Radical media, politics and culture.

Theory

NOT BORED! writes:

New Situationist Translations

In the midst of and at the end of the "orientation debate" — which involved the exclusion or resignation of almost all of the members of the Situationist International (SI) — Guy Debord wrote two very important texts: "Remarks on the SI Today" (written on 27 July 1970) and "Document Beyond Debate" (written on 28 January 1971).


Those who don't read French have had to rely on the excerpts translated by Ken Knabb, who published them in "The Situationist International Anthology" in 1981. In the course of translating the other documents involved in the "orientation debate," we have discovered that "excerpts" isn't the right word to describe Knabb's versions of these two important texts by Debord. In both cases, Knabb has dropped out more than half of the text, even though neither one is very long. Knabb's deletions clearly weren't made in service of brevity or clarity. No, they were made in the service of an agenda: without fail, Knabb removed all the comments or anecdotes concerning "internal" matters, events and personalities. We can't imagine why.

Loren Goldner writes:


New York City Study Group on Marx

Beginning October, 2004

"It is not enough for theory to seek its practice;
practice must also seek its theory." — Karl Marx, 1844 Manuscripts

I am forming a class/study group in Karl Marx's
critique of political economy for
theoretically-inclined activists in the New York City
area.


The group will meet once every two weeks from October
until May 2005, and can of course continue thereafter
if enough people want it to.


Its purpose will be to give conceptual tools from
Marx's work to people interested in understanding and
changing the world, tools which make sense of current
world economic and political developments, shed light
on current possible intervention, and clarify what a
society beyond capitalism will look like.

NOT BORED! writes:

"Orientation Debate
of the Situationist International"


In April 1968, the members of the Situationist International (SI) began to prepare for an internal ("private") debate on their organization, that is to say, on the way in which the SI was organized. But, as Guy Debord said later, the occupations movement of May 1968, "which was obviously more pleasant and instructive than this debate, forced us to postpone it." The debate resumed in the Fall of 1968, but became truly serious in the wake of the September 1969 meeting of the SI, which was widely perceived in the organization to be less than satisfactory. The "organization debate" was accompanied by a slew of exclusions -- Alain Chevalier (French section, October 1969), Robert Chasse (American, January 1970), Bruce Elwell (American, January 1970), Claudio Pavan (Italian, Spring 1970), Eduardo Rothe (Italian, Spring 1970), Paolo Salvadori (Italian, Summer 1970) and Rene Riesel (French, September 1971) -- and resignations -- Francois de Beaulieu (French section, 1970), Patrick Cheval (French, 1970), Raoul Vaneigem (French, November 1970), Jon Horelick (American, December 1970), Christian Sebastiani (French, December 1970), Tony Verlaan (American, December 1970), and Rene Vienet (French, February 1971). The debate/carnage continued until April 1972, when the remaining members of the SI -- Guy Debord, Gianfranco Sanguinetti and J.V. Martin -- announced their decision to disband and tried to explain what had happened to the SI to their readers.

"Anarchism, Marxism and the Bonapartist State"

Saul Newman, Anarchist Studies, [Volume 12, #1, 2004]

This paper explores the question of state power and sovereignty in radical political theory through an examination of the classical anarchist critique of Marxism. It draws on the Bonapartist moment in Marx's thinking, seeing this as laying the groundwork for the development of a theory of the state as autonomous from class, suggesting that the implications of this argument are only fully realised in anarchism. Anarchism was able to develop a wholly autonomous and specific theory of state power and political authority — one that was irreducible to the Marxist class and economic analysis. I will argue that this had crucial consequences for contemporary radical political theory as it allowed the political dimension to emerge as a separate field of antagonism, demanding its own specific forms of analysis. I then explore the implications of this theoretical terrain through Agamben's analysis of biopower and state sovereignty, and Laclau and Mouffe's 'post-Marxist' understanding of
hegemonic political identification, suggesting that there are important links here with anarchism that could be developed.

NOT BORED! writes:


Operation Censor:

A New Translation of a Situationist Text


In August 1975, ex-Situationist Gianfranco Sanguinetti, with the help of Guy Debord, another ex-Situationist, executed an exemplary prank: they created an author (a powerful industrialist called "Censor") and wrote for him an anonymous pamphlet on Italian politics, and printed up copies and sent them to 520 of the most powerful people in the country. The very cynical pamphlet was very well received -- no one suspected a fake. Finally, in December 1975, two months after the pamphlet was reprinted, Sanguinetti revealed himself, and a major scandal ensued.

Here, for the first time in English, is Sanguinetti's December 1975 statement. It contains links to the other important texts involved in "Operation Censor."

"Tandem Surfing the Third Wave:

Critical Art Ensemble and Tactical Media Production"

Ryan Griffis, Lumpen

This interview (from 2001) with Critical Art Ensemble was the first part of a series of investigations into collaborative/group artistic practice taking place in, and critical of, the e-conomy. Critical Art Ensemble (CAE), a collective of five artists working since 1987, produces cultural products ranging from books to Web projects to performances that investigate moments in art, technology, activism, and critical theory.

Ryan Griffis: How did CAE come to be a working group?

Critical Art Ensemble: It's too bad CAE has no heroic formation story about a grand international like the one the Situationists are often mythologized as having. CAE's story is much more mundane. We were students looking to develop a network that would have a cultural impact-some way of organizing that would give us enough financial, hardware, and labor resources that we could begin to construct a platform for a public voice. Collective activity seemed (and still seems) to be the best option.

"Emancipation"

Brian Holmes

"L'amour est la seule passion qui se paye d'une monnaie qu'elle fabrique elle-même." ( "Love is the only passion that pays for itself in a currency of its own fabrication.") — Stendhal

The "world market." Never have two words encompassed such promise. Power. Pleasure. Ubiquity. Freedom. And it's no illusion. The world market can get you that — if you obey its injunction. To distinguish yourself from the others. To stand apart. To rise above. To become the sovereign individual.


What is the paradox of the market individual? To conform — through uniqueness and originality — to the perverse law of value which gives rarity its price. Within the world market, amidst the abundance of power, pleasure, ubiquity and freedom, each rare and precious individual has a price — on their head.

dr.woooo writes:

"Europe and the New Movements"

An Interview With Andre Grubacic

From what I can tell Europeans are pretty ignorant of
events in the U.S. left, but, even more so, the U.S.
left, including myself, is horrendously ignorant of
events in Europe. Maybe you can help us do something
about the latter problem. I would like to try to find
out some of the trends you see developing in movements
in Europe, and your view of their virtues and flaws.


Grubacic: You know, I was just reading one essay, a
rather old one, from Barbara and John Ehrenreich, the
pivotal essay for a most excellent book titled
Between Labor and Capital. In this essay, the
authors describe the relation of what they call the
"professional managerial class" to the movement of the
1960's. It strikes me as remarkable how simillar this
is to the main relevant trends of the 'new movement'
we have in Europe.

Anonymous Comrade writes

Empire, Neo-Imperialism and NATO?

NATO will be gathering in Istanbul on June 28-29 2004. It is evident that this meeting is not only a routine one. This meeting should be interpreted as the constitution of a new global sovereignty within the power mechanism of capitalism; hence it seems to have reached an important moment throughout this unfinished, ongoing process. We call this form of global sovereignty that is in the process of constitution as Empire. The ontology of Empire, being immanent in its action, is constituted through the third world war. The spaces of compromises entirely take place within the ontological extension of war. The analysis of the form of sovereignty courses through clarifying the war politics or how the constitution policy is militarized. NATO summit is the explicit declaration of the militarization of the politics of Capitalist Empire that is the new form of global sovereignty, with the Greater Middle East Project as the policy document of twenty-first century. This summit and the policy document, in its economic, social and political entirety, is the declaration of war against global labour. Empire has started a new McCarthyism with its discourse of democracy and security

NOT BORED! writes:

"The Deception of Strategy"

Bill Not Bored


"We want them [the Iraqis] to quit, not to fight, so that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but minutes." -- Harlan Ullman, creator of the "Shock and Awe" tactic, January 2003.

"As we move toward a new Middle East, over the years and, I think, over the decades to come . . . we will make a lot of people very nervous. We want you [Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia] nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people." -- ex-CIA Director James Woolsey, 3 April 2003.

Today, 25 June 2004, just five days before the US military is scheduled to "hand over" political control of Iraq to a provisional governing body, it became official: the Bush Administration has lost the support of the American people for its "humanitarian" war against Saddam Hussein. A public opinion poll conducted by CNN-USA Today-Gallup has found that a majority (54 percent) of the 1,005 Americans who responded think that going to war in the first place (no matter what the justification) was a mistake; they are increasingly disappointed with the results, which are appalling and grow worse every day. They are also increasingly disillusioned with George W. Bush, whose disapproval ratings are higher than they have ever been.

Pages

Subscribe to Theory