Midwest Action Network

The Society of the Virtual Spectacle

"The destiny of the theory of the spectacle belongs to those (...) who will individually and collectively retrieve the ideas of anti-hierarchy, coherence [and] global contestation." -- Jean-Francois Martos.[1]

"May we succeed in lending a hand to those who in our dear native land are called upon to speak with authority on these matters, that we may be their guide into this field of inquiry, and excite them to make a candid examination of the subject." -- Carl von Clausewitz.[2]

Part One

To begin at the roots: capitalism cannot be depended on to "correct" its own defects or fix the damage and destruction it has caused, nor can it be depended upon to collapse, on its own, due to its own internal contradictions and then leave a tabula rasa upon which one could build a new and truly human society. Capitalism cannot be fixed by piecemeal reforms, nor can revolution "fix" capitalism if that revolution is limited to the political, economic, technological, moral or indeed any particular sector. Only social revolution, which is total revolution, can both save humanity from capitalism's evils (war, pollution, poverty, ignorance and intolerance) and instaurate the kind of society in which humanity can truly flourish (peaceful co-existence, physical and mental health, self-fulfillment and pleasure).

Social revolutionaries must have a "working theory" of capitalist society: that is to say, what it really is, how it continues to exist despite its nearly fatal defects, and how it defends itself against both reformist and revolutionary actions. Here we distinguish ourselves from all those who do not believe that a theory of any kind is necessary, who believe that theory only keeps revolutionaries from acting, that "radical" action is the only theory that is needed, etc., and who form "organizations," and "federations" among these "organizations," most of which have programmatic statements that declare that their members are against a list of bad things (abstractions such as militarism, religious fundamentalism, patriarchy, racism, sexism, et al) and that they are in favor of a list of good things (abstractions such as self-organization, voluntary association, mutual aid, freedom, justice, et al).

We believe that only theory allows our actions to be strategic rather than tactical, to be effective rather than ineffective, to be precise rather than approximate. "The first business of every theory is to clear up conceptions and ideas which have been jumbled together, and, we may say, entangled and confused; and only when a right understanding is established, as to names and conceptions, can we hope to progress with clearness and facility, and be certain that author and reader will always see things from the same point of view" (Clausewitz, On War). But we have no illusions about the completeness of theory. As Clausewitz notes, "nothing more than a limited theory can be obtained, which only suits circumstances such as they are presented in history. But this incompleteness is unavoidable, because in any case theory must either have deduced from, or have compared with, history what it advances with respect to things. Besides, this incompleteness in every case is more theoretical than real" (On War).

There are, of course, many theories of "modern" society: psychoanalytic (institutions are created by repressive sublimation); sociological (power is held by large groups, small elites or complex networks); etc. But none of these theories were conceived or elaborated so as to overthrow "modern" society. Many were in fact intended to justify that society's existence. As a result, they are not perceived as scandalous or unacceptable to it; such perceptions are among the hallmarks of a truly revolutionary theory.

There are at least two major sources of truly revolutionary theory: Marxism and anarchism. Both try to explain who (or what) holds power in society, and why or how they hold it: for the Marxists, the bourgeoisie holds power because it owns and controls the means of production; for the anarchists, the State holds power due to its monopoly over coercive force (the military and the police). Each theory is revolutionary because it envisions an end to this kind of society and its replacement by another, truly humane one: Marxism envisions proletarian revolution, which abolishes all class power; and anarchism envisions a political revolution after which voluntary association will replace coercion.

But both Marxism and anarchism have degenerated a great deal over the course of the last century. Some Marxists now prefer to call themselves "libertarian communists" and have completely abandoned the idea of revolution: "Our primary focus," say the people who run libcom.org, "is always on how best to act in the here and now to better our circumstances and protect the planet." Other Marxists (such as those who produce the journal called Aufheben) retain the idea and goal of revolution, but -- despite their announced intention to move with the times -- remain trapped in the worst aspects of "classical" Marxist theory, in particular, a fetishism of the proletariat and "proletarian theory." There are still handfuls of Leninist, Trotskyist and Maoist sects in existence; not surprisingly, all of them are hierarchically organized, rigid and terribly dull. Though some of these groups are "behind" several large organizations (including the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition), these "front groups" are not explicitly revolutionary and indeed simply channel revolutionary impulses back into the electoral system (typically, support for the Democratic Party).[3]

There are many small contemporary groups and movements that subscribe to "anarchism" and "anti-authoritarianism," but few of them are sources (or even readers) of revolutionary theory; mostly they eschew theory in favor of "radical" or "direct" action. For too many of them, "action" is taken against particular aspects of capitalist society: police brutality, the treatment of animals, biotechnology, racism, pollution, environmental degradation, the war on drugs, sexual violence against women, homophobia, neo-liberalism, etc etc. Very rarely is "action" taken against capitalist society or the State as a whole. The very idea of such action seems utopian, millenarian and even impossible. And, of course, some of these "anarchists" aren't anarchists at all, but Leftists or "citizenists" who have simply adopted the label because, in the aftermath of the Seattle 1999 riots, it became fashionable and won several people TV coverage and book contracts.[4]

There are exceptions: the "insurrectionary" anarchists, the green anarchists, the "primitivists," those who describe themselves as anti-technology and anti-civilization, etc. (there can be a great deal of overlap between these various currents of thought). Most of these folks certainly speak about revolution, but -- because they have come after a wave of extremism exemplified by the Situationist International (SI), but do not want to follow in its "Marxist" footsteps -- they feel themselves compelled to be even more extreme than those extremists. And so, while Marx and Engels were opposed to the bourgeoisie and capital's domination of labor, and while the Situationist International was opposed to work and the spectacle's domination of everyday life, the revolutionary anarchists declare themselves to be against virtually everything: "technology," industrial society, "progress," rationality, and civilization itself. Some of these hyper-extremists are even against revolution, because -- to them -- it is the ultimate manifestation of the ideology of progress.

At least in France, there is a great deal of friction between the anti-progress ("technophobic") anarchists and the situationist-inspired revolutionaries. (There is also some conflict between these two currents in America: see issue #24 of Green Anarchy,[5] as well as the exchange between John Filiss and Ken Knabb.) At issue in this conflict is determining the fundamental nature of the enemy: is it industrial society or is it capitalism? Which contains the toxic element: industrial production or the commodity? Because he was a member of the SI, Rene Riesel's opinion on these questions carries some weight, at least in France. In his "Preface" to On the progress of domestication (2000), Riesel claims that, among "the most backwards scoffers at anti-progressivist positions" are those who claim "the heritage and exclusive use that no one disputes them, this or that radical doxa" (the "orthodoxy" of situationist theory). Riesel refers to the "arguments to which diverse living fossils, issued from situationism [sic] or the ultra-Left, have recourse to refute the idea that one can find more advantage in designating this society as industrial society. They find it sufficient to continue to speak of capitalist society, of capitalized society, of the society of the spectacle." These "wax figures," Riesel says, "each being free to communicate as he understands," "have indeed found their adequate form: they expect their public on the Internet, the great libertarian media in which capital works hard to spoil the creativity of the masses." Riesel has been answered, among others, by Les Amis de Nemesis: "But if one conserves a minimal amount of seriousness, one must admit that those who are opposed to the notion of 'industrial society' never defend the reality that the technophobes have labeled in this way, and that their opposition to certain terms and to a certain analysis, which appear impoverished, only aim at maintaining a more fundamental opposition to the dominant society."[6]

We believe that Guy Debord's theory of the spectacle, which is a total theory that attempts to blend or at least reconcile the best aspects of Marxism and anarchism, is the most relevant and useful revolutionary theory available to us today. As Anselm Jappe remarked in 1998, "thirty years [after May 1968], now that Althusserianism, Maoism, workerism, and Freudo-Marxism have all disappeared into historical oblivion, it is clear that the Situationists were the only people at that time to develop a theory, and to a lesser extent a practice, whose interest is not merely historiographical but retains a potential relevance today."[7] But, unlike Jappe, who was content to reiterate and critique the theory of the spectacle (he did both quite well), we wish to go even further and bring this theory up to date. After "biding its time" for so long, perhaps this theory is finally ready to surpass the spectacle.

Given our personal autonomy with respect to all of the existing groups and movements, we might be asked: "Why not simply start from scratch, with your own theory?" Clausewitz provides a good answer: "Theory is instituted so that each person in succession may not have to go through the same labor of clearing the ground and toiling through his subject, but may find the thing in order, and light admitted on it. It should educate the mind of the future leader (...), or rather guide him in his self-instruction, but not accompany him to the field of battle" (On War).

Read more at: http://www.notbored.org/virtual-spectacle.html