NOT BORED! writes:

"Guy Debord's Letters, 1957–1964"

Not Bored!

I believe that all of the people who prefer personal letters to the [situationists'] journal lack the ability to elevate themselves to the generality of the same problems. Thus, they don't see that it is the same position, the same thing, but more utilizable by more people. Of course, if it is a question of saying, "we are all better than that" (than all writing), this is obvious. It is one of our basic themes. But an epistolary correspondence, even with a friend, even if one is understood, seems to me further away from the importance of living than the most profoundly calculated texts. It is even less satisying. (Guy Debord, Letter of 2 September 1964 to Ivan Chtcheglov)

Despite Guy Debord's reservations about epistolary correspondences, he engaged in a great many of them — so many, in fact, that it's going to take six full-sized volumes for Editions Fayard to publish them all. To date, four of them have come out: Volume 1, 1957–1960 (published in 1999); Volume 2, 1961–1964 (2001); Volume 3, 1965–1968 (2003); and Volume 4, 1969–1972 (2005). It isn't known what will be contained in Volume 5 (1973–1976? 1973–1994?). But it is known that Volume 6 will include the pre-1957 period, plus letters that have been received between 1999 and the conclusion of this immense work.

stevphen writes:

"Physiognomy of Civilisation"
Angela Mitropoulos

Until recently, Sydney University was to hold a conference called 'Physiognomy of Origin'. Keynote speakers were Adrianna Cavarero and Antonio Negri, who were to open a discussion on the resurgent questions of embodiment, origin and potentiality — questions that, as it turns out, are quite central to what transpired.

In the Sydney Sun-Herald in January, Miranda Devine denounced Sydney University for inviting the 'suspected terrorist mastermind Antonio Negri' rather than offering students 'intellectual enlightenment'. Keith Windschuttle elaborated on that viewpoint in The Australian newspaper — 'education in the humanities was once supposed to be a civilising experience' — and repeated the accusation of 'terrorist' against Negri. He concluded his case against free speech by arguing that universities should not 'accommodate people with so little concern for civilised values'. (It is an irony that, in 1971, Australian Security Intelligence (ASIO) spies similarly vilified the then-leftist Windschuttle, whom they reported as giving 'the impression of being a violent revolutionary'.)

"Nietzsche and the Anarchists"

Spencer Sunshine

[Spencer Sunshine recently completed editing the late John Moore's new anthology I Am Not A Man, I Am Dynamite! Friedrich Nietzsche and the Anarchist Tradition. This essay appeared originally in Fifth Estate #367, Winter 2004–2005.
Fifth Estate subscriptions are available for $10 (US), international $20.
PO Box 201016, Ferndale MI 48220]

The proposal to combine Nietzsche and anarchism must sound audacious to many people. Even if one doesn't hold to the old belief that the "working class" (whoever that might be today) are the only ones who can make revolutionary change, wasn't Nietzsche an influence on the fascists, and an individualist who championed the right of the strong to rule over the weak? And doesn't Nietzsche himself repeatedly denounce the anarchist movement of his day, calling them "dogs" and accusing them of ressentiment?