Murray Bookchin on the French Situationist Movement

Bookchin describes his encounter with and thoughts on the Situationists.
This is from Spectacle.co.uk. Check them out now!
Link to Bookchin's video biography at Spectacle.co.uk:
www.spectacle.c...
Link to the Institute for Social Ecology:
www.social-ecol...
FreiheitXXI has uploaded this interview in its entirety. You can watch it here:
• Murray Bookchin - (1/7...

[@JohnE2B]

So glad to hear this criticism. Thank you!

[@jcleaverchamberlinjr]

Bookchin is possibly the most underrated philosopher I’ve ever come across. My dad, who has a History degree and has read a tonne of Russian history as well learning the history of Anarchism, hadn’t heard of Bookchin (despite knowing and having introduced me to Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman, Makhno etc.)

[@mattwasmyname]

They were French. That explains 90% of the things Bookchin complains about.

[@fabiantompsett4966]

Whilst Murray has much of interest to say, I think his understanding of the German Revolution is partial. In his discussion of the German Workers' Councils rather than the that of the Ruhr. Here the Communists held sway and indeed the Social Democrats could only regain control by the use of proto-fascist Frei Korps. Indeed these Communists were more closely aligned to the Allgemeine Arbeiter-Union - Einheitsorganisation, rather than the Bolsheviks of the KPD. Of course, they too had their aesthetic wing in the Kölner Progressive. However we should not let such a detail obscure much of the good sense Murray has to offer.

[@tempestteacup]

He is a tourist of revolution explaining it to an American audience.

[@tempestteacup]

Ruvi Simmons A sort of American Regis Debray.

[@channelfogg6629]

I think Bookchin was talkng more specifically about the national congress of workers' councils in December 1918 (before the Communist Party in Germany was established). The Spartacists had insisted that only workers who had jobs and soldiers should be allowed delegates’ credentials. The congress, dominated by the SPD, took them at their word, refusing to allow Luxemburg and Liebknecht in. Luxemburg had written in Red Flag that the congress should reject proposals for a National Assembly, remove the Ebert government and form a Red Guard. But the delegates were decisively against the radicals, applauding the sponsor of the motion that the Council of People’s Commissars should wield all executive power pending elections to the National Assembly on 19 January 1919. ‘We Social Democrats must take at last a most decisive and persistent stand against the way in which our clean, clear, good Socialist ideology is constantly being sabotaged and discredited by Bolshevist perverseness.’250 The delegates voted 344 to 98 in favour, in effect rejecting the Spartacists and the left of the USPD. This is what Bookchin means by the workers' councils being dominated by the SPD, just as they would have been dominated in France in 1968 by the CP.

[@luciennoxisou9502]

Ruvi Simmons clearly never studied anything about Bookchin have you ?

[@ellistheisland]

He mentions Lefebvre and states that the SI didn't credit him, I actually recall them citing Lefebvre frequently in their journals....

[@ebenholmes3235]

They do- in precisely the issue about "everyday life" which he praises the SI elsewhere in the interview for focusing on. "They weren't real man... they were just a style..." If integrity is important to this blowhard why doesn't he pull his head out of his ass for two seconds and wipe the shit off his moustache?

[@kikeheebchinkjigaboo6631]

ellistheisland the Situationalists were a bunch of CULTURAL MARXIST POSERS

[@luciennoxisou9502]

Joe Rodriguez more fun!

[@luciennoxisou9502]

Eben Holmes I think Bookchin has some salient points here based on his experience of the situationists - sone of which are well documented by others - see “Game of War”, but Bookchin had a polemical style and comes off as stubbornly dismissive here....his works are well worth reading, particularly The Ecology of Freedom”.

[@MrDoremouse]

Can you imagine students today doing anything like the situationists,anarchists, and all the rest in the 1960s? Neither can I . Things have changed so much.

[@benjaminhennessy8050]

Davidius Doremouseius Things change so quickly now days, it becomes tiresome to continually adapt ourselves to the ever shifting social order. Why fight for change that may be positive, but fleeting? It's simpler to wait and let whatever happens happen.

[@kikeheebchinkjigaboo6631]

Davidius Doremouseius the Situationalists were a bunch of CULTURAL MARXIST POSERS

[@kikeheebchinkjigaboo6631]

Benjamin Hennessy the Situationalists were a bunch of CULTURAL MARXIST POSERS

[@luciennoxisou9502]

Joe Rodriguez you just keep repeating right wing paranoic terms like “cultural Marxists”. It’s fun !

[@kshproductions7996]

@@kikeheebchinkjigaboo6631 Cultural marxism is a term that is inspired from the Nazis, whom using "cultural bolshevism" to describe any form of art that was considered too 'jewish' and 'progressive'

[@tracksuitjim]

i like bookchin, and i can't pretend i have more knowledge than him about the situationists or may-june, or really anything lolol but his intense polemic-y kinda vibe feels like it goes too far sometimes. i definitely agree that purging and shunning and ad homineming people is not great stuff to be getting up to. like i said, i don't know the history and bookchin himself was there and talked to these people, so i tend to believe him when he says they did this stuff. but it feels like he totally dismisses the group in an unwarranted kinda way, says they were just a style and never cited lefebvre (someone already mentioned that they did indeed refer to lefebvre's influence on them), said they weren't original. those seem like really intense things to say lolol

[@theelectricant98]

Always better to dissect their ideas than to make it an assault on their personalities or moral worth... which Bookchin can do pretty well at his best, but maybe he thinks the polemical approach is a good way to hook people emotionally

[@tracksuitjim]

@@theelectricant98 i honestly think he felt his polemics lol i don't think they were as much of a strategy as they were him genuinely expressing his emotions. he def meant to convince people with his polemics but i find it hard to see them as a kind of tactic and not just this former marxist who really fuckin internalized marx's style and expression (not necessarily a bad thing depending on what aspects of his style and expression are being internalized lol) which was also super polemical, sarcastic, and uncharitable

[@theelectricant98]

@@tracksuitjim fair point! Gotta respect his investment on some level

[@bIackstreetboy]

this interview changed my views about the SI a few years ago and only now I know who Bookchin is. I'm loving his work

[@nilepax8168]

I believe debord to have beens a flawed genius who wrote one of the most profound books of the 20th century. Prophetic , analytical, if you know you know etc. A ĝiant of philosophy. Rip.

[@wcropp1]

Bookchin was one of the most important 20th century American libertatrian socialist thinkers IMO. He certainly has a way with words--very precise, yet not overly intellectualized. He can very clearly explain himself without becoming inaccessible to the people his ideas are supposed to appeal to. While I can certainly appreciate the ideas of the Situationists and their implications for the emancipation of the individual, I can agree with Bookchin that they, as many on the New/Post Left and in

[@benjaminhennessy8050]

wcropp1 Next time try to fit your comment into a single post.

[@keepcalmycarryon]

1993? Not a good year for irony. Good day.

[@wcropp1]

@wcropp1 may be, cultural critique really has no teeth without some degree of organization and struggle. Yes, it may force people to think for themselves and encourage slow cultural transformation, but ultimately people will have to challenge the greatest obstacles to individual freedom in modern society, our current systems of government and economics. To be voluntary in nature, this requires organization and large numbers of people to fundamentally change political and economic structures.

[@wcropp1]

@wcropp1 approach is generally one that is flexible and varied in its nature, and they, in many ways, filled in the cultural/aesthetic piece to the puzzle of change, which had previously been explored, but not in such a cohesive and thorough way. Sorry for my excessive rambling. I had not originally intended to write this much, but these ideas are somewhat complex, and difficult to explain through the character-limited KZbin comments.

[@wcropp1]

@wcropp1 will require a great deal of effort, as well as the organization/education/inspiration of a very large number of people. Sheer determination and effort cannot make up for a lack of numbers when speaking in terms of democracy. Therefore, we need a worker's movement that is accessible and appealing to the average person, as oposed to overly abstract, theory-heavy revolutionary ideals. This is where Bookchin excels, but my criticism of the Situationsts should not be misinterpreted--many of

[@wcropp1]

@wcropp1 The Situationists gave us some great ideas as to how to reorganize society in a way that is more congruent with individual freedom and a few tools to help us along the way, and their emphasis on everday life was very important--don't get me wrong--but it is by no means an adequate replacement for what should be our ultimate goal--fundamental political, economic, and cultural change. Of the three, politics and economics are the most entrenched/formidable adversaries, at least IMO, and

[@wcropp1]

@wcropp1 their ideas where quite unique in their approach, and they gave serious revolutionaries some new tools to add to their toolbox, so to speak. Like many things in life, though, balance and perspective are necessary for ideas to remain relevant and meaningful, and strategy/tactics/viability are real concerns that they, in many way, did not elaborate on. I suppose they were originally artists, and therefore their emphasis on culture stems perhaps from their roots. Nonetheless, the best

[@wcropp1]

@wcropp1 academia did, became overly theoretical and abstract in some ways and therefore somewhat inaccessible or peculiar to the average person. This is not to say that revolution must always be disciplined or collective in nature, but that there should be some degree of balance. Violent coercion and state power may be a very effective means of changing society, but this cure is often times worse than the disease. At the same time, however well intention or subversize and individuals actions

[@wcropp1]

@wcropp1 At the end of the day, most people work for a living. Dumpster diving, happenings, etc. are all well and good and have their place, but avoidance and personal expression really do nothing to challenge the status quo in a meaningful way. I'm not saying people shouldn't live their life as they see fit, or spend it waiting for some mythical day of change to come, but I do agree with Bookchin that lifestylist anarchism and many other Post Left ideas are rather escapist and illusory in

[@wcropp1]

@wcropp1 collective emancipation of society as a whole. In other words, escaping the Spectacle really does nothing to change it but can be personally rewarding on some level, and acknowledging/questioning it is a good start, but knowing where you want to go and actually getting there are two very different things. Cultural liberation is important, but getting so caught up in theory that we abandon the struggle against very real impediments to human freedom is a tactical mistake IMO.

[@kikeheebchinkjigaboo6631]

wcropp1 the Situationalists were a bunch of CULTURAL MARXIST POSERS

[@wcropp1]

@wcropp1 nature and that people should do what they can to extend their personal freedom as much as possible within the confines of the status quo, but should also not be delusional about the realities of modern technology/economic production, as well as the realities of life and the need for certain "commodities" to sustain human life on this planet. Essentially what I'm saying is that people should find a balance between their personal desires and the realities of modern life as well as the

[@tempestteacup]

Bookchin misunderstands the nature of situationist influence, and their policy of expulsion - it was not some sort of Amish shunning, as he suggests. As for ecology - well. Marxism is about human agency, about how the economic conditions of exploitations create problems that will never be solved without a revolutionary consciousness flowering in the masses. Ecology is a secondary concern - but not, perhaps, to anarchists who seek to hop onto every moderately seditious moment in time that they seek to co-opt for their own aggrandisement.

[@kwiss]

Ruvi Simmons No Useless Leniency by Michelle Bernstein from SI #1 disagrees: "it is on the basis of the program since developed by the majority of the SI that all the new elements have joined us, and we would risk cutting ourselves off from these elements, and especially from those we will meet in the future, if we consented to pursue the slightest dialogue with those who, since Alba, have demonstrated that their creative days are over." whether their policy was effective or not is certainly open for debate, but they definitely did shun them completely. earlier in the same essay, Bernstein slanders everyone that's been expelled before. Could you please direct me to "anarchists who seek to hop onto every moderately seditious moment in time that they seek to co-opt for their own aggrandisement"? AFAIK, anarchists have been at the heart of virtually every revolutionary movement across the planet since the early 90s. Social ecology--correct me if i am wrong--is actually an original theory, distinct from the earlier romantics, naturalists, and "back to nature" guys like G.B. Shaw, in that it consolidated many of those ideas with a comprehensive program for all of society. Who did Bookchin co-opt? I really don't know. i don't understand how believing that ecology is as important as class struggle is co-optation either. it is certainly up for debate, though i would guess our time is much better spent by debating people who think both are worthless. also, while Debord was a self-identified marxist, it's easy to see from reading the SI journals (as well as SotS) that he typically favored anarchist critiques. The SI pretty much all worshipped Durutti, which is not to say they were all anarchists, but simply to point out that they weren't as dismissive as you seem to make them out to be. also, Vaneigem was and is explicitly an anarchist, afaik.

[@luciennoxisou9502]

Nice mis-representation of anarchism - as if we do not build our own revolutionary movement/s that begets flowering of transformationatiinal consciousness. This kind of misrepresentation of anarchism as hopping on and cooptation has sounds more like the entryism and the “party” building of ML’s rather than any sort of anarchist tendency.

[@folkkraft8906]

complete nonsense re : Situs being 'disgusted' by Mai 68' once 'they'd lost control ' . see ' Enrages and Situationists in the occupation movement' for actual facts /details

[@channelfogg6629]

Written by a Situationist (collectively) so hardly objective.