[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/anarcho/ - Anarchism Board

Anti-Capitalist & Anti-State

Catalog

The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)
A message from @CodeMonkeyZ, 2ch lead developer: "How Hiroyuki Nishimura will sell 4chan data"
Advertise on this site
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Revolt. Agitate. Organize. Educate. Board Guidelines

File: 1423520014091.jpg (71.39 KB, 466x600, 233:300, Society-of-the-spectacle.jpg)

623e8d No.7430

I'm going to ask this here since anarchists seem to like Situationism more than Marxists:
How am I supposed to read The Society of the Spectacle? I can't make sense of the format.

Also, general Situationism thread I guess.

8bd0cc No.7432

File: 1423522793758.png (337.25 KB, 1250x882, 625:441, 1417987131242-4[1].png)

>"In a world which really is topsy-turvy, the true is a moment of the false."
This quote always amuses me.

I mean, yeah, the format of Society of the Spectacle is obnoxious, but what exactly do you find troublesome about it.

As far as situationism goes, I think Debord's analysis of mass media is the Huxley to Chomsky's Orwell.

13aa60 No.7438

File: 1423565440833.jpg (714.3 KB, 1090x555, 218:111, 38947712.jpg)

I never quite understood what kind of society the situationists wants to live in. It seems that Debord and his friends were more artists and poets rather than revolutionaries.

623e8d No.7481

File: 1423838410958.gif (63.77 KB, 896x1326, 448:663, dagwood.gif)

>>7432
I don't understand the format. It's a numbered list of statements, sometimes totally unrelated ones follow each other, and when I finally start to understand what are they talking about they throw in something like that quote!

I think I'm going to put it on hold for a bit and read "The Revolution of Everyday Life" by Raoul Vaneigm first. Anyone here read it? Was it any good?

662ee3 No.7482

They seem less like a serious political movement than they do a social/artistic type movement.

c1a5da No.7598


000000 No.7602

>>7438
>It seems that Debord and his friends were more artists and poets rather than revolutionaries.
That's really only a view you can have if you've never actually sat down and *read* the SI journals. They were extremely critical of art, it was one of their central points, especially in their earlier years.

As to what kind of "society" they wanted, that's an overly simplistic question I'd expect to see more out of a utopian or classical leftist
>notices mutualist flag
Oh.

It's best not to think of their ideas as some pre-planned society or Great Way Forward. Instead, it's better to focus on the positions they held on matters, to get a "feel" of what they were fighting for. They were anti-state communists, so they wanted to abolish capitalism, wage relations, and all that jazz. They were also one of the first groups, communist or otherwise, to be explicitly anti-work, and they influenced a lot of the post-left scene in this regard. One of the more notable contributions they made is breaking class theory out of pure standing of wealth, and more of position in the means of production, so that groups of people like students were categorized as… idk if I would say "proletariat," but something in that vein. The class unification this created across student strikes and labor strikes pretty substantially altered the landscape of French struggles, and Western struggles in general.

>>7481
The SI and post-situationst (Tiqqun, Claire Fontaine, Invisible Committee, etc.) material is, IMO, some of the most difficult shit to read while still being relevant to anarchists (probably second only to Nietzsche). Not the least of reasons being they're written in some pretty erudite French that doesn't translate easily. It's one of those things that is important to know, but is a pain in the ass to get through. If you haven't read Marx (Capital, not Manifesto), I'm not sure I would even bother. Basically, the core idea of Society of the Spectacle is that of spectacle. It's definitely the most important idea they came out with, though I have some feeling that classical leftists would decry the notion as… idk, not workerist enough or something. The main point of spectacle is an extension of Marx's notion of alienation. Marxist alienation was the idea that a good chunk of social ills can be traced to the fact that we, as workers, are alienated from the results of our labor, and work for the sake of work/pay instead of the result of that work, which alienates us from our humanity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation
The spectacle is the extension of alienation from production and humanity, to life itself. It says that in late capitalism, people care more about the idea of life and living than actual living. The image of life becomes more real than life itself. This leads to things like reality TV and beauty magazines.

Tiqqun then made the further extension of alienation/spectacle into the idea of Bloom, where alienation happens not just between the individual and life, but the individual and themself. This leads to things like mass shootings and selfies.

>>7482
lolwat
They were the driving force behind the events of May 68 (or at the very least, they were the closest thing there was to a formal organization that actually supported the events and wanted them to push even further), which is the closest late capitalism has ever come to falling in a western state, bar none.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_events_in_France

623e8d No.7618

File: 1424604598367.jpg (156.45 KB, 638x1068, 319:534, Hutch_Day.jpg)

I wonder what they would have said about social-media, Hatsune Miku and people who go to concerts to record it with their phones.

000000 No.7645

>>7618
Yeah, it falls pretty cleanly into the idea of spectacle. Someone, I think Crimethinc, though I'm not positive, did an analysis of spectacle, bloom, and technology. I'm also a fan of this XKCD comic as a perfect example of spectacle:
https://xkcd.com/77/

623e8d No.7677

>>7645
Damn, sometimes I do that.

ca950b No.8488

File: 1428542887862.jpg (23.5 KB, 569x428, 569:428, b4f.jpg)

>>7430
I love TSOTS, but one of its big flaws is that a lot of it is just references or paraphrases of Marx and much more obscure authors.

>In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles.


paraphrasing Marx:
>an immense accumulation of commodities

Ken Knabb's website has some good footnotes tho

623e8d No.8504

File: 1428672563061.jpg (69.69 KB, 850x400, 17:8, 63.jpg)


81cde2 No.8728

Situationists are closest to Unorthodox Trotskyism ( Tony Cliff, SWP ).

They support democratic dictatorship of proletariat, they are not against political parties, they think that every aspect of life must be revolutionized.they consider Ussr as state capitalism.

Situationist theory of Society of Spectacle has derived Marx' theory of alienation


623e8d No.8732

>>8728

>They support democratic dictatorship of proletariat

What do you mean? They supported worker councils as far as I know.


89f70a No.8919

>>7602

>One of the more notable contributions they made is breaking class theory out of pure standing of wealth, and more of position in the means of production

Isn't that the original socialist/Marxist class definition? Or do you mean that they made it more popular?


e1aa2f No.9192

Situationalism is the most fun part of anarchy. It pretty much sums up the difference between communists and anarkists. Anarchy, for the moment, for the joy, for what ever the fuck you want. If guy debard isnt working for you, you could ron solkasky is a little more modern day, crimethinc offers some situationalist tendencies, or maybe a bit of a stretch but equally as beautiful in action and word, bruno fillipe.


000000 No.9220

I think you're only supposed to read the first paragraph.


47d055 No.9257

>>7602

>second only to Nietzsche

I would say that Deleuze and Guattari's collaborations are pretty relevant to anarchists and much more difficult than Nietzsche or the Situationalists. Great post though; as a big reader of the Situationalists I can't find anything substantial that I disagree with.


000000 No.9455

>>9447 (a summary of the first 8 sections)


000000 No.9457

"Situationism" never existed. The Situationists were against ideologies.


623e8d No.9478

>>9457

Yeah, I didn't know this yet when I opened the thread.


623e8d No.9534

File: 1442593978465.png (82.16 KB, 914x477, 914:477, 2015-09-18-182715_914x477_….png)


c48f68 No.9550

File: 1443239450596.jpg (155.2 KB, 742x360, 371:180, wodaabe.jpg)

>Challenging post-Marxist essays translated and reprinted from Jacques Camatte


000000 No.9579

>>7430 The Society of the Spectacle, The Situationists

>>9455 notes from epilogue–8

Debord writes, what seems like diversity comes from the “social

organization of appearances”. Since this world is turned upside down,

whatever is claimed to be true is actually false. Like Hegel wrote,

what is called a lie, is actually the truth. Clearly, the

spectacle applies to a “wide range of seemingly unconnected

phenomena. The spectacle claims to affirm the appearances of all human

social life, but the spectacle is a negation of life: “a negation that

has taken on a visible form.”

The Situationists had to make some "artificial distinctions" to

describe the spectacle, its formation & functions, and "the forces

that work against it", and they had to "use the spectacle’s own

language" whenever operating on the "methodological terrain of the

society that expresses itself in the spectacle". The spectacle is "the

historical moment in which we are caught", and it appears inaccessible

and beyond rebuttal, saying "What appears is good; what is good

appears." The spectacle achieves acceptance by monopolizing

appearances, and it shines a glorious light over its global empire of

passivity. The spectacle is not superficial; modern industrial society

is fundamentally spectacular.

The spectacle is the "advanced economic sector that directly creates

an ever-increasing multitude of image-objects". It is "nothing other

than the economy developing for itself" which is possible because the

economy has already "totally subjugated" human beings to

itself. Although the spectacle distorts and objectifies the producers,

it is a "faithful reflection of the production of things".


000000 No.9588

http://outragethemovie.com/

Closeted politicians are the peak of self-betrayal.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]