Perverse...

One Reading, Two Reading, Many Reading...

Society of the Spectacle is almost done and over but where do we go from here? What is to be done (joking, but no seriously)?  Anyway, the people have spoken and as always there is confusion, we want to go everywhere from science fiction to Frantz Fanon (Algerian revolutionary-nationalist). There will be a meeting to further discuss the qualitative and quantitative possibilities of our reading group. Until then keep your thinking caps on, guns clean, and theory and practice tight.  And remember you are now the proletariat dialectician.

Notes From Second Meeting

Just to get it started, here were some questions raised at the second meeting on 12/4/10
Post your additions or risk looking like you weren't paying attention...


-How does society relate to privilege, or the rejection thereof?
-What can be said of the guilt of the spectator?
-What are the implications of the denial of the spectator?
-Summation of the spectacle as anything attempting to attribute universal value.
-Capital::Commodity/Spectacle::image


Spectacle Nuance as Defined by Debord:
Concentrated Spectacle
-associated with concentrated bureaucracy (eastern bloc, fascism)
-property, communication, music, everything is concentrated/identified with bureaucratic class
-identifies with a powerful political leader
-made effective through state of permanent violence and terror
Diffuse Spectacle
-associated with advanced capitalism and commodity abundance
-commodities compete with each other, preventing whole consumption
-more effective than concentrated at suppression of non-spectacular opinions
-operates through seduction
Integrated Spectacle
-associated with modern capitalist countries
-borrows from diffuse and concentrated to form synthesis
-goes by the label 'liberal democracy'
-depends on permanent and general secrecy (the job of experts and specialists to define and translate statistics, morality)
-terrorism is the invented enemy of the spectacle, as it needs a comparison to be superior to in order to survive


Some outside things that got mentioned...
Joseph_Beuys
Walter_Benjamin
CWC- Fighting in the New Terrain
Barthes- Mythology

What are some of instances, even if fleeting, where you have seen a crack in the spectacle?

What was the most spectacular thing you experienced this week?

show up and take over

wanna get into it?

download Society of the Spectacle and read sections 1-4. 
download Capital Vol. I, Chapter I, and read section 4. 

we are meeting at the Glenwood Community Bookstore roughly every week.
we will probably meet Sunday, December 12th, before or around 8pm.
bring ruthless criticism, respect, and new reading ideas. 



<3

Notes from First Meeting 12/1/10

Notes from 12/1/10

Glenwood Community Bookshop

Society of the Spectacle, Sections 1-4, Debord

Section 4: The Fetishism of Commodities, Capital Vol. I, Marx

I took these notes as people had condensed questions, critiques, or comments that were able to be transcribed amidst a broad and long conversation. Apologies for all lost subtleties and things left out entirely. Please use the comment section and new posts to update notes if you remember shit that's not on here.

________________________________________________________________

How is “the spectacle” different than the idea that all experience  is “socially constructed” (through our brains, language, communication, i.e. “mediation” in general)

Transition from Industrial Capitalism to Advanced/Spectacular Capitalism?

            When/how did it happen, what did/does it look like?

At what point does Spectacular Society emerge?

            -mutual emergence with the acceptance or proliferation of global capital.

Evolution of advertising over the last 40 years.

            Absurdity as commodity

            irony > turning an image on itself to justify its circulation

Spectacle as an event (i.e. 9/11) versus spectacular consumer relations ( i.e. crustpunks.com) the commodification of resistance circulates an image of resistance that is produced and consumed by the spectator.

Spectacle vs. Symbol

            spectacle - secondary or new total meditation of social relations

            symbol - primary mediation of lanuage

Materialist Dialectic (Dialectical Materialism)

            Proletarian Conception: “one divides into two”

            Bourgeois Conception: “two fuse into one”

                        ^This tension or historical struggle defines what is considered “history” for Marx,                  Debord.

Use Value: NEED. USE. Literally what it can be used for or what you think you need.         Quantitative. Human labor.

Exchange Value: Abstraction of use value for its equasion with other objects (commodities)

            Denail of physical property of the thing for its exchange. Qualitative. Wage labor.

“Real Activity” = Un-alienated labor

Authentic vs. Manufactured Need (pseudo needs)

            Authentic- primary human needs (eat, sleep, privileging of use-value)

Manufactured- “pseudo needs,” the privileging of exchange-value, market desire, fusion of need and desire.  

Spectacle creates the need to “feel authentic” and a general fixation on authenticity.

Concept of consumable survival (?)

The feeling of choice as a psychological state of the spectacle, related to the Id and the Ego (Freud), Base and Superstructure (Marx, Althusser), Need and Desire (value systems).

Sign that the Spectacle has been cracked or toppled: When the idea of needing to feel “authentic” is no longer a concept.

_______________________________________________________________

End of the meeting notes: We agreed to try a closer, more thorough reading of Part 1: Separation Perfect on Saturday, 12/4, at 10am at the Bookstore.

Proposals for further readings and reading strategies:

*partnering up or breaking the reading into sections that different people would bottomline a close reading of and notes on each meeting

* going section by section and breaking it down

* continuing to pair SOTS with relevant outside readings to help contextualize or contrast.

* reading Fiction or other non-theory/dense related stuff in-between denser texts to help bounce ideas and provide some contrast.

*reading historically relevant material for SOTS and other theoretical texts.

A Historical Perspective on Revolutionary Politics as it pertains to Part IV, "The Proletariat as Subject and Representation", of Society of the Spectacle

For those of you have already read Part 4, "The Proletariat as Subject and Representation" you will have noticed there are a lot of references to old men with beards and mustaches, as well as, historically significant revolutionary moments and "illusionary" or Spectacular revolutionary moments which need to be further explained. Some people expressed at our first meeting that these historical events and people specific references went in one ear and out the other, so I guess I will put my interest in history to good use for once and make a little historical guide to the blunders, failures, and betrayals of revolution perpetrated by these men with beards and mustaches.

The Lineup:

Karl ( the smart man that wrote a lot of damning stuff about capitalism) Marx. 

Mikael (the guy who gives every anarchist a reason to not like Marx without having to read a lot) Bakunin. 

Joseph (the most famous mustache men of all not to mention the most vulgar form of communism ever embodied) Stalin.

  Vladimir (This communist wants you to work hard but not quite as hard as Stalin would have) Lenin.

Karl (the pathedic social-democrat that decided against both revolution and Spectacular revolution in hopes of negotiating etc..) Kautsky.

 Leon (the communist that didn't want anyone to find out he was just like Stalin but too scared to stick an icepick in the back of Stalin's head so he died in a similar fashion by Stalin's hands) Trotsky.

Rosa (a communist who was probably too afraid to criticize Lenin outright, so she only criticized a little bit about Lenin wanting workers to work really really hard) Luxemburg.

Antonie (a council-communist or left-wing communist who wanted nothing to do with reform or Spectacular revolution) Pannekoek.

 

 

A Historical Revolutionary Quickie 

There are a lot of revolutionary moments throughout modern history and within those moments of revolutionary upheaval or insurrection there are a lot of people who also write about it and attempt to clarify what is happening, what's going right, or what is going wrong with the "revolution" at that time. Also these revolutionary moments often fail, spiral out of control and putter out, or morph into what Debord would refer to as illusions of socialism/communism/anarchism or Spectacular revolutions/communism/socialism/anarchism so it then becomes the job of the next generation of revolutionaries to study the past in hopes of not repeating it (this is often criticized as well).  When Spectacular revolutions turn into illusions of communism/socialism/anarchism, a quantitative different society from the previous society, this is the point in revolutionary history and revolutionary moments that the power of workers attempting to free themselves gets reintegrated into the cogs of capitalism/production and thus alienation begins anew. The revolution here is subsumed back into the capitalist system (later on this idea will be expanded on by 1970s revolutionaries).

Anyway, getting ahead of myself, lets start with Marx, Bakunin, and their time and end with the 1960s.

THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL

The First International (an organization comprised of communists, socialists, anarchists, workers, unions, etc...) was an association that was created around the late 1800s in an attempt to unite all of Europe's workers and radicals to then one day create a revolution that seized the means of production to overthrow capitalism and begin to construct a new socialist society where workers controlled their lives and the means of production. Workers and revolutionaries were interested in creating a qualitatively new life for everyone as opposed to just changing some things around resulting in quantitative change. Of course everyone didn't agree on how to to go about creating this revolution so they argued back and forth through books, letters, editorials, and debates while sometimes going off to start revolutions, riot, do some insurrection, etc...  The main arguments during the First International were between the Bakuninist-anarchists (mostly from Spain and Italy) and the gang that hung around Marx.  They argued over how a society after the revolution would look like, what does a state look like, what are the effects of wages in a society after capitalism, heirarchy, and the proletariat dictatorship.  Bakunin argued that Marx was authoritarian and wanted to impose things upon the working class where as he or his form of anarchism did not. 

Though in Bakunin's own writings he talked about an "invisible" dictatorship or "invisible" hand that led the workers to anarchism and so Marx and other communists of the time criticized Bakunin(ists) for wanting to construct a secret vanguard or proletariat dictatorship which would impose itself on the working-class similarly to what Bakunin was critical of regarding Marx's ideas.  Marx and Bakunin argued back and forth all the time and I think that the First International backhandedly moved or wanted to move the association to get away from the Bakunin(ists), which obviously gave Bakunin(ists) more ground to call Marx authoritarian.  

Anyway, Marx and Bakunin also argued over their economic analysis regarding capitalism and how capitalism imposes itself upon the worker forcing the worker to become labor-power.  Here is where their interpretations of capitalism and workers gets interesting and complex, but simply put Marx argued that Bakunin had a simplistic view of capitalism and Bakunin kept calling Marx authoritarian.  Bakunin, I think, called himself a collectivist-anarchists and argued for the collectivization of labor but for all workers to receive a wage to then pay for the goods and service she would want on an individual level, thus the individual is not oppressed by the masses or the collective.  Here Marx argued that a wage was not merely a wage but an integral part of capitalist production and reproduction.  Kinda like we have already talked about regarding the commodity form, the commodity is not simply a laptop or a book it is a social-relationship (mediated through image). 

At this time communists and anarchists argued back and forth about who was more right and who was more wrong, both having valid points but, in my opinion, anarchists were often prone to arguing about how right they were right from an ethical position and not a political or economic position, leaving a lot of things open for critique. For the communists they tended to argue mostly about the economics and pay more attention to the economic effects of capitalism upon workers while being more open to forms of social organization that may or may not be authoritarian.  The point that communists, since Marx was not a Marxist, were making was that workers must overthrow all aspects of capitalism before they can create a society to their liking and anarchists argued that they wanted to overthrow all aspects of capitalism here and now, yet they both agreed on that just differently (sorry).

Then the Paris Commune of 1871 happens and it was wild!  In Paris the workers had had enough of war with Germany and exploitation so a general strike lead to revolt and then the start of a new revolutionary society started to take place.  Workers took control over Paris and the rich, capitalists, kings, and other parasites on society fled the city to regroup to later bombard Paris killing a lot of people and I think that the french government even allowed German soldiers to attack Parisians.  I think it lasted for about three months or so and it was awesome.  The Paris Commune was equally important to anarchists and communists and both wrote about it as an example of how an alternative society would organize itself or that the Commune was the beginning stage of anarchist/communist society.  This is historically, practically, and theoretically interesting because it doesnt leave a lot of room for disagreement with what communists of the First International and anarchists of that time wanted, again its just how we get their that matters.  

During the Paris Commune workers organized how and when they worked, drastically reduced the hours that comprised of the work day, equalized work, socialized (made stuff free) a lot of goods and services, and violently defended the city when capitalism and its french army wanted to regain control. Sadly enough, as we well know, capitalism won and retook the city. 

Some time passed and I am sure interesting things happened along the way but this leads us up to World War I, the Russian Revolution, Lenin, the Second International, and Council-Communism.

THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL 

So Marx dies, Bakunin dies, and new things happen including a change in the way workers produce things.  The professional worker is now industrialized, i think, and workers work in big factories which motivated leftists (meaning various socialists) to change their outlook on revolutionary organizing and working class composition.  Lenin, the Bolsheviks, European social democrats, anarchist, and workers start to organize and revolt again.  Lenin at the time had looked at society and concluded in his major works that "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" and "What is to be Done?" that a revolutionary vanguard made up of the professional workers' best and brightest will led the revolution against capitalism.  In Russia anarchists like Makhno eventually had to rise up against the Bolsheviks.  Kropotkin is another famous anarchist who criticized Lenin.

In 1917 the Russian revolution went off with and the soviets (workers councils/unions), parts of the army, the peasants, and revolutionaries rose up in revolt against the Czar and the weak Russian capitalist, heavily subsided by European capitalism, to take control over the factories, fields, the army, and everyday life. Russia pulled out of World War I and created revolution.  A lot of shit happened.  Lenin and the Bolsheviks (the majority) eventually seized control over the soviets (unions) and worker organizations and laid claim to their form of organizing was the best, of course at times this was not a choice.  Lenin wrote, "State and Revolution" supposedly Lenin's most revolutionary piece and most critical text by Lenin regarding what the role of the state was during revolution.  Anarchists claim it was more or less just rehashing what anarchists were saying and it was a successful attempt at claiming to be more anti-statist than the Bolsheviks truly were.

Soon after the October revolution had happened a civil war started between the revolutionary forces and the capitalist reactionary forces, backed by Europe, to gain control over all of Russia.  Here is where Lenin's legacy becomes complex and interesting. So sometime in the early 1920s, well real early because Lenin dies in 1923 or 1924, the Soviet Union and Germany sign a peace treaty which basically guaranteed Germany would not have to fear the Soviet Union supporting the German workers who rose up in revolt in the 1920s, for the council-communists how had now emerged saw this as the biggest proof that Lenin and Soviet socialism was not interested in international revolution.  

 

In the 1920s a very strong and militant workers movement had gained strength in Germany and was challenging the German government for social power.  So another unsuccessful revolt happened but it is historically interesting because these communists and workers, council-communists, were highly critical of Lenin(ism) and the idea of a vanguard leading the revolution the same way that Lenin's did. Also, and probably more important, the council-communists saw the German revolt as an example of workers seizing power themselves and organizing themselves autonomously of a centralized revolutionary vanguard.  

Back in Russian shit had gone really bad and in 1921 workers and revolutionary sailors in Kronstadt rose up against the Bolsheviks and demanded "all power to the soviets (unions)", you might can see this as an emergence of council-communist tendencies in Russia. Of course the Bolsheviks called them counter-revolutionaries and send Trotsky down there with the Red Army to crush them. Nonetheless, Kronstadt is an example of workers thinking for themselves and coming up with a revolutionary program beyond Lenin(ism).

Anarchists rebelled, were jailed, killed, and exiled as well as communists that didnt agree with the way things were.  the Soviet Union developed and the soviet state emerged as a very centralized political force which controlled the means of production and dictated to the workers how to produce...Trotsky eventually started to oppose what Stalin was doing and called for workers opposition to Stalinist-Leninism.  Rosa Luxemburg had also begun to criticize the authoritarian elements within the Soviet state.

Lenin dies and a power struggle begins. Stalin wins, by killing a lot of politicians and eventually sending some goons after Trotsky who was in exile in Mexico and had set up the Fourth International in opposition to Stalin's Third International.  These two men argue over who was Lenin's real hire. I think they both were, and they were both equally "authoritarian" as was Lenin.  Trotsky viewed what Stalin was doing to the Soviet Union as destructive yet supported the core of what was developing in the Soviet Union.  Trotsky referred to to the Soviet Union as a Degenerated Workers' State which needed to be adjusted to get it back on the right socialist track.  Opposed to Stalin's "Socialism within on country" argument Trotsky argued for a permanent revolution that supported worldwide revolutionary struggles.  So economically Stalin and Trotsky were on point but Trotsky wanted to throw some support to struggles around the world?  There is a lot of material out there that goes deeper into the theoretical weakness of Trotsky and the Soviet Union in general.

Workers in Germany, Spain, Italy, and all over Europe are militantly organizing and millions of anarchists, communists, and socialists want to make revolution but fascism/nazism in honor of capitalism smash the workers movements of the 20s, 30s, and 40s.

So the Spanish workers had had enough and revolt. From 1936 to 1939 the Spanish Civil War rages on and behind the anarchists lines cities, villages, and factories are reorganized on variations of libertarian-socialism but eventually the fascist general Franco kills the worker and peasant revolution.  As World War II begins workers power, unions, and organizing is brutally halted by fascism/nazism and the rest of the world is dragged into war.  

Here a lot of interesting and theoretically interesting things happen and develop to explain the emerge of the Spectacle and class composition of the1960s,  European workers, American workers, and Japanese workers are "tricked" by nationalism and reformist tendencies within the workers movement to fight against other workers for capitalism and their nation.  Marx is spinning in his grave because he would have totally been against workers' organizations supporting nationalism and workers fighting wars for capitalism.

(During this time the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s you see the emergence of the modern civil rights movement in America as well.  The civil rights movement actually has its origins within working class organizations and workers organized around working class issues more so that civic issues, the movement was first called Civil Rights Unionism.)

After World War II, Europe is divided into west and east, one side being supported by the US and the other by the Soviet Union and in comes the Cold War.  Here history becomes very generalized and everyone is either a communist trying to destroy America and its freedom or your a counter-revolutionary wanting to take power away from the socialists and Stalin is the best.  Fascism has been "defeated" or just tamed and capitalism ushers in a new age of prosperity by entering into a deal with unions, workers, and social-democrats(organizations and unions who used to be communists and are now weak liberals who want to just talk things out).  So, the social-democratically controlled unions and capitalism enter into a deal were workers will be paid well if they work hard, enter the Spectacle and the 1960s.

 

So the nazi's are gone, but not really, because in Germany a lot of the judges and people in positions in power were/are still nazis and that is but one of many motivations for the 1960s wave of rebellion in Germany which climaxed with both the student movements and RAF.

Anyway, in France, particularly Paris workers and students rise up against this form the new Fordist form of capitalism, high production high consumption, and demand a lot of stuff.  The Situationists were motivated by the older council-communists of the 20s and the Hungarian Revolt of 1956 where workers inside the Soviet bloc revolted against Stalinism in favor of workers' council (communist) control over the factories and society.

A lot of revolutionary events have happened and continue to happen, its interesting and inspiring.  During the 1960s and 1970s new versions or new adaptations of anarchism, communism, and marxism began to emerge which viewed society and the changes within society as a product of workers struggle and these views opposed both orthodox marxism and marxist-leninism (stalinism).

More information: 

Situationist International  

Autonomist Marxism

 

*sorry for the typos i am to tired to edit.