Look, "the situationists were some of the best revolutionaries in the 20th century" is one of the most chauvinistic things I've heard in my entire life. I cannot believe you were seriously making that point. And Rosa Luxemburg supported the Bolsheviks even though she had criticisms.
I'm not really here to argue about the positions themselves, just clarifying that the ubiquity of uncritical examination of Stalinism and even of orthodox Marxism is not what was going on in the 20th century. It is mostly a product of these things being rediscovered after many years of a totally dead leftist project in those countries. The Frankfurt School in particular had great things to say.
edit: I should add though that they were the best revolutionaries in the western European imperial core, yes.
I'm not going to really reply to this because I'm too tired to get into any involved discussion, but this post is about
western "marxist" scholars who shit on AES 24/7
none of which ever actually achieved anything remotely comparable. Obviously, there are criticisms to be made of AES, as with any project. That's not what this post it about.
Also, crediting the situationists, a very small group of academics and artists, for 1968 is just really, really, really not it. 1968 was primarily a movement of labor unions, the largest of which was affiliated with the Marxist-Leninist CPF. Regardless of what you think of the CPF or the Unions' roles, crediting the situationists for a mass movement of the people is clearly ridiculous.
none of which ever actually achieved anything remotely comparable. Obviously, there are criticisms to be made of AES, as with any project.
I think most of them argued that a failed revolution (one that simply rebuilds the power structures of the previous society) are not much different than no revolution and in fact don't constitute a dialectical progression.
1968 was primarily a movement of labor unions, the largest of which was affiliated with the Marxist-Leninist CPF.
CPF opposed it and worked with Charles de Gaulle lmao
You can even find it on the Wikipedia article about it:
"In May 1968 widespread student riots and strikes broke out in France. The PCF initially supported the general strike but opposed the revolutionary student movement, which was dominated by Trotskyists, Maoists and anarchists, and the so-called "new social movements" (including environmentalists, gay movements, prisoners' movement). Georges Marchais, in L'Humanité on May 3, virulently denounced the leaders of the movement in an article entitled "False revolutionaries who must be exposed". He referred to student leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit as the "German anarchist".[16][17] Although the PCF and the CGT were compelled by their base to join the movement as it expanded to take the form of a general strike, the PCF feared that it would be overwhelmed by events - especially as some on the left, led by Mitterrand were attempting to use Charles de Gaulle's initial vacillations to create a political alternative to the Gaullist regime. It welcomed Prime Minister Georges Pompidou's willingness to dialogue and it supported the Grenelle agreements. When de Gaulle regained the initiative over the situation on 30 May, by announcing the dissolution of the National Assembly and snap elections, the PCF quickly embraced the President's decision."
And I’m deeply skeptical of your idea that the situationists could have toppled the French state. There were like 2 dozen of them active and an entire military ready to do whatever in response.
It wasn't their numbers, it was their approach. Their politics are politics of radical response to alienation, an alienation that, as we see more and more, is the main stranglehold on class consciousness and mobilization of the modern proletariat.
I think most of them argued that a failed revolution (one that simply rebuilds the power structures of the previous society) are not much different than no revolution and in fact don’t constitute a dialectical progression.
Yeah, the USSR wasn't much different from Russia under the Tsar. Sorry, but opinion ---> :dumpster-fire: for anyone who claims that seriously.
Edit: oh god it's even fucking worse when you apply that logic to China.
It wasn’t their numbers, it was their approach. Their politics are politics of radical response to alienation, an alienation that, as we see more and more, is the main stranglehold on class consciousness and mobilization of the modern proletariat.
Like I said, regardless of your opinion on the PCF and its actions (I'd say that they, like many western parties, were and are not great), you are crediting a tiny group of philosophers and artists for a movement which they absolutely did not start, and in which the vast majority of people definitely had not read Debord.
Yeah, the USSR wasn’t much different from Russia under the Tsar
I'm talking about the previous society in the materialist dialectical geneology of societies as a whole.
Like I said, regardless of your opinion on the PCF and its actions (I’d say that they, like many western parties, were and are not great), you are crediting a tiny group of philosophers and artists for a movement which they absolutely did not start, and in which the vast majority of people definitely had not read Debord.
Debord and Marcuse in particular were widely read and responsible for a massive student movement. The banner of the three Ms (Marx, Mao, Marcuse) was like THE symbol of 1968.
Yes, still academic. It's like rule one of Marxism that you have to actually work in order to be a revolutionary class. Students are not a revolutionary class.
This is just a repackaging of people who achieved nothing in the imperial core shitting on people who achieved a whole lot in colonized nations.
Turns out this was not true (like many aspects of Marx's predictions about class consciousness and the standpoint of the proletariat) and that it's just as possible for labor organizing to be wildly reactionary in this given example.
This is just a repackaging of people who achieved nothing in the imperial core shitting on people who achieved a whole lot in colonized nations.
Not really. Any revolution has to be worldwide, and efforts to bring about revolution in the imperial core have far more impact than outside of it if that imperial core will just crush the latter again.
and efforts to bring about revolution in the imperial core have far more impact than outside of it if that imperial core will just crush the latter again.
Huh, funny how this isn't actually true when you look up from a philosophy treatise and at history.
I'm not a leftcom, I think there's a lot to rethink about orthodox Marxism from a revolutionary praxis sense, given that his predictions about the appearance of class consciousness never really played out, and will necessarily need to be rethought and refocused for different conditions (this is no different than Lenin or Mao's opinions on Marx's revolutionary praxis either, they also had to gut and rebuild it).
there’s a lot to rethink about orthodox Marxism from a revolutionary praxis sense, given that his predictions about the appearance of class consciousness never really played out
On this, we are completely agreed. I think our conclusions might be a bit divergent, though.
I think our conclusions might be a bit divergent, though.
Probably. I think the only way forward will be wresting the coercive control that the bourgeois have over us out of their hands before any revolutionary potential could be achieved. Until then, people are kept in neo-feudal alienation, in which we're surrounded by people but not community and every interaction we have with people is done through activities that make them an annoyance rather than a comrade. The suburbization of all of life, even if you don't live in suburbs. Mark Fisher had good ideas, drawing from the likes of Srnicek, and I'm not convinced that situationism is a dead end. As absurd as it sounds, the most spontaneous formation of community I've witnessed in the last decade has been when a company accidentally stumbled onto an app that sent people on situationist dérives. And that was a happy accident, I'd imagine something done with actual intent in building community bonds would be even more lasting.
efforts to bring about revolution in the imperial core have far more impact than outside of it
And that's why I wish r*dditros were right about china being imperialist cuz then the Imperial Core would shift to a place where revolutions had happened in the past
China is not overtly imperialist, but their economic maneuvering will likely give them the biggest say in the 21st century when it comes to how other countries behave.
Oh my god, it's not a bit.
Look, "the situationists were some of the best revolutionaries in the 20th century" is one of the most chauvinistic things I've heard in my entire life. I cannot believe you were seriously making that point. And Rosa Luxemburg supported the Bolsheviks even though she had criticisms.
I'm not really here to argue about the positions themselves, just clarifying that the ubiquity of uncritical examination of Stalinism and even of orthodox Marxism is not what was going on in the 20th century. It is mostly a product of these things being rediscovered after many years of a totally dead leftist project in those countries. The Frankfurt School in particular had great things to say.
edit: I should add though that they were the best revolutionaries in the western European imperial core, yes.
I'm not going to really reply to this because I'm too tired to get into any involved discussion, but this post is about
none of which ever actually achieved anything remotely comparable. Obviously, there are criticisms to be made of AES, as with any project. That's not what this post it about.
Also, crediting the situationists, a very small group of academics and artists, for 1968 is just really, really, really not it. 1968 was primarily a movement of labor unions, the largest of which was affiliated with the Marxist-Leninist CPF. Regardless of what you think of the CPF or the Unions' roles, crediting the situationists for a mass movement of the people is clearly ridiculous.
I think most of them argued that a failed revolution (one that simply rebuilds the power structures of the previous society) are not much different than no revolution and in fact don't constitute a dialectical progression.
CPF opposed it and worked with Charles de Gaulle lmao
You can even find it on the Wikipedia article about it:
"In May 1968 widespread student riots and strikes broke out in France. The PCF initially supported the general strike but opposed the revolutionary student movement, which was dominated by Trotskyists, Maoists and anarchists, and the so-called "new social movements" (including environmentalists, gay movements, prisoners' movement). Georges Marchais, in L'Humanité on May 3, virulently denounced the leaders of the movement in an article entitled "False revolutionaries who must be exposed". He referred to student leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit as the "German anarchist".[16][17] Although the PCF and the CGT were compelled by their base to join the movement as it expanded to take the form of a general strike, the PCF feared that it would be overwhelmed by events - especially as some on the left, led by Mitterrand were attempting to use Charles de Gaulle's initial vacillations to create a political alternative to the Gaullist regime. It welcomed Prime Minister Georges Pompidou's willingness to dialogue and it supported the Grenelle agreements. When de Gaulle regained the initiative over the situation on 30 May, by announcing the dissolution of the National Assembly and snap elections, the PCF quickly embraced the President's decision."
It wasn't their numbers, it was their approach. Their politics are politics of radical response to alienation, an alienation that, as we see more and more, is the main stranglehold on class consciousness and mobilization of the modern proletariat.
Yeah, the USSR wasn't much different from Russia under the Tsar. Sorry, but opinion ---> :dumpster-fire: for anyone who claims that seriously.
Edit: oh god it's even fucking worse when you apply that logic to China.
Like I said, regardless of your opinion on the PCF and its actions (I'd say that they, like many western parties, were and are not great), you are crediting a tiny group of philosophers and artists for a movement which they absolutely did not start, and in which the vast majority of people definitely had not read Debord.
I'm talking about the previous society in the materialist dialectical geneology of societies as a whole.
Debord and Marcuse in particular were widely read and responsible for a massive student movement. The banner of the three Ms (Marx, Mao, Marcuse) was like THE symbol of 1968.
Yes, still academic. It's like rule one of Marxism that you have to actually work in order to be a revolutionary class. Students are not a revolutionary class.
This is just a repackaging of people who achieved nothing in the imperial core shitting on people who achieved a whole lot in colonized nations.
Turns out this was not true (like many aspects of Marx's predictions about class consciousness and the standpoint of the proletariat) and that it's just as possible for labor organizing to be wildly reactionary in this given example.
Not really. Any revolution has to be worldwide, and efforts to bring about revolution in the imperial core have far more impact than outside of it if that imperial core will just crush the latter again.
Huh, funny how this isn't actually true when you look up from a philosophy treatise and at history.
Actually it is
Right, I think I'm done with this discussion.
Removed by mod
:agony-soviet: This, guys, gals, and enby pals, is why I don't like to argue with leftcoms. :bordiga-despair:
I'm not a leftcom, I think there's a lot to rethink about orthodox Marxism from a revolutionary praxis sense, given that his predictions about the appearance of class consciousness never really played out, and will necessarily need to be rethought and refocused for different conditions (this is no different than Lenin or Mao's opinions on Marx's revolutionary praxis either, they also had to gut and rebuild it).
On this, we are completely agreed. I think our conclusions might be a bit divergent, though.
Probably. I think the only way forward will be wresting the coercive control that the bourgeois have over us out of their hands before any revolutionary potential could be achieved. Until then, people are kept in neo-feudal alienation, in which we're surrounded by people but not community and every interaction we have with people is done through activities that make them an annoyance rather than a comrade. The suburbization of all of life, even if you don't live in suburbs. Mark Fisher had good ideas, drawing from the likes of Srnicek, and I'm not convinced that situationism is a dead end. As absurd as it sounds, the most spontaneous formation of community I've witnessed in the last decade has been when a company accidentally stumbled onto an app that sent people on situationist dérives. And that was a happy accident, I'd imagine something done with actual intent in building community bonds would be even more lasting.
And that's why I wish r*dditros were right about china being imperialist cuz then the Imperial Core would shift to a place where revolutions had happened in the past
:think-about-it:
China is not overtly imperialist, but their economic maneuvering will likely give them the biggest say in the 21st century when it comes to how other countries behave.