situationism have become overly popular and have become corrupted by their success. The progeny of the "sits" in the USA, the "post-leftists", for instance have abandoned what was valuable in the insights and kept the worst, the turgid prose and the desire to take matters to an astronomical height of abstraction.

Yet, the basic ideas are just as valuable today as when they were first written over 40 years ago. If nothing else The Society of the Spectacle should be required reading for the diminishing band of anarchists who think that summit-hopping and ritualized combat with the police (always losing in such street fights, as Molly has pointed out many times before on this blog) is actually doing something. If anything deserves the term "spectacular opposition" it is this lemming like behavior, along with the subcultural trinkets of appearance that seem to adorn the participants.

What follows is a promo from the online anarchist library and publisher, 'The Bureau of Public Secrets'. The BOPS is devoted to all things situationist, and is an invaluable resource. check it out.

@@@@@@@@@@

The Society of the Spectacle‏:
From:
Bureau of Public Secrets (knabb@bopsecrets.org)
Guy Debord's THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE, originally published in 1967, is easily the most important radical book of the twentieth century.

Contrary to popular misconceptions, Debord's book is neither an ivory tower"philosophical discourse" nor an impulsive "rant" or "protest." It is an effort to clarify the nature of the situation in which we find ourselves and the advantages and drawbacks of various methods for changing it. It examines the most fundamental tendencies and contradictions of the present society --what is really going on behind the spectacular surface phenomena that we are conditioned to perceive as the only reality.

This means that it needs to be reread many times, but it also means that it remains as pertinent as ever while countless radical and intellectual fads have come and gone. As Debord noted in his later "Comments on the Society of the Spectacle" (1988), in the intervening decades the spectacle has become more pervasive than ever, to the point of repressing virtually any awareness of pre-spectacle history or anti-spectacle possibilities: "Spectacular domination has succeeded in raising an entire generation molded to its laws."

Debord's strategy is to cut through the mass of false solutions so as to open the way for real ones. His method may seem negative and abstract, but his aim is positive and concrete. No matter how many times you read his book, you will never really understand it until you use it. Which means using your imagination and experimenting for yourself. The purpose of the book is to help you do just that.

* * *

Ken Knabb's translation of THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE is online at http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord

The translation is also available in book form

--http://www.bopsecrets.org/cat.htm

A new PDF version is online at

http://www.bopsecrets.org/images/sos.pdf

Debord also made a film of his book, which is available in various formats -- http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord.films/index.htm

Related texts by Debord and other members of the Situationist International are online at http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/index.htm

****************

BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS

P.O. Box 1044, Berkeley CA 94701

http://www.bopsecrets.org/

"Making petrified conditions dance by singing them their own tune."

AMERICAN POLITICS:

THE NEW YORK TIMES HOAX:

Moll has just received the following from the Bureau of Public Secrets. Great move, and the BOP's comments say how this is related to the concept of "detournement", popularized by the situationsists. Too bad that more of this sort of thing isn't done. It's a few light years ahead of the "strategy" of petty vandalism and set piece riot so beloved of the worst parts of the American anarchist movement and so glorified by some who are old enough to know better.

.................................
"New York Times" hoax:‏
I'm forwarding the two messages below, which I received yesterday. The fake New York Times "Special Edition" can be found at http://www.nytimes-se.com/ .

Regardless of critiques that might be made of the ideas in some of the imagined stories, the perpetrators of this scandal have pulled off a remarkable coup, a coup that may help to spread some salutary memes regarding social change.

The social changes envisioned in some of the articles could be accomplished even within the current social setup (in which case people will be contrasting these possible changes with the probably very different results of the new Democratic administration). In other cases, notably those involving economic matters, it will be evident that the imagined changes could not be effected under current conditions, but would require a fundamental transformation of the whole socio-economic system (in which case people might start considering what sort of transformation would be sufficient, and how such a transformation could be brought about).

But in both types of cases, an important first step is clearing away the existing clouds of habit and resignation, so that people are able to get some sense that things could be different. This "Special Edition" coup may help to do just that. As limited as the particular "solutions" suggested may be, they are presented with a freshness and good humor that may provoke people to start questioning supposed inevitabilities and encourage them to take the initiative rather than to remain in panic-stricken, passive-defensive positions.

Many of you will have recognized that this Times "Special Edition" is an example of the situationist tactic of "detournement". For information on this tactic, see these two articles:

"A User's Guide to Detournement"

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/detourn.htm

"The Situationists and the New Forms of Action Against Politics and Art"

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/11.newforms.htm .

Then compare and contrast the "New York Times" scandal with situationists' notorious "Strasbourg scandal", which helped prepare the way for the May 1968 revolt in France: "On the Poverty of Student Life"

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/poverty.htm

"Our Goals and Methods in the Strasbourg Scandal"

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/11.scandal.htm

*******************

*******************

November 12, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SPECIAL TIMES EDITION BLANKETS U.S. CITIES,

PROCLAIMS END TO WAR

* PDF:

http://www.nytimes-se.com/pdf

*For video updates:

http://www.nytimes-se.com/video

* Contact:

mail to:

writers@nytimes-se.com

Early this morning, commuters nationwide were delighted to find out that while they were sleeping, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had come to an end. If, that is, they happened to read a "special edition" of today's New York Times. In an elaborate operation six months in the planning, 1.2 million papers were printed at six different presses and driven to prearranged pickup locations, where thousands of volunteers stood ready to pass them out on the street.

Articles in the paper announce dozens of new initiatives including the establishment of national health care, the abolition of corporate lobbying, a maximum wage for C.E.O.s, and, of course, the end of the war.

The paper, an exact replica of The New York Times, includes International, National, New York, and Business sections, as well as editorials, corrections, and a number of advertisements, including a recall notice for all cars that run on gasoline. There is also a timeline describing the gains brought about by eight months of progressive support and pressure, culminating in President Obama's "Yes we REALLY can" speech. (The paper is post-dated July 4, 2009.)

"It's all about how at this point, we need to push harder than ever,"said Bertha Suttner, one of the newspaper's writers. "We've got to make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do.After eight, or maybe twenty-eight years of hell, we need to start imagining heaven."

Not all readers reacted favorably. "The thing I disagree with is how they did it," said Stuart Carlyle, who received a paper in Grand Central Station while commuting to his Wall Street brokerage. "I'm all for freedom of speech, but they should have started their own paper."

* * *****

November 12, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:

writers@nytimes-se.com

917-202-5479 /718-208-0684/ 415-533-3961

"SPECIAL" NEW YORK TIMES BLANKETS CITIES WITH MESSAGE OF HOPE AND CHANGE

Thousands of volunteers behind elaborate operation

* PDF:

http://www.nytimes-se.com/pdf

* Ongoing video releases:

http://www.nytimes-se.com/video

* The New York Times responds:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/pranksters-spoof-the-times/

Hundreds of independent writers, artists, and activists are claiming credit for an elaborate project, 6 months in the making, in which 1.2 million copies of a "special edition" of the New York Times were distributed in cities across the U.S. by thousands of volunteers. The papers, dated July 4th of next year, were headlined with long-awaited news: "IRAQ WAR ENDS".

The edition, which bears the same look and feel as the real deal, includes stories describing what the future could hold: national health care, the abolition of corporate lobbying, a maximum wage for CEOs, etc. There was also a spoof site, athttp://www.nytimes-se.com/.

"Is this true? I wish it were true!" said one reader. "It can be true, if we demand it."

"We wanted to experience what it would look like, and feel like, to read headlines we really want to read. It's about what's possible, if we think big and act collectively," said Steve Lambert, one of the project's organizers and an editor of the paper.

"This election was a massive referendum on change. There's a lot of hope in the air, but there's a lot of uncertainty too. It's up to all of us now to make these headlines come true," said Beka Economopoulos, one of the project's organizers.

"It doesn't stop here. We gave Obama a mandate, but he'll need mandate after mandate after mandate to do what we elected him to do. He'll need a lot of support, and yes, a lot of pressure," said Andy Bichlbaum, another project organizer and editor of the paper.

The people behind the project are involved in a diverse range of groups, including The Yes Men, the Anti-Advertising Agency, CODEPINK, United for Peace and Justice, Not An Alternative, May First/PeopleLink, Improv Everywhere, Evil Twin, and Cultures of Resistance.

In response to the spoof, the New York Times said only, "We are looking into it."

Alex S. Jones, former Times reporter who is an authority on the history of the paper, says: "I would say if you've got one, hold onto it. It will probably be a collector's item."

SITUATIONISM:

NEW AT THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS:

Ken Knabb's excellent site devoted to all things situationist has a few new items up recently. Drop on over to the Bureau of Public Secrets for a truly stimulating read. The BOP also features the Rexroth Archive (texts by and about the social critic Kenneth Rexroth).These new selections are recently added letters. The list....

*Reply to a would-be suicide

*Anarchism and primitivism

*Pleasures and their limits under present conditions

*Rejection of an academic invitation

Earlier letters include...

*Critique of 'Theft' magazine (Australia)

*Critique of the CrimethInc book 'Days of War, Nights of Love'

Understanding Debord dialectically

The situationists on economic crises

ABOLISH RESTAURANTS:

The folks over at the LibCom website have added yet another interesting text to their online library, perhaps the best such collection on the internet. Titled 'Abolish Restaurants' it is a study by the Prole.Info group, an American left communist group. The essay is present at the Prole.Info site in either a comic book or text format(see the above link or Molly's 'Online Libraries' section under links). The LibCom site presents the text version only.

Abolish Restaurants is a thorough and penetrating study of the restaurant industry, its history, economics and internal structure. It is also a description of the ways that restaurant workers fight back against their exploitation and how these fight-backs are both partially successful and often derailed. True to its left communist perspective it ends with the call for the abolition of the whole "industry" of restaurants, of where meals and service are bought and sold and are produced by wage labour exploited outside of "real life".

This essay is truly comprehensive and enlightening, and is well worth the read. A long one...the LibCom printout runs to 24 pages, and the comic book format available at Prole.Info is 13.4Mb in a pdf format. I'm not touching that last one. This essay is at its best in its insider description of the nuts and bolts of what it is like to work in a restaurant, putting flesh on the bare bones of economic description and showing the workers as real human beings in the complexity of their situation. It is weakest in the "what is to be done" category. The author reject unions, self-management and other meliorist ways that people use to improve their situation collectively. The only sort of self-organization that meets with their full approval is the informal and, of necessity, highly temporary work group. There is, of course, an abiding faith that somehow, some way, some time, some sort of class organization will arise spontaneously to sweep away all the conditions of capital and its wage labour. The details of such organization are, however, more than slightly vague resembling an ecstatic religious vision shorn of concrete detail/superstition and beautiful because of its abstraction. But a political program or a plan of action...no and definitely no.
A MOLLY GUIDE TO LEFT COMMUNISM:

Here Molly has to digress. Non-anarchists and even the vast majority of younger anarchists can easily be confused by some of the labels assigned to a given group or individual's political theory. The whole subject of the "left communist" trend, very much a minority amongst the libertarian left is especially confusing. One reviewer of the Prole.Info group called them "insurrectionists", something they are most definitely not. Let me try to elucidate the matter, hopefully without adding to the confusion.

First of all one has to ditch the classical idea of politics as made up of parties sitting on a linear left right continuum where the only "fuzzy points" are where one spot on the line merges into another to either side. This vision is hardly realistic in mainstream politics, and it is particularly misleading in describing sectarian politics. The proper metaphor is more one of a moving blob of cells, each connected to many others and shading into them by multiple pseudopods. A rather messy picture, but one that more accurately describes reality than the linear model. This model is highly complex, but nowhere near as complex as the reality it attempts to describe.

Left communists are part of a political current that at one time included the situationists. They are pretty well Marxists by definition, holding to the sort of economics put forward in Marx's 'Capital' and not just giving it lip service but actually applying it over and over to describe practically everything else they pay attention to. Their devotion to Marxist "philosophy" is less obvious, but may still often be observed in what they write. At the very least they never deny it. One might say that people like this are the last Marxists left in the world as they hold to and utilize Marxist economics in a fully consistent and comprehensive way that no Marxist government ever did and that very few Marxists who claim the label do today. They differ from the conventional Marxist familiar to anybody unlucky enough to suffer through classes in the social sciences by actually using Marxist economics rather than giving it lip service and also in rejecting Marxist politics, not just the examples of it present in Marxist parties, ruling or otherwise, but the speculations and actions of Marx himself that set the tone for what Marxism was later to develop into. No doubt they would claim that their politics are as truly Marxist as their economics are, but they would be on rather shaky ground in this claim. The situationists were an example of this sort of left-communism, using Marxist economic categories to describe other aspects of life far from the factory gate. Sometimes using them as metaphors that were stretched rather thin from the perspective of an outside observer.

In their rejection of the politics of Marx left communists typically reject not just the concept of the 'Party' but pretty well anything else in the way of organization. that can exist for a period of time in non-revolutionary situations. The sterility of this point of view is pretty obvious. What exactly do you do then besides wait for the revolution- a revolution that most (but not all) of the left communists believe will be brought about by the impersonal actions of the economy described by Marx ? What is left ? You publish pamphlets and magazines (and now websites). That is actually pretty well all that left communists do as left communists. Many (most ?) are also active in many other aspects of social struggle, but they do this while checking their beliefs at the meeting hall door. No doubt that everybody in the whole world compromises, but in no other sane political tendency is the contrast between the ideology and the reality so dramatic. You really have to travel into insanity, such as primitivism, to get a greater contrast.

Left communists of course often (usually?) recognize that they have backed themselves into a corner with their descriptions of reality and criticisms of other methods of action in the here and now. Thus it is that they gradually shade into other political tendencies that are close to them in either ideology or tactics. 'Councilism" , also known as "council communism", goes a bit beyond the purest left communists is that they posit that there has been an alternative, the 'Workers' Councils' that have been thrown up in various revolutionary situations over the past century and a half. They see themselves as propagandists for this form of organization even though it cannot exist in the present except under an unstable condition of dual power. In Molly's opinion the councilists' idealize this form of organization. It has been at its best and purest in situations where it sprang by an almost virgin birth in societies in which everyday workers' organizations devoted to resistance have been reduced to practical nonexistence. Hungary 1956 and Poland 1980 spring to mind. Examples of this type show an invariable trend towards naivety and making the sort of ideological compromises that end up destroying the movement by co-option to the state- if the councils are not defeated militarily first. In other revolutionary situations where the ordinary people have long standing traditions of socialist resistance and organization, even maintaining their organizational coherence underground the councils become the theatre of factional struggle. The Russian Revolution is a prime example of this as was the post WW1 strike movement in Italy. In the Spanish Revolution the organizational tradition was so strong that the councilist phase was virtually bypassed entirely, except perhaps in the federations of rural communes, as the various factions signed deals with each other and avoided the whole idea of elected delegates. Council communists are also generally Marxist in economics, but they are nowhere near as focused on it as pure left communists. Some groups that evolved out of this tradition such as Socialisme ou Barbarie in France or Solidarity in Britain pretty well abandoned all of Marxism, becoming more libertarian socialist than left communist. But this is another long story.

Travelling in other directions left communism fades into the sort of libertarian socialism held by groups generally described as 'De-Leonist'. For the uninitiated (99.99999999% of the world's population) this is a form of anti-state socialism that believes in building a political party that will capture the state and then as its first and only act abolish the state, turning its administrative functions over to federations of industrial unions and local communities. This plan of action was set forward by the American socialist Daniel DeLeon in the late 19th and early 20th century and had an early, but temporary, vogue in the IWW after its foundation in 1909. Don't ask me how this would work. I'm merely describing it. The party that DeLeon founded, the Socialist labour party is pretty well much a a dead letter and has been for decades. For as long as Molly has been an anarchist (over 35 years now) anything that she has seen the SLP do is more in the line of trying to tear itself apart over the fine print of statements that have a negative chance of ever reaching more than 100 people, let alone influencing anybody. The general idea that DeLeon advocated was taken up with more success by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, though this also reduced itself to a tiny rump by a belly button lint picking obsession with having the "correct theory". Any Deleonist party worthy of the name also obsesses with the purity of its Marxism, but hardly to the extent that regular left communists do. Nor with anywhere near the same level of creativity that left communists, free as their small groups are from sectarian infighting, are able to apply.

While the movement with the name has become a tiny sect the general ideas advanced by DeLeon live on, divorced from the Marxist theology that they were embedded in. The general idea of "capturing the state by elections to abolish the state" is probably more popular today than it ever was. Actually more popular than a consistent anarchism Molly is sad to admit. The idea of "libertarian municipalism" as formulated by Murray Bookchin and his collaborators is a variation on this, though it is more libertarian because it restricts it efforts of capture to the local municipality. The whole social democratic trend, whether with or without revolutionary rhetoric-such as in Venezuela today, that borrows from the anarchist toolbox the ideas of popular assembly socialism and self management is merely a reformulation of DeLeonism without the moral consistency of the founder. The theory is that self-management, both by workers and by communities can be promoted by state actions while at the same time offering positions of control to the state and party functionaries that are the directors of this process of liberation (old buzz word) or empowerment (new buzz word). Molly is not a Marxist, but if she was she would say that this is the sort of thing that the rhetorical phrase "contradiction" really and truly applies to.

Another direction that left communists lean towards when they actually want to do something is vanguardism. These are people who believe that it is both necessary and desirable to build a vanguard sect to push the inevitable revolution a little bit forward. Sort of Leninism without the state or at least without the stated goal of building the sort of dictatorship that the Bolsheviks built. Once more I merely describe, not justify. The primary exponent of this sort of plan today in the International Communist Current, though there are others. At its best this sort of cadre building idea shades towards the more extreme section of the neo-platformist current in anarchism. At its worst...well I'll leave that to your imagination. These sort of people have perhaps an equal attachment to exegesis from Das Capital as regular left communists do- hence their attraction to many in this milieu when they look for something to actually do. But they are hardly anywhere as creative or attentive to the details of ordinary workers' lives.

Then, of course, there are the "insurrectionists". These are really a current within contemporary anarchism. If they are Marxist at all it is merely for the "show off" factor of false erudition. These people share the left communist distrust of organization that goes beyond the immediate and informal, hence the confusion that sometimes exists in describing left communism as "insurrectionist". Where they differ is in their elitism. Taking their cue from a certain brain dead section of anarchist history, a tendency that was always a minority and has been rejected over the years as the movement grew, they believe that only "exemplary actions" are needed to propel some sort of spontaneous explosion from the people. A people that they usually express endless contempt for. These people are vanguardists without the party. They usually express sympathy for acts of terrorism, petty or otherwise. Despite all their faults, left communists exude an aura of sympathy for the ordinary person and their struggles. They see the germs of action for a new society in the actions of ordinary workers, not in the masochistic posturing of some militant elite. Even at their most strident they hardly ever exude the sort of amoralism that "insurrectionists" do. No...they don't have the Stalin in the soul.

So, left communism is a particular philosophical trend on the margins of anarchism today. It actually has a lot to say that is of great value. As should be apparent from the above Molly's own sympathies lie with those left communists who travelled through councilism to a non-Marxist libertarian socialism. This, however, may be only of historical and philosophical interest, not a question that has any practical consequences today. As I said above left communists usually leave their more extreme ideology at the door, and tend to be much more reliable comrades in struggle than adherents of many other views. Someone who has watched the development of anarchism in the USA over the past few decades may form the opinion that left communism, particularly in its situationist version, is responsible for some of the kookier and less savoury aspects of anarchism in that country. I disagree. Sure you can trace a path from situationism to neo-situationism to primitivism and thence to "post-leftist anarchism" or "post-anarchism" or whatever these people may adopt as the flavour of the day. But this is the same as saying that everything in Stalinism is contained in Marx or that syndicalism and socialism lead inevitably to fascism ala Mussolini. No...history is not that linear. Much depends on specific historical contexts in specific countries. Chance also has a role to play. Without situationism, primitivism in the USA would have found its natural home as a religious cult. But this ideology was developed in the USA under particular conditions such as the absence of a viable socialist or anarchist movement that actually could do something. It also had the fortune to gain the adherence of a tiny number of people of not great but relative ability. The first was necessity. The second was chance.

Well, this screed has certainly expanded and strayed far from the original news report. Never let it be said that Molly doesn't put her own spin on the news. I recognize that the above, long as it is, is incomplete and contains errors. It is merely the effort of one person who has had enough experience to judge to put some rather confusing terms into a comprehensible framework. As I said these terms fade into each other. They are not simple either/or categories, but they represent political positions that are at least "intellectually convenient" to separate as "poles of attraction in a chaotic landscape". Without this sort of effort at categorization there is nothing left but a big mental mush---and a practice that is informed by nothing more than fashion and personal pressure. Clarity is a virtue.