Documents Situationnistes 6

Suite Guy Bodson et la FA

from Guy Bodson

To the Situationist International
Wednesday 15 June 1966
Comrades:

When the next issue is published, can you make a deposit at the Publico bookstore, 3 rue Ternaux?

Thanks in advance.

P.S. Is it possible for you to sell or even lend copies of the five first issues of your journal?

Currently one can not say that your ideas are seen particularly well in the Anarchist Federation. It seems that the simple fact of quoting Marx makes them catalogue you as Marxist (refusal of an article by Andre Bertrand).

Nevertheless, your idea on the question appears much more interesting. It will be necessary to remove a lot of dust.

G. Bodson

from Guy Debord

To Guy Bodson[1]
4 July 1966
Comrade:

Today I sent you the first five issues of the journal Internationale Situationniste. Send them back to us a day after reading them. We recently heard this story of censorship at [Le Monde] Libertaire, when we met Andre Bertrand,[2] whom we did not know before then. Certainly we are still "seen badly" by the so-called "Marxists." But it is normal to expect the worst from those who want to be experts in dissimulation. But what remains of the anarchists when their minuscule authority opposes itself to freedom of expression, hides the manifestation of the truth, protects falsification?

I am distressed for you: Le Monde Libertaire too much resembles the rest of the press of its era.
Debord
[1] Guy Antoine Bodson, member of the Boulogne Anarchist Group of the Anarchist Federation.
[2] Andre Bertrand, author of an article on the situationists that was refused by Le Monde Libertaire on the pretext that it cited Marx. Creator of several comics, including The Return of the Durruti [sic] Column, in October 1966.

(Published in Guy Debord, Correspondance, Volume 3, 1965-1968. Footnotes by Alice Debord. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! August 2005.)

from Guy Bodson

To Guy Debord
[no date]
Comrade:

First of all, thank you for the loan of the issues of I.S. [Internationale Situationniste].

If I am not completely in agreement with the formulation "perfect falsification,"[1] on the contrary I am in agreement on the result that "the M[onde] L[ibertaire] too much resembles the rest of the press of its era." There are many reasons for this, including, among others, the manner in which it is made.

My position with respect to the SI can seem to you to be that of a "partisan" (mimeographed version -- which I send you -- of "Report on the Construction of Situations").

In Le Monde Libertaire #121, #122 [and] #123, there appeared articles that I signed Guy Antoine, articles which are quite moderate and the development of which has been insignificant. The article by Andre Bertrand had the merit of being a hundred times clearer.

In fact, for this [forthcoming] article,[2] everything revolves around the term libertarian research, about which I reach the conclusion that no one knows what they mean when they say: 1) research 2) libertarian. There are only two of us to defend it,[3] but this (perhaps) is explained by the fact that the SI is little read in the libertarian milieu.

G. Bodson

[1] In his letter to Guy Bodson dated 4 July 1966, Guy Debord had asked, "But what remains of the anarchists when their minuscule authority opposes itself to freedom of expression, hides the manifestation of the truth, protects falsification?"

[2] What is situationism?, published in Le Monde Libertaire #127, December 1966.
[3] Bodson himself and the future situationist Rene Riesel.
(Never published. Private distribution. Translated from the French and footnoted by NOT BORED! September 2005.) 
from Guy Bodson

To Guy Debord
[no date]
Comrade:
By the same courrier, I have shipped back to you the issues of the I.S. [Internationale Situationniste] that you loaned me.
In the next Monde Libertaire there will be an article on the situationists -- which I do not think is genial, in any case you will critique it -- I suppose.
I hope that you will make a small rectification concerning the CNT,[1] insofar as I judge -- not much -- that you seem to be influenced by Accion Communista on this subject.
Likewise, in your article "The Decline and Fall of the Spectacular-Commodity Society," you know well that it wasn't only the POUM that resisted, but also the base of the CNT, obviously not those [of the CNT] who were in the government. Of course, the CNT didn't have a trial, which is another thing.
Good health
G. Bodson
[1] The CNT was disparaged in On the Poverty of Student Life.
(Never published. Private distribution. Translated from the French and footnoted by NOT BORED! September 2005.)

from Guy Debord

To Guy Bodson
2 December [19]66
Dear Comrade:
Thank you for the return of the journals. We will read your article[1] attentively.
We do not believe we are influenced by Accion comunista on the history of the Spanish Revolution; rather, it is we who have exhorted this group to study and critique better a past of which its seems to underestimate the richness.
We quite willingly specify that those who have negotiated with the Phalangist unions have quickly repudiated them; but is this not a question of the old leaders, who are known and respected throughout the CNT in Spain for their struggles and long terms in prison?
We know well the essential weight of the CNT in the victory of 1936. If we have only cited the POUM in our article on America,[2] this is because we are opposed to the naive adhesions to the international brigades, which were manipulated by Stalinism and were a much more critical and revolutionary position that was then taxed by pure betrayal.
It is a fact that one might accuse the POUMists of being conscious agents of Franco, an accusation that, all the same, has not been made against the anarchists in a cynical form. I do not want to say that the positions of the POUM appear to me as a highly satisfactory revolutionary model. But it is a fact that the Spanish Revolution was dead after the days of May [1937].
Guy Debord
[1] "What is Situationism?" which appeared in Le Monde Libertaire #127, December 1966.
[2] "The Decline and Fall of the Spectacular-Commodity Society" (cf. I.S. #10, pp. 3-11).
(Published in Guy Debord, Correspondance, Volume 3, 1965-1968. Footnotes by Alice Debord.

from Charles-August Bontemps

To Guy Antoine Bodson
5 December 1966
Comrade:
After some some discussion, I fear having to reply to your paper on situationism[1] (I detest this term, which isn't even advertising). Therefore, I have read what you've written and I consider that your exposition has its place in the "M.L." [Monde Libertaire], of which I haven't ceased saying that it is too often behind the times.
Where I am not in agreement -- I would say rather -- where I see a defect is in the too-easy opposition of situationism to libertarian philosophy and the reduction of the former to the only social-revolutionary action.
In a word, you contest the cultural action of anarchism. In short, I reply to you that the contrary is true. It is free and [word illegible] culture that equals and resides in anarchism.
When one speaks of Proudhon, one seems unfamiliar with his great work: "Of Justice in the Revolution and the Church." By Reclus: "Man and the Earth." By Kropotkin: "Mutual Assistance" and also "Ethics," surpassed in its perspective but still existent. All of the individualist school, from Stirner to Han Ryner, and even Armand is preoccupied by man insofar as he is man.
Finally, permit me to indicate to you that all that you report about situationism on the level of the supercession of the revolution, of the conditioning of diversions, of aesthetics as an inseparable element of ethics, of the irrational as a fundamental element of surrealism, these are all themes that I have appealed to in anarchism, that I have treated in a sense very close to that of situationism, for thirty to forty years, in articles, innumerable interventions at the Club des Faubourg and many conferences, and that, finally, I have assembled, summarized and systematized them in "Anarchism and the Real."
Then why refuse to the anarchists, why impute to the benefit of non-anarchists, views that we had before them?
I can give you the response, but it is a little disappointing. There are many anarchists who are anarchist. What isn't in "the line" is stifled. It took more than two years for a congress of the A.F. [Anarchist Federation] to finally cite my book. Cited it but no more. One doesn't contest it. One doesn't know it.
Here is a significant fact. My first attempts are widely beneficial. For the genre and without an editor, this isn't bad. It is to the society of the People of Letters and not rue Ternaux[2] that I have made my remarks. Therefore -- with the exception of "Anarchism and the Real," which has all the same retained the attention of the comrades -- it is to the rue Ternaux that I have sold the fewest number of copies: the figure is insignificant. Currently, it is priests and Catholic professors who discuss my disk "Praise for Egoism" -- I have had the displeasure of hearing a well-known journalist say to me, concerning the M.L. critique of this disk, "Bontemps, it appears that a disk by Brassens has more importance for the anarchists than a disk on a libertarian theme!"
This was a way of asking me, one more time: "What are you fucking around with here?"
Personally, I know what I have accomplished and I know where to plant the seeds. But I still can not resist irritation when an article such as yours is not oriented in a fashion to emphasize that what is valuable is already among the anarchists. It is a shame that they are the first not to know it.
Quite cordially,
Aug. Bontemps
[1] See What is situationism?, published in Le Monde Libertaire #127, December 1966.
[2] The location of the Publico bookstore.
(Never published. Private distribution. Translated from the French and footnoted by NOT BORED! September 2005.)

from Guy Antoine

To Charles-August Bontemps
[no date]
Comrade:
First, thank you for writing to me,[1] because it is preferable to have a written critique than a critique by "word of mouth."[2]
I believe that it is necessary to make certain things precise again: there is no "situationism," even if my article[3] carried this title -- there are only situationists.
I contest the cultural activity of anarchism (like that of "Marxism") in the sense that it is a cultural activity of the XIXth Century. Because it is quite necessary to recognize that the appearance of "theoreticians" dates from this era and that we are linked to them.
All of the meaning of the article can be false if one doesn't bear in mind that it is a question of the culture of today, in the sense of a pseudo-culture and a pseudo-science (Planete).
To speak of liberty today can only be to make a sad pleasantry if one doesn't refer to the central themes of the "milieu," of conditioning and propaganda.
At this level, all of the ideologies are the same, even the libertarian ideology, because the words no longer carry the same meanings. All the powers currently speak of liberty . . . the greatness of man, etc. . . . In brief, they are all humanists -- in the sense that the Nazis constructed stalags for their prisoners.
In any case, I think that this article will not please anyone, neither the anarchists, nor the situationists. But I estimate that I have been foolishly honest. Because to develop certain themes, I was obliged to mention the texts of the SI.
On the subject of your book, I must say that I have not read it. But in admitting that in it you respond to all the problems of the era, you do so theoretically but not in practice. The individual in our era has the value of a fly on a sticky paper-strip.
Finally, seeing that I can not develop everything here, I would like to respond to your last phrase, which motivates your letter -- "is not oriented in a fashion to emphasize that what is valuable is already among the anarchists." Actually, [in anarchism] there are many things, quite often scattered, without coherence (theoretically, at least). In the indicated sense, I have been obliged to make a "libertarian apology."
Thus, I will not insist on the positive sides of anarchy.
But, for example, were there anarchists capable of being interested in the surrealism of their era?
In any case, I think that, instead of critiquing "situationism" through a short article, it would be better to read their pamphlets -- Situationist International -- The Old Mole [bookstore], rue des fosses-jacques, Paris, 5th -- I send you the pamphlet by the Strasbourg situationists along with this letter.
For you to judge.
Cordially,
Guy Antoine
[1] See letter dated 5 December 1966.
[2] The French employed here is qu'en dira-t'on.
[3] See What is situationism?, published in Le Monde Libertaire #127, December 1966.
(Never published. Private distribution. Translated from the French and footnoted by NOT BORED! September 2005.)

from Guy Debord

To Guy Bodson
11 December [19]66
Dear Bodson:
Those of my comrades who have already read your article on the SI have all found it very good; and we appreciate the quantity of exact information that you have gathered together in a page.
It would not be great praise to say that it is the best article on the subject so far, since you know that the practically serious articles have been very few.
To the question that you justly pose at the beginning, "why doesn't one speak of it?" I believe that one can respond more precisely: on the one hand, there still are not visible currents in modern society seeking a global critique (I mean to say: in an actually new way); on the other hand, we have not accepted, on one of a crowd of occasions, to be partially recognized and received in cultural recuperation -- in the "Godard generation" -- with the result that we have remained as badly seen as theoreticians as "artists." The latter would be the minimum of the required seriousness!
The principal merit of your article is certainly that you say how we are close to the anarchists on the fundamental options and, at the same time, you show where the difference, which is essential, resides. Such confrontations will certainly be necessary in the general movement of supercession of the old positions of revolutionary critique.
Cordially,
Guy Debord
(Published in Guy Debord, Correspondance, Volume 3, 1965-1968.

from Guy Bodson

To Guy Debord
[no date]
Comrade:
Re-reading my text,[1] I think that it can be critiqued in the sense of the expression "totality."
Indeed, a sector has been left to the side; in re-thinking it, perhaps it would be a question on my part of a thoughtless reaction, insofar as "painting" is concerned.
It is quite certain that each person finds himself touched by an aspect of your global critique and this in his [area of] specialization: unionist, artist, "Marxist," etc. . . .
It is very rapidly becoming a question of the degree of compromise in existence, either concerning work or any other thing. Perhaps something remains between integrated and dead?
In any case, the publication of the article, following by the pamphlet [On the Poverty of Student Life] has clearly diminished the degree of "tolerance" [in the Anarchist Deferation].
Already certain responses are ready[2] and they -- unfortunately -- go in the direction you critiqued.
Good health
G. Bodson
[1] What is situationism?, published in Le Monde Libertaire #127, December 1966.
[2] Those responses would include Charles-August Bontemps' Open letter to Guy Antoine on Situationism and Maurice Joyeux's Tough Customers!.

(Never published. Private distribution. Translated from the French and footnoted by NOT BORED! September 2005.)

 ____________

La suite (3 doc) en frenchy

 

  

  

 

situationniste.net

Documents Situationnistes 5

Les scissions de la F.A.

 Sur La FA

CONTRAIREMENT à tous les bruits répandus sciemment dans la Fédération Anarchiste, et clamés jusque dans son Congrès de Bordeaux, il n’y a jamais eu aucune sorte de « complot situationniste » tendant à faire éclater cette Fédération, qui a toujours présenté à nos yeux l’inintérêt le plus total. Nous n’y connaissions personne. La lecture épisodique du déplorable Monde Libertaire était loin de nous laisser supposer que l’I.S. pût y avoir la moindre audience. De la misère en milieu étudiant apporta à cet égard une certaine surprise : différents membres de la F.A. parurent l’approuver. La direction permanente de la F.A., qui avait absolument tout supporté, dans ses rangs ou en invité dans son journal, du pro-chinois, du surréaliste, du lettriste, avec la même bienveillance qu’elle accorde au syndicat Force Ouvrière, réagit très vivement pour soustraire on ne sait quels militants à la première influence qu’elle jugea pernicieuse. 

Un article nous calomniait avec la dernière lourdeur. Nous envoyâmes une réponse assez dure, ce qui plaçait tout individu à prétention révolutionnaire dans l’obligation d’en exiger la parution et, puisqu’elle apparaissait impossible à ses chefs, d’en tirer les conséquences. C’est, par exemple, ce qui ne firent pas les « anarchistes » du Groupe de Nanterre, de vrais étudiants qui croyaient pouvoir s’offrir les luxes réunis de nous applaudir en esthètes, d’être garantis anarchistes par l’étiquette F.A., et de n’être en rien compromis par les actes de la F.A., puisqu’ils la condamnaient à tout instant à l’extérieur. Trois groupes se trouvèrent en cette circonstance — celui de Ménilmontant, le Groupe Anarchiste-Révolutionnaire et le Groupe Makhno de Rennes — pour défendre une position honorable. Ce problème fit surgir tous les autres. Les choses s’envenimèrent au point qu’au Congrès de Bordeaux, en avril, tandis que ces trois groupes rompaient avec la totalité de la F.A., une autre scission, numériquement beaucoup plus considérable, était amenée à fonder une F.A. bis, qui reproduit pour son propre compte la confusion et les carences de la véritable. Bien entendu, l’I.S. n’avait et n’aura aucune sorte de relation avec ces deux F.A. De leur côté, les trois groupes radicaux qui se sont définis dans ce processus ont fusionné, et ont annoncé la prochaine parution d’une revue Internationale Anarchiste (Adresse : 80, rue de Ménilmontant, Paris-20^e). Il est bien clair que, sans que rien d’extérieur ne s’en occupe, la F.A. devait éclater d’elle-même à partir du moment où certains de ses membres découvriraient la moindre trace d’un courant critique réel d’aujourd’hui. Car voir une telle critique est du même coup voir le vide de la F.A., et la manière dont ce vide se défend.

in IS n°11 

 

_______________

Guy Bodson  (Guy Antoine Bodson)

Il a été proche de l’Internationale situationniste et il a eu une correspondance avec Guy Debord.
Il participe à la revue Absinthe des Amis d’Alfred Jarry.
Peintre il a exposé à L’usine en 1999, en 2000, en 2003 et en 2004.

 

What is 'Situationism'?

"If you have now understood that there is no situationism, then you have not wasted your evening." The IVth Conference of the SI (#5).
"Are you Marxists? Quite as much as Marx when he said, 'I am not a Marxist.'" I.S. (#9).

Nine years ago a movement was born that is quite close to certain aspects of the libertarian movement and very far from other aspects. Why don't we speak of it? It seems that this silence is linked, on the one hand, to the very powerful theoretical aspect of the texts by the Situationist International, and, on the other hand, to situationist preoccupations that appear to interest only a small minority. What are the causes? One of the most important among them is, without doubt, the fact that professional revolutionaries from Lenin to Bakunin have always separated politico-economic action from action in culture. In their opinion, one must at first change the material basis of life and only occupy oneself with the rest (the problems of art and style of life) in a second phase, without seeing that they thus leave "culture" in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
We all know that the possibilities of productivity have progressed in the same way that all of the technical sciences have brought capitalism to its advanced form of over-consumption, which is obligatory to its survival and this in all the sectors of production, from the automobile to armaments and the work of art; all sell themselves, all buy into the ultima ratio[1] of a world in which the commodity extends its rule. Quality disappears to the profit of quantity; the use-value of the object (for example: the automobile) disappears behind its exchange-value.
The SI only exists in relation to the society of consumption that currently spreads over the planet by imposing its behaviors (conditioned liberty), its habitat, its work, its diversions and its spectacle. The situationists condemn (in principle) the lack of efficacity of current political struggles and categorical claims because they are partial and do not contest the social construction as a whole. Herbert Marcuse, whom the SI studied, summarizes the position of current society faced with the problem of "culture":

In the cultural domain, in place of a total desublimation, one sees the unitary order of this society at work. There is an identity or better a confusion between leisure time and work time, so much so that man fundamentally no longer finds during his leisure time what was offered to him at work: one permits him all modes of behavior necessary to permit him to work more. Above all, he will identify his spirit with business. In literature, in art, the impossibility of communicating in a reified language[2] will aggravate itself more. And even all acts of accusation against society can no longer express themselves without being immediately and inevitably transformed into a best-seller,[3] that is to say, directly absorbed by the market, bought, sold, paid for by the same society that it critiques.[4]

If the situationists were among the first to have perceived that power claims to take hold of free time (diversions), they were the first to clearly formulate a position of attack against this form of appropriation. Power needs to have its products and passivity consumed by its "spectators" (read: the proletariat); thus, the constant propaganda of the style of bourgeois life is one of the principle bases of the alienation of the "massified" proletariat. Thus the SI has something to say: "Revolutionary thought must critique everyday life in bourgeois society: spread another idea of happiness" (I.S. #2). Because, up to the present, the old ways of life of the old society still reconstitute themselves, even among revolutionaries. For the SI, it is necessary to change the exterior and the interior: "Communication between people isn't assured by communal political programs, even in the most anti-hierarchical and libertarian groups" (I.S. #6). The appearance of the Provo movement, which troubles sociologists so much, thus corresponds to the experimental value of life expressed by the SI, but as much as the situationists try to systematize and coordinate theory and action, the Provos are spontaneous and little theorized in action and thus easily recuperable by power. It seems that the word 'recuperation' is a key word by which to understand the situationists -- power creates nothing, it [simply] recuperates. If we can say that the formation of the First International was a (positive) copy of the international[ism] of the exploiters, the situationists recuperate in the opposite sense of power, taking elements from very different domains: sociology, political economy, psychoanalysis, urbanism, etc., so as to form a coherent and critical whole. "The qualitative is our striking force" (I.S. #8), and thus arrives at a global formulation of this society (the project being inseparable from its own critique).
The situationists are at the center of a debate that must open on to the theoretical and practical possibilities of the revolutionary movement. Paradoxically, they are the only ones to affirm that the revolutionary movement has disappeared: "If there is something derisive in speaking of revolution, this is obviously because the organized revolutionary movement disappeared long ago from the modern countries, in which the possibilities of a decisive transformation of society are concentrated" (I.S. #6). The situationists do not claim to constitute a party. Their disabused tone with respect to what they call the old revolutionary movement explains itself by their historic classification: "One can accept that the classic workers' movement began fifty years before the official constitution of the [First] International, with the first liaison of the communist groups from several countries that Marx and his friends organized in Bruseels in 1845. And that it was completely finished after the failure of the Spanish revolution, that is to say, the day after the 'May Days' in Barcelona in 1937" (I.S. #7).
Situationist activity can be qualified at first sight as anti-cultural; this aspect is less clear when one knows that the founders of the movement were "artists" who came from the Lettrist left, partisans of the supercession of art. The Situationist International was constituted on 28 July 1957 at the Conference at Cosio d'Arroscia. Composed of the Lettrist International and other avant-garde artistic movements: Cobra, the Imaginist Bauhaus, and the Psychogeographical Institute. From their inception, the situationists arrived at the conclusion (subsequent research, the "Potlatch" journal, 1954-1957) that it isn't a question of producing works of art, but realizing life as a work of art, life liberated from restraints in the sense of a great game. For the situationists, this could only happen in a collective manner, in having the possibility of utilizing the modern means of production in the free construction of the milieu: "The construction of situations begins beyond the modern collapse of the notion of spectacle. It is easy to see at which point the principle of the spectacle is attached to the alienation of the old world: non-intervention. Inversely, one sees that the most valuable revolutionary investigations in culture have sought to break the psychological identification of the spectator with heroes, to involve the spectator in activity. . . . Thus, the situation is made to be lived by its constructors" (I.S. #3).[5]
The situationists were led to critique surrealist activity, as much as artistic activity produces commodities and as much as revolt put in the museum: "The success of surrealism lies in the fact that the ideology of this society, which is the most modern on its face, has abdicated to a hierarchy of artificial values, but in its turn feels itself to be openly irrational" (I.S. #4).[5] The situationists were also led to critique the "crazy love" style: "Participation in this bourgeois propaganda that presents love as the only possible adventure in modern conditions of existence. . . ." (I.S. #2).
The situationists give a precise meaning to the words that they employ -- detournement, derive, unitary urbanism, constructed situation, spectacle. One of the words that is constantly used to designate the ensemble of conditioning is "spectacle," which is used for both the cultural activities and the politics of this world. [Asger] Jorn summarizes it thus: "But what is the truth of this spectacular conflict? John Kenneth Galbraith, occupied with the administration of strategic bombardments in the war, an officer of military security, medaled as he must be, confessed in his book The affluent society[6] that modern capitalism, believing itself to be anti-socialism, today holds fast to several obviously Marxist dogmas, ignorant of their origin and always cursing Karl Marx. One can see in parallel how Russian society, believing itself always Marxist, has actually cursed Marx by honoring him."[7] In the system of compensation generalized in this world, we can cite the extreme point of this "collaborationism" of power: "The two camps do not actually prepare for war, but the unlimited conservation of this equilibrium, which is in the image of the internal stabilization of their power. It goes without saying that this will involve the mobilization of gigantic resources, since it is imperative to always raise higher in the spectacle the possible war." (I.S. #7).
We indicated at the beginning of this article that there were certain aspects far from the libertarian movement. It seems that there is no concordance on the term "ideology": "Everywhere the ideologies of the old world are critiqued and rejected, but nowhere is 'the real movement that suppresses existing conditions' free from an 'ideology' in Marx's sense: ideas that serve the masters."[8] To seize what this implies, it is necessary to re-locate this phrase into the context in which men used it in their time: Hegel, the end of philosophy; Kierkegaard, the end of theology (concept of anguish); Marx, the end of ideology. The situationists reclaim these themes in "supercession," that is to say, it is a question for them of actually realizing these disappearances by the creation of another life. All of these problems being no more than the problems of man's prehistory. It is a question of a return of these elements to their origins, which are, moreover, little understood. For example, Sartre calls himself a "Marxist," but isn't since he believes in philosophy.
In the libertarian movement, preoccupation with these themes is practically nonexistent. Why? Because it seems that there is a fixation on the political action of Marx at the time that he was denounced as an enemy by Bakunin, and that there is also little interest in dialectical reasoning. It doesn't seem that the situationists envision it in the same way: "Plagiarism is necessary: progress implies it. It stays close to the phrase of an author, makes use of his expressions, effaces a false idea, replaces it with an exact one."[9] "To know Marx's thought, it is always necessary to specify it, correct it, reformulate it in the light of a hundred years of reinforcement of alienation and the possibilities of its negation. Marx needs to be detourned by those who continue his historic route and not quoted stupidily by the thousand varieties of recuperators" (I.S. #10). Here we are on a terrain that has barely been verified by libertarian thought, wrongly, without doubt.
It is certain that the revolutionary movement needs to reconsider its own givens as a function of its era. If situationist propositions do not encourage an excessive enthusiasm, perhaps they are permitted an exact re-evaluation of these times, which must be "our" era.
Guy ANTOINE Bodson [10]
[1] Translator: "last argument" or "final accounting." Latin in original.
[2] Reified: see Definitions [below]: reification.
[3] Translator: English in original.
[4] "Are we not men?" Text by Marcuse, I.C.O. #52 and #53.
[5] G.-E. Debord. Report on the Construction of Situations, June 1957.
[6] Translator: English in original.
[7] Text by [Asger] Jorn: "Guy Debord and the problem of the accursed." Introduction to the presentation of three films by Debord in a book published by the Institute for Comparative Vandalism, Guy Debord against the cinema.
[8] "Address to the revolutionaries of Algeria and all countries," November 1965.
[9] Lautreamont. Poetry.
[10] Translator: Guy Bodson's full name was Guy Antoine Bodson.

Some definitions

What does the word situationist mean? -- ". . . the term situationist, in the sense of the SI, is exactly the contrary of what in Portugeuse one currently calls a 'situationist,' that is to say, a partisan of the existing situation, Salazarism" (I.S. #9).
Situationism. -- Word deprived of meaning, abusively forged by derivation from the preceding term. There isn't any situationism, which would signify a doctrine of interpretation of existing facts. The notion of situationism is obviously conceived by antisituationists.
Derive. -- Manner of experimental behavior linked to the conditions of urban society: technique of hasty passage through various ambiances. More particularly, this designates the duration of a continuous exercise of this experiment.
Detournement. -- An abbreviation of the formula: detournement of prefabricated aesthetic elements. Integration of current productions of the arts into a superior construction of the milieu. In this sense, one can not have situationist painting or music, but a situationist usage of these means. In a more primitive sense, detournement in the interior of the old cultural speheres is a method of propaganda that testifies to the usage and the loss of importance of these spheres.
(Last three definitions, I.S. #1.)
Unitary urbanism. -- "Unitary urbanism is not a doctrine of urbanism but a critique of urbanism."
"If the Nazis had known contemporary urbanists, they would have transformed the concentration camps into H.L.M. [Translator: social housing blocs.] But this solution appears too Mr Chombart de Lauwe. Ideal urbanism must engage each person, without malaise or revolt, towards the final solution of the problem of Man." ("Comments against urbanism," I.S. #6.)
Reification. -- The term reification designates the multiple situations in which the human being sees himself snatched away from himself, rendered a stranger to himself, submitted to 'another thing,' surrendered to abstraction or split. Reification constitutes the limit-case of alienation, in which man tends towards the condition of a thing.
(Written by Guy Bodson and published in Le Monde Libertaire #127, December 1966. Footnotes by author, except where noted. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! September 2005.)

___________________

Open letter, or 'Situationism' and the Situation of the A.F.

"I am for freedom of thought . . . but if there are any situationists in the room, then they should get out." -- Professor Lhuillier, according to Le Nouvel Observateur[1]

In Le Monde Libertaire #127, an article entitled What is 'situationism'? appeared; at the same moment, the "situationists" of Strasbourg published their pamphlet On the Poverty of Student Life, the ensemble giving the impression of a concerted action. If the article in the M.L. appeared sufficiently colorless, although it wasn't comprehensible by the "workers," the pamphlet once again gave them a savior.

The reaction didn't delay itself: in M.L. #128, we had two articles attacking the pamphlet: an article by Father Easy/Maurice Joyeux and a letter by A. Bontemps.

WHAT IT WAS A QUESTION OF

It wasn't a question of becoming "situationist," but of "beginning" to pose questions and to respond to them, but in another ambiance and in a more global manner than the famous specialization of tendencies. In any case, it was necessary to pose the problems here and now, things that up until then the A.F. [Anarchist Federation] didn't seem to want to do.

Personally, what is the origin of all this? After reading Orwell and issues of Internationale Situationniste, it appeared to me that a new orientation was possible, at least at the level of critique. And a priori without contradiction to (but with differences from) the anarchist movement.[2]

Several timid attempts in this direction were made, in the M.L. articles entitled "The war of diversions has begun" (#121), "Well-being" (#122), [and] "Of cultural decomposition" (#123); apart from their faults, they can be qualified as vaguely pro-situationist. In sum, this lasted a long time -- without ever completely quoting the theses of the SI, of course.

The incriminated article (M.I. #128) wanted to respond to a part of the accusation that had been made against the SI, moreover with reason, as a by-product without reference and, on the other hand, as the result of quotations such as this: ". . . the Situationist International, which finally produced its tenth issue. One has wanted to be conciliatory with the SI, of which the always-intelligent thought is really revolutionary" ("Across the journals," #123). If the A.F. waited for the appearance of [the next issue of] I.S., this position had never been demonstrated, only indicated[3] precisely in "Across the journals." Because it is certain that one could count on one's fingers the comrades who had read "the situationists" and wanted to discuss them. Obviously, judging the SI on the basis of 7 lines concerning the anarchists in a pamphlet is simpler. If "the situationists" make declarations of love to the "anarchists" under the form of a slap, this must be effective. Alas, no. The A.F. immediately surrendered.

How are the situationists so different from the anarchists? It is exactly that they do not employ the "anarchist" label. Here is what they say about labels: "In the existing order, where the thing takes the place of man, any label is compromised. Nevertheless, the one that we have chosen carries its own critique in it: in that it opposes itself to 'situationism,' it summarizes the other labels chosen for us. Moreover, it will disappear when each of us will be situationists entirely apart, and no longer proletarians struggling for the end of the proletariat. In the short-term, as derisive as a label is, ours has the merit of cutting [trancher] between the old incoherence and a new requirement. What intelligence has lacked the most for several dozen years is precisely the cutting edge [le tranchant]." (I.S. #9)

At the risk of repeating ourselves, [we say that] the situationists are essentially different from the anarchists due to the critique of "ideology" -- critique of "Marxism" by Marx's own method -- or ideology and its treatment by the propaganda that deforms it, the propaganda that creates another ideology (the problem of democratic propaganda).

From the theoretical point of view, the SI rests upon the critique of the commodity economy (dialectical materialism -- but see also the theses on culture), which inevitably catalogues them as Marxists. "Marx's address to the Central Council of the Communist League (March 1850) is, at one and the same time, just in that it puts the workers on guard against the absence of an autonomous politics and the consequences of an attitude that is dependant on the petite bourgeoisie, and quite dangerous in that (in the final part) it defends the most Jacobin Statist centralism. The first part is exactly applicable to Spain and the coming crisis. The end is rejected by all of the proletarian revolution of our time and was already inapplicable to the Spanish situation of 1936, where regional autonomy was the basis on which the most radical tendencies expressed themselves" (I.S. #10).

The use of Marx, which, however, is critical, makes certain libertarians reject the situationists en bloc, because, for these libertarians, any nuance or critique concerning "Marxism" is a "mystification." They are thus incapable of responding on the exterior [of their organization] or replying to the diffuse "Marixism" of our era. In brief, how can these people (the situationists) dare to speak badly of all the magnificent "French revolutionary" organizations, in which everything is always resolved in advance, either by Trotsky (the facts!) or by anarchism (ideology)? Mystery! It is here that a reading imposes itself.

NOW THE A.F.

"Therefore what is expressed by the miniscule pamphlet entitled 'Basic Principles of the Anarchist Federation'? On page 1, one extols the abolition of the State and its replacement by libertarian federalism. Bravo. But such a formula, without other explication, is equivalent to a slogan. What is the modern State? What is a federation that is adapted to the modern world? These are questions that the anarchists of the second half of the XXth century leave unanswered."[4]

All this is quite just and actually there is no response to it and there will be no response to it, at least insofar as the general anarchist spirit will remain in its current disposition. "The under-development of revolutionary theory in the entire world is the primary underdevelopment that must now be left behind."[5]

"No one prevents them from doing what we have done and proving their abilities in creating their own organ in place making trouble."[6] Thanks all the same; I indicate to the author of this amiable phrase (he who loves politeness) that, up until now, I have been among the editors of the M.L., the "stupidity" of which is well known.

As far as the Association (the owners), it is the "property" of "anarchism," since one can say that the A.F. is the newspaper. This association can act if things go "badly," in case the spirit goes counter to orthodox anarchism. At least a text will always be well regarded, naturally: the anarchists are right; the anarchists are intelligent; they have already foreseen it; etc. Which obviously proves nothing, but satisfies those who understand NOTHING.

And this poses the problem of the militant: we know that the militant of a [political] party is someone who claims to hold the truth (which permits him to act at least for a certain time); in fact, he is conditioned (he was or he is conditioned). Introducing an element of ambivalence in such a "milieu" provokes an immediate reaction: one cries "This is propaganda!" It is true that it is propaganda that cries the most about propaganda,[7] its propaganda being good, but not that of the others, obviously: "Finally, our newspaper is the essential element of our propaganda."[8] One can perhaps pose the problem: "What is anarchist propaganda?"

As for the individualist [August] Bontemps, who only intervenes to extract foreign bodies from the sick part, he has found a casuist solution: "From now on, it is permitted to consider that an anarchist can kill himself, at the least to render existence difficult and uncertain if he doesn't practice, lucidly and voluntarily, a double morality: one for himself and his relations with those close to him, and another for everyone else in the social milieu." What is it he comes to sing to us, he who has so many "relations" with technocrats? They are so intelligent.

As far Father Joyeux-Easy, he doesn't fail to let the amalgam effectuate itself. "An article informs us" is savory, since he has read no situationist texts, aside from the pamphlet and, more precisely, the 7 lines in it that he believes were addressed to him.

Even feeling insulted (which is understandable in this instance), no newspaper has dared to publish an article as reactionary as his.

What to say to these people, who relate everything to the past? "Their strength is ignorance."

G. Bodson, alias Guy Antoine

[1] Translator: 21 December 1966. Lhuillier was a professor at the University of Strasbourg.

[2] "This independence of opinions at the heart of associations that are simply liberal: would it paradoxically be excluded from the libertarian milieu?" A.B. [August Bontemps] Anarchism and the Real [1963].

[3] M.L. #41-42, August-September 1958.

[4] Maurice Fayolle (Congress of 1965).

[5] Translator: "The Class Struggles in Algeria," Siituationist International, 1965.

[6] Here I repeat that I am not a situationist, not being [a member] in "The Occult International"; finally, if the phrase of Bontemps doesn't concern me (by chance), it concerns Strasbourg, which proves that Bontemps has the greatest respect for the unions.

[7] [Jacques] Ellul, Propaganda, A. Colin.

[8] Internal Bulletin #60. "Motion of the Louise-Michel Group." A magnificent example of stupidity.

(Unpublished. No date [January 1967?]. Unpublished. Footnotes by author, except where noted. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! September 2005.)

_______________________ 

Subversive Remarks

Tough Customers!

In the most recent issue of our newspaper, an article informed us of 'Situationism.' Father Easy[1] would like to deposit in this dossier an edifying text that appeared in a pamphlet for students[2] and edited by these shocking intellectuals.

"As far as the diverse 'anarchist' groupuscules, who are collective prisoners of this name, they possess nothing other than an ideology reduced to a simple label. The unbelievable Monde Libertaire, which is obviously drafted by students, attains the most fantastic degree of confusion and stupidity. These people can actually tolerate anything, because they tolerate each other."

At all times, bourgeois youth -- in veins of exhibitionism -- have loved to place their asses to the window, so as to shock the ladies and anger the passers-by. The verbal gesticulations of the situationists are of no consequence; and we can reassure the reader that we will find them once again in several years, their police records clean, their buttocks plump, their bank accounts comfortably furnished, holding forth Sunday mornings at the Cafe du Commerce, waiting for their ladies, who are occupied with giving bread to the poor at the Great Mass at 11 o'clock. Meanwhile, I would like to draw the attention of the reader to the dusty style of this "proletariat of the college," these intellectuals of the baccalaureat.

"The self-management of militant alienation will only make men the programmers of their own survival: it is the squaring of the circle."

Certainly Corneille has taught us that value isn't a function of age. These gentlemen are quite convinced. Father Easy thinks that fuckery is no longer a question of age. You have the proof!
I must add that these idiots who address themselves "to the masses," to the "proletariat," can count on the fingers of two hands the numbers they have mobilized.
For a century, our libertarian movement has treated well groups of intellectuals who at twenty descend (symbolically) into the street and who at forty travel through the factory (actually) with a whip in hand. Our movement will treats others well, too.
Furthermore, it is curious to see the eagerness of the bourgeois press, which refuses to pass on information emanating from the revolutionary workers' movement, take up and popularize the gesticulations of these puppets. It doesn't deceive itself! It knows what the ell is worth! It awaits "the revolutionaries of the schoolyard" at the turn. It knows well that it can recuperate them at the desired moment.
The terrain [for the situationists] to occupy is among the crowds of Briands and Herves.[3] It suffices for them to adjust the blow; but, in any case, ultra-Leftism remains the ideal springboard for the Maria-Louises of the busy bourgeoisie to sow their wild oats.
[signed]
FATHER EASY
[1] In French, Pere Peinard.
[2] Of course, On the Poverty of Student Life was not "for" students, but was directed against them.
[3] People from bourgeois backgrounds.
(Written by Maurice Joyeux and published in Le Monde Libertaire #128, January 1967. Translated from the French and footnoted by NOT BORED!)

Open letter to Guy Antoine on Situationism

Although I no longer collaborate on Le Monde Libertaire, I do not like to see it denigrated by one who publishes in it, nor to see one avoid, with a perjorative intention, all allusions to libertarian action with regards to situationism, this new form of Baroque-ism.
Those who have taken the pains and the risks of founding Le Monde Libertaire are also young. They have known how to usefully understand the old militants who remain in the breach. If the young ones of the present can not support the diversity of opinions that was and remains the rule of the initiators, if the editors of a certain pamphlet,[1] published by the students of Strasbourg, believing that they can, on the subject of the A.F. [Anarchist Federation], take the liberty of imparting that "these people actually tolerate anything since they can tolerate each other," then no one prevents them from doing what we have done and proving their capacities in creating their own organ, instead of making problems.
The A.F., the Association that has permitted the purchase of the shop, the foundation of the bookstore and, at first, the newspaper, has been organized in such a fashion that all evolutions are possible in it. Evolutions, but not evictions or substitutions. I can specify this completely objectively because, practically, I am no longer completely on the path.
As far as sending me to the "sources" of situationism, as you have done,[2] this is ignorant of the fact that the debates in which I am constantly engaged, and in which I have had dealings with these specialists, oblige me to keep myself informed. Nevertheless, a pamphlet such as that by the young Strasbourgeois leads me to an affidavit. It is impossible for lads of your age to read the anarchist newspapers and pamphlets of the diverse tendencies that were abundant in the 1900s. Because of this, they can not pretend that they have discovered America. I have read the texts of the pamphlet in question (style, intentions and insults) dozens of times before 1914. Though they are lesser, the Provos replace the activists of direct action (without Vaillant, Henry and others). The beatniks are substituted for those individualists who would like to be asocial and, like them, return to the ranks at the age of twenty-five.
In what concerns the constructive part [of On the Poverty of Student Life], it is regretable that its authors do not know that, well before them, at the end of the other century, theoreticians of quality had elaborated it under different forms. If it is necessary to re-visit their theories, it is puerile to reinvent them and claim to give them lessons. These reduce down to the very old formula: "All power to the Workers' Councils." Previously, one said to the Republicans: "All power to those elected by the People." All this is so new and modern that, going back to Proudhon, I must say for the first time in a long time how much I mistrust powers, even those delegated by the people or by the workers, who have in fact freed themselves. This is only my opinion. It remains that the modernism of the situationists smells too much of patch-work for one to await their directives. Above all, the current conjuncture poses the problems of ability and responsibility for the responsible people who are not their own judges. At the level of the planetary mechanism, this requires a little more than bullshit.
You also tell me that libertarians have done nothing for culture. I will not tell you to read the catalogue of Publico but, since you believe that they were ignorant of "surrealism in its time," I will respond to you that at that time I was in good relations with Andre Breton and Robert Desnos. But, insofar as I was an anarchist, specifically, I was opposed to their inconsistencies, to their apology for the irrational while their anti-clericalism was virulent, to their taste for mystery while all mystery, according to etymology, supposes initiates, thus mystifiers. If it is true that these inconsistencies finally led an Andre Breton from communism to anarchism, others were drawn to Moscow or Rome when they did not desert. It is they who, alas! sank into asylums or committed suicide.
I have written in other libertarian publications that surrealism cleaned rationalism of its university crusts and gave the fighting spirit a style. Is this being uninterested in culture? But an anarchist culture is what it is, at the margins of knowledge, an involvement in the will for lucidity and a conscious contentment in the rigor of fact.
As for the modern world, understanding of it begins when someone among us turns twenty. This was the way it was in 1914. There has been a half-century of debates and physical age has nothing to do with it. As far as mental age, one knows and regrets that too many adolescents are a little retarded. On the other hand, Rutherford was 48 when he realized the first transmutation of the atom in 1919. This said, one only asks to exchange views on the becoming of anarchism, on anarchist activities that will cease to be anarchist if they are unified. Unification is the business of sects and parties. It isn't the business of a group of mutual aid and solidarity. As for individuals, nothing prohibits us from all kinds of participations as long as one acts at a point and doesn't mask oneself. It is thus that anarchists actually manifest themselves in the current world.
Among us, in the exchanges of concepts, the margin is wide and the modern materials too abundant to be of easy access. One must admit that, to speak with some sagacity, courtesy isn't superfluous. It is a prejudice like any other to hold vulgarity to be a form of emancipation. Since you are interested in culture, you will be in agreement on this point that the choice of words matters to both the ear and the spirit.
[1] On the Poverty of Student Life.
[2] See What is situationism?, published in Le Monde Libertaire #127, December 1966.
(Written by Charles-August Bontemps and published in Le Monde Libertaire #128, January 1967. Translated from the French and footnoted by NOT BORED! September 2005.)
www.situationniste.net

Documents Situationnistes 4

suite Documents Situationnistes 4

 1. J.F.MARTOS – p 240.s HISTOIRE DE L'INTERNATIONALE SITUATIONNISTE

Lorsque le 16 mai, par une brève déclaration, le Comité d'Occupation appela « à l'occupation immédiate de toutes les usines en France et à la formation de Conseils Ouvriers », l'indignation comme l'inquiétude des cadres des petits partis gauchistes fut portée à son comble. Mais comme les occupations d'usines s'étendaient à tout le pays, à partir de l'exemple de Sud-Aviation, ces bureaucrates furent bien contraints d'entériner ensuite - quoique sans renier leur hostilité aux Conseils - ce qu'ils qualifiaient encore d'« aventuriste » la veille. Cependant les intrigues des groupuscules, comme l'indifférence ou la passivité de l'assemblée générale à leur égard, mirent fin à l'expérience de démocratie directe dans la Sorbonne, qui tirait justement sa force de cette seule formule: « tout le pouvoir à l'assemblée générale. » Le Comité d'Occupation de la sorbonne, réélu en bloc par l'assemblée générale du 15 au soir, vit disparaître sur la pointe des pieds la majorité de ses membres, qui pliaient devant les manœuvres et les tentatives d'intimidation d'une bureaucratie informelle s'employant à ressaisir souterrainement la Sorbonne (U.N.E.F., M.A.U., J.C.R., etc.). Les Enragés et les situationnistes se    trouvèrent donc avoir la responsabilité du Comité d'Occupation les 16 et 17 mai. L'assemblée générale du 17 n'ayant finalement pas approuvé les actes par lesquels ce Comité avait exercé son mandat, et ne les ayant du reste pas davantage désapprouvés (les manipulateurs empêchèrent tout vote de l'assemblée), «Nous avons aussitôt déclaré que nous  quittions la Sorbonne défaillante, et tous ceux qui s'étaient groupés autour de ce Comité d'Occupation s'en allèrent avec nous: ils allaient constituer le noyau du Conseil pour le maintien des occupations 1» Dans le deuxième Comité d'Occupation, élu après le départ des éléments révolutionnaires, « jamais plus il ne fut question de faire réélire chaque jour par l'assemblée ses délégués quarante personnes, dont une dizaine de  situationnistes  et d'Enragés (parmi eux Debord, Khayati, Riesel, Vaneigem) . Assemblée générale délibérant en permanence, le C.M.D.O. se proposait de maintenir dans la suite de la crise le programme de la démocratie de Conseils, inséparable d'une extension quantitative et qualitative du mouvement des occupations2. Il assura un grand nombre de liaisons avec les entreprises, des travailleurs isolés, des Comités d'action, des groupes de province notamment à Nantes, Bordeaux et Toulouse -, ainsi qu'avec l'étranger.

Outre un certain nombre d'affiches, de chansons et de bandes dessinées, le C.M.D.O. publia, à des tirages atteignant 200 000 exemplaires grâce à l'activité révolutionnaire des grévistes des imprimeries occupées, plusieurs documents. C'est d'abord un Rapport sur l'occupation de la Sorbonne, le 19 mai. Puis, le 22, Pour le pouvoir des Conseils Ouvriers, qui affirme notamment: « les ouvriers peuvent prendre le dessus, en parlant pour eux-mêmes, et en prenant conscience de revendications qui soient au niveau du radicalisme des formes de lutte qu'ils ont déjà mises en pratique [...] Dans quelques jours peut-être, l'obligation de remettre en marche certains secteurs de l'économie sous le contrôle ouvrier, peut poser les bases de ce nouveau pouvoir, que tout porte à déborder les syndicats et partis existants. Il faudra remettre en marche les chemins de fer et les imprimeries, pour les besoins de la lutte ouvrière. Il faudra que les nouvelles autorités de fait réquisitionnent et distribuent les vivres. »
Enfin, le 30 mai, l'Adresse à tous les travailleurs déclare:
« Comme nous avons fait danser Paris, le prolétariat international va revenir à l'assaut des capitales de tous les États, de toutes les citadelles de l'aliénation [...] Un mouvement profond porte presque tous les secteurs de la population à vouloir un changement de la vie. C'est désormais un mouvement révolutionnaire, auquel ne manque plus que la conscience de ce qu'il a déjà fait, pour posséder réellement cette révolution [...] Ceux qui déjà ont repoussé les accords dérisoires qui comblaient les directions syndicales ont à découvrir qu'ils ne peuvent pas . obtenir. beaucoup plus dans le cadre de l'économie existante, mais qu'ils peuvent tout prendre en en transformant toutes les bases pour leur propre compte. Les patrons ne peuvent guère payer plus ; mais ils peuvent disparaître. » Le C.M.D.O. convint de se dissoudre le 15 juin. Il « n'avait rien cherché à obtenir pour lui, pas même à mener un quelconque recrutement en vue d'une existence permanente. Ses participants ne séparaient pas leurs buts personnels des buts généraux du mouvement. C'étaient des individus indépendants, qui s'étaient groupés pour une lutte, sur des bases déterminées, dans un moment précis; et qui redevinrent indépendants après elle 3».
Conscients des nombreuses faiblesses du mouvement - « spontané et émietté, ignorant son propre passé et la totalité de ses buts » -, les situationnistes se sont défendus d'avoir jamais répandu d'illusions sur ses chances d'un succès complet. « Une victoire durable de la révolution n'était à nos yeux qu'une très faible possibilité, entre le 17 et le 30 mai. Mais, du moment que cette chance existait, nous l'avons montrée comme le maximum en jeu à partir d'un certain point atteint par la crise, et qui valait certainement d'être risqué 4. » « L'histoire [...] ne trouvera pas de meilleurs textes, comprenant si bien l'événement et en prévoyant plus clairement les suites, au jour le jour et pour toute une Période historique, que les principaux écrits alors diffusés massivement par l’IS et le Conseil pour le maintien des occupations [...] Le moment révolutionnaire concentre tout le possible historique de l'ensemble de la société dans trois ou quatre hypothèses seulement, dont on peut voir clairement évoluer à mesure le rapport de forces, la croissance ou le renversement; alors qu'ordinairement la routine de la société est imprévisible - sauf dans sa vérité générale où elle peut être reconnue comme cette routine déterminée, et où l'on peut prévoir de la sorte la ligne principale de sa continuation -, parce que cette routine, elle, est le produit d'une infinité de processus dispersés, dont les développements singuliers et les interactions sont incalculables à l'avance 5».
2. G. DEBORD - p 144.s LA VERITABLE SCISSION DANS L’INTERNATIONALE
Le 15 mai 1968, Vaneigem, arrivé à Paris la veille seulement, contresignait la circulaire Aux membres de l'I.S., aux camarades qui se sont déclarés en accord avec nos thèses, laquelle appelait à l'action immédiate sur les bases les plus radicales de ce qui allait devenir, dans les deux ou trois jours suivants, le mouvement des occupations. Cette circulaire analysait le déroulement des premières journées de mai, disait où nous en étions (notamment au Comité d'Occupation de la Sorbonne), envisageait les possibilités prochaines de la répression, et même l'éventualité de la « révolution sociale » . La première usine était occupée depuis la veille, et à cette date le plus imbécile membre du plus arriéré des groupuscules ne pouvait pas douter qu'une crise sociale très grave avait commencé. Cependant Vaneigem, beaucoup plus instruit, dès qu'il eut apposé sa signature à notre circulaire, s'en alla l'après-midi même prendre son train pour rejoindre le lieu de ses vacances en Méditerranée, arrêtées de longue date. Quelques jours plus tard, apprenant à l'étranger, par les mass média, ce qui continuait comme prévu en France, il se mit naturellement en devoir de revenir, traversa à grand-peine le pays en grève, et nous rejoignit une semaine après son ridicule faux-pas, quand déjà les jours décisifs, où nous avions pu faire le plus pour le mouvement, étaient passés. Or, nous savons bien que Vaneigem aime vraiment la révolution, et que ce n'est d'aucune manière le courage qui lui fait défaut. On ne peut donc comprendre ceci qu'en tant que cas-limite de la séparation entre la routine rigoureuse d'une vie quotidienne inébranlablement rangée et la passion, réelle mais fort désarmée, de la révolution.
3. Ch. BOURSEILLER (dit la crapule) – p 274 VIE ET MORT DE GUY DEBORD
Le 16 mai à 15 heures, le virtuel Comité d'occupation se réunit néanmoins dans la salle Jules- Bonnot », et publie le document suivant : « Camarades, L'usine Sud-Aviation de Nantes étant occupée depuis deux jours par les ouvriers et les étudiants de cette ville, le mouvement s'étendant à plusieurs usines (NMPP-Paris, Renault-Cléon et autres), le Comité d'occupation de la Sorbonne appelle à l'occupation immédiate de toutes les usines en France et à la formation de conseils ouvriers. Camarades, diffusez et reproduisez au plus vite cet appel.» L'ennui, c'est que le Comité est dépourvu de tout moyen matériel, et ne peut aucunement exercer son influence. Usant une nouvelle fois de sa popularité, René Riesel décide de jouer son va-tout. Il lance des appels à l'aide depuis les fenêtres de la « salle Jules-Bonnot » et parvient à former une bande, qui « réquisitionne » des ronéos, et obtient de la « commission radio » que la sonorisation diffuse le message à intervalles réguliers. Devant la mauvaise volonté des « ingénieurs du son », les Enragés finissent par s'emparer purement et simplement de la sono. D'autres prennent le contrôle des téléphones et envoient le communiqué à l'AgenceFrance Presse.

Le texte du Comité d'occupation déclenche un véritable scandale. Les membres non situationnistes et non Enragés du Comité clament qu'ils ont été trahis. Alain Krivine, de la Jeunesse communiste révolutionnaire, tente d'accéder à la sono pour critiquer le message. Il est refoulé et ne peut davantage entrer dans la « salle Jules-Bonnot ». Le 16 mai 1968, les Enragés qui contrôlent le Comité d ' occupation mènent une guerre farouche contre les groupes d'extrême gauche. Ils utilisent avant tout la technique de l'intimidation et la force. Toute la journée, ils multiplient les tracts et tiennent le micro, en attendant le soir où doit se tenir une nouvelle et décisive assemblée générale, qui pourrait confirmer leur prise de contrôle.
Mais la situation évolue d'heure en heure. Apprenant dans l'après-midi que les ouvriers de Renault ont débrayé, une majorité d'étudiants décide d'organiser une marche spontanée sur Billancourt. Du coup, l'assemblée générale est repoussée, tandis que la majorité des Enragés et situationnistes participe à l'une des deux manifestations qui traversent Paris dans la soirée pour se heurter aux grilles closes des usines Renault. La jonction étudiants-travailleurs n'a pas lieu. Le 17 mai 1968, les étudiants  repartent vaillamment à l'assaut de Renault, drapeaux et banderoles déployés. De nouveau, les portes refusent de s'entrouvrir. Toutes ces péripéties retardent  encore la fameuse assemblée générale, qui se déroule enfin le 17 au soir, dans un indescriptible désordre: la sonorisation ne marche que par à-coups et semble choisir avec soin les orateurs qu'elle diffuse. Des militants de la Fédération
des étudiants révolutionnaires (trotskiste lambertiste) tentent de s'emparer de la tribune, présidée par un membre de l'UNEF. Le Comité d'occupation de la Sorbonne est attaqué de toutes parts: a-t-il réclamé la libération des fous ? Imprime-t-il à l'occupation un style « Saint-Germain des Prés» ? Voyant que l'assemblée ne risque pas de renouveler le mandat du Comité, constatant par ailleurs que les décisions « techniques » sont prises par les organisations d'extrême gauche, Enragés et situationnistes abandonnent la Sorbonne. Immédiatement, la FER se rue sur la tribune. Un nouveau Comité d'occupation est élu. Il comprend des militants de la Jeunesse communiste révolutionnaire (trotskiste franckiste) et de l'Union des Jeunesses communistes (marxistes-Iéninistes) (maoïste), ainsi qu'un bon nombre de membres de l'UNEF. Les lambertistes n'y participent pas. Le nouveau Comité d'occupation de la Sorbonne reste en place jusqu'au 15 juin 1968. Le premier Comité d'occupation de la Sorbonne n'a finalement exercé ses chaotiques activités que du 14 au 17 mai 1968, soit trois jours pleins. Il a eu le temps d'envoyer aux Bureaux politiques des Partis communistes de Chine et d'Union soviétique le télégramme suivant, en date du 17 :
« Tremblez bureaucrates stop Le pouvoir international des conseils ouvriers va bientôt vous balayer stop L 'humanité ne sera heureuse que le jour où le dernier bureaucrate aura été pendu avec les tripes du dernier capitaliste [...]. » Du début à la fin, Guy Debord participe aux activités du Comité, aide à définir ses principaux mots d'ordre: « Occupation des usines. Le pouvoir aux conseils de travailleurs. Abolition de la société de classes. A bas la société spectaculaire- marchande. Abolition de l'aliénation. Fin de l'université.

 

  

  

situationniste.net

 

Conseils en manifs

Conseils en manifs car nous ne sommes pas des jouets de la répression

Avant tout envoyer des éclaireurs pour évaluer le dispositif. Les manifs-Nasses sont facile à déjouer si vous passez avant en vélo, taxi, rollers...

Éviter de venir seul.e. Former des petits groupes de 2 ou 3 (des gens qui se connaissent et qui ne se lâchent jamais pendant la manif).

Éviter d’amener agenda, carnet d’adresses, tracts ou autres papiers compromettants. De l’eau, de la bouffe, un foulard et des habits de rechange peuvent être utiles, ainsi que du sérum physiologique.

Avoir des chaussures adaptées (lacets noués) et éviter de porter des vêtements trop amples : ça gène pour courir, et ça donne des prises pour vous attraper. Noter (sur le bras par exemple) le nom ou le numéro d’un avocat, à prévenir en cas de garde à vue. Rester au taquet, mobile et attentif.ve à l’« environnement », c’est-à-dire aux flics.

Plus on anticipe moins on stresse. Par exemple si on les voit commencer à charger ou à tirer des lacrymos, on peut s’y préparer. Ils se donnent souvent des signaux avant de nous attaquer : il faut capter ces signes pour réagir. On est souvent confrontés à 2 types de keufs : les CRS (ou Gardes Mobiles) et la BAC.

Les premiers c’est le troupeau : lourdement armés, ils bloquent les accès, balancent lacrymos et grenades assourdissantes, mais peuvent aussi faire des arrestations.

Attention aux "civils" et a ceux-celles qui s’habillent en manifestants

Surveiller la BAC. Eux c’est la petite meute très rapide, et très dangereuse. En civil (parfois avec un brassard orange) elle rôde, toujours prête à bondir. Ils sont sur les bords de manifs, ou cachés dans une ruelle. (Ils peuvent aussi surgir en voiture banalisée.) Ils sont assez repérables (cheveux courts, toujours en baskets), mais attention ils peuvent se masquer le visage et se faire passer pour des émeutiers, jusqu’au moment où… ils vous arrêtent. Ils ont souvent des gros habits gonflés (même en été) ou un sac à dos : dedans, ils cachent leurs armes favorites : Flash-ball, Tazer, Gazeuse, Tonfa, et biensûr, révolver.

Leur technique c’est la rapidité : ils se jettent en courant sur quelqu’un qui a été repéré. Contre ça, il faut surveiller leurs déplacements. S’ils courent, c’est qu’ils vont attaquer l’un ou l’une d’entre nous. Dans ce cas, si vous n’êtes pas seul et si vous en avez la force, vous pouvez tenter, de les gêner (en se mettant sur leur passage pour les ralentir, en criant l’alerte, en tenant la personne qu’ils essaient d’arrêter...)

Après, ça se joue collectivement : 10 personnes qui se tiennent solidement ne se font pas enlever comme ça. Dans tous les cas, le groupe et la solidarité nous protègent. En cas de gazage. Faut d’abord éviter les tirs. Ils sont souvent très localisés, il suffit de se décaler de quelques mètres sur le côté (pas la peine de remonter toute la manif en courant et d’affoler tout le monde).

Ensuite on peut tenter de couvrir les pastilles noires qui propagent le gaz (avec une poubelle), de les arroser d’eau, de les écraser (avec de bonnes chaussures) ou de les renvoyer (au pied ou avec des gants en cuir). Contre le gaz, respirer au travers d’un tissu imbibé d’eau. On peut aussi mettre du citron (mais certains disent que c’est nocif), du coca ou du Mallox (produit pour l’estomac, dispo en pharmacie). Les lacrymos collent à la peau et aux tissus, donc éviter de se toucher les yeux et les lèvres avec des mains ou des vêtements contaminés. Il faut se rincer la peau avec de l’eau. Pour les yeux, utiliser du sérum physiologique.

Ne pas se faire repérer. Les flics essaient de cibler les plus révoltés. Pour ça ils peuvent utiliser la vidéo-surveillance de la ville et du métro. Ensuite ils filment et prennent eux-mêmes des photos. Enfin ils s’infiltrent : les célèbres RG devenu depuis la Dcri.

On peut essayer de les repérer en début ou en fin de manif, quand ils discutent avec les autres keufs. Une fois repéré.e.s, faire tourner le mot pour les griller. Comme il en reste toujours et qu’ils tendent l’oreille, utiliser des pseudos pour s’appeler, donner un nom de code pour son groupe, à crier pour se retrouver si on se perd (dans le gaz par exemple). Contre le repérage, se masquer le visage. Même si « on n’a rien fait », le seul fait de participer et d’être pris en photo dans une manif "violente" pourra jouer contre vous. Se masquer libère une marge d’action, c’est pour ça que le pouvoir a sorti une loi « anti-cagoule », qui n’a pas encore eu d’application réelle. Toujours contre le repérage, il faut changer d’apparence, se changer.

Lutter contre la peur. La première arme de la police c’est la peur. Sirènes, fusées, grenades assourdissantes et intimidations orales sont avant tout des techniques de dissuasion. Rester le plus calme possible, même lors de mouvements de foule. Éviter de crier ou de courir inutilement (ça augmente le stress des autres). La peur est naturelle mais on peut apprendre à la canaliser. Un des meilleurs moyens est de rester avec sa bande : avec mes potes, je me sens en sécurité.

Une charge de police dépasse rarement 60m, il est donc inutile de courir plus loin, il vaut mieux rester groupé.es et éviter de laisser des personnes isolées. On l’a dit, pour la BAC, l’individu isolé est un gibier, seul un groupe soudé est efficace. En cas d’arrestation, demander à la personne de crier son nom et son adresse puis donner ces infos aux gens qui s’organisent contre la répression. Ça peut aider à trouver un bon avocat, et l’ami.e arrêté.e ou ses proches se sentiront moins seuls.

Si on est arrêté.e, crier son nom aux témoins, et tenter de rester calme en toutes circonstances. Gardons notre rage pour après la sortie car l’outrage et rébellion est l’arme judiciaire par excellence pour charger un dossier. Une fois dans leurs griffes, faire le mort, garder son calme, et attendre que les amis ou l’avocat se bougent.

En Gard’av. La durée maximale d’un contrôle d’identité est de 4h ; une garde à vue peut durer 24h, prolongeable jusqu’à 48h, et 96h si vous êtes un dangereux terroriste ou un gros trafiquant. Insister pour rencontrer un avocat, demander à voir un médecin. Si cette demande (qui doit être écrite quelque part) n’est pas satisfaite, c’est un vice de procédure que vous pourrez utiliser pour annuler les poursuites contre vous. Et puis ça fait une occaz pour sortir de la cellule ; causer à quelqu’un, ça fait du bien. Si vous avez des bleus ou blessures, faites les noter précisément par le médecin, c’est important pour votre défense.

Porter plainte contre les représentants de l’ordre (pour coups et blessures) pourra, parfois, aider à s’en sortir. L’interrogatoire. Malgré toutes les pressions des flics (« si tu coopères pas tu vas rester en taule ! » ; « on a des photos qui prouvent que... » ; « tes potes nous ont déjà dit que… »), ne JAMAIS croire les flics, même le gentil qui veut vous aider. En garde à vue, on n’a jamais rien à se reprocher ou à avouer, on est toujours innocent.e, on était qu’un.e simple manifestant.e parmi d’autres. Même si ça les énerve on a le droit de garder un silence complet et de ne rien signer. Répéter les mêmes phrases pour pas se faire avoir. Du genre : « Je parlerai pas tant que j’aurais pas vu un avocat ». Puis : « Mon avocat m’a dit de ne rien dire. »

Si tout le monde se tait, ils auront l’habitude et nous laisserons tranquilles. (Inutile de discuter politique avec les policiers, c’est souvent perdre de l’énergie ou se faire piéger par des discussions apparemment anodines.) Attention, les flics manipulent souvent les PV (procès-verbaux), il faut bien les relire avant de les signer. Ne pas hésiter à demander de modifier certains passages de sa déposition.

Le fichage génétique (ADN) est souvent exigé lors de la garde à vue. Refuser de donner son ADN constitue un délit (passible d’amende et de prison) mais dans les faits les poursuites ne sont pas systématiques, et les condamnations sont souvent légères (pas de prison ferme) quand le prévenu invoque un refus politique du fichage génétique et quand il est soutenu par des associations, des collectifs. Ils vont vous dire que c’est dans votre intérêt, que le juge vous trouvera plus sympathique si vous faites pas de manières avec ça, et qu’ils détruiront le prélèvement si vous êtes innocent, etc. Ne les écoutez pas, ils mentent purement et simplement. C’est beaucoup moins risqué de refuser, que d’être fiché ADN à vie… Et on s’organisera ensemble pour payer les amendes.

La comparution immédiate est faite pour nous juger vite et mal. Il vaut mieux demander son report pour préparer une défense solide (et changer d’avocat si le commis d’office est mauvais). Attention, demander un report de jugement peut déclencher une détention préventive, la prison en attendant votre procès. Plus on a de garanties de représentation (études, travail, domicile, témoignage de moralité qui disent que vous êtes quelqu’un de « bien », etc.), plus on a de chances d’être laissé.e libre jusqu’à la date du procès.

Après. Éviter de rentrer seul de manif, prendre un moment pour en discuter ensemble… et revenir plus forts à la prochaine !

Des manifestant-es volontaires

Conseils Manif sur INDY Lille