Supporting the Iraqi 'militia'

''yeah vagappreciationclub t isn't 1968 and the situationists were middle class(in the real sense) tossers who superficially reworked Marx's "fetishism of the commodity" into a overcooked analysis called the spectacle''

The situationists were largely middle-class, but their development of Marx's critique of the capitalist system goes way beyond any of the other revolutionary theory of the time. They highlighted the subtle defences of contemporary capitalism while pointing to an enlarged proletariat as the author of any meaningful change, they repudiated the bollox that marcuse and his mates spouted about the working class being 'incorporated' and passified and were vindicated in their analysis by the events of 1968, in which they played a incredibly insignificant role.

Their theory of 'recuperation' in particular is relevant to any contemporary movement for real change and should be understood as a result.

Obviously infatuation with past 'victories' breads terrible defeats, however i havent read any analysis which is either as insightful or as relevant as the situationists. which has eminated in the last few decades.

The name 'vaneigemappreciationclub' is ironic.

‘’anyway im still waiting for an anaswer as to how the "spectacle" is not just the application of Marx's fetishism of commodities to comtemporary capital’’

The spectacle is a representation of life, a false consciousness for consumption, a celebration of the existing society, a very real illusion. ‘’The spectacle is the self portrait of power in the age of powers totalitarian rule over the conditions of existence’’ (Debord, 1967, 19). The spectacle permeates every area of manufactured social life, it is in the design of the streets, tv, culture, consumer goods, adverts etc etc. All manner of distractions and blindfolds.

For Debord the individual in contemporary society had become a passive spectator of an illusion or a laudatory monologue on behalf of the existing system. Debord writes that ‘The Spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images’ (Debord, 1967; 12). In its specific and most simple form the spectacle can be seen as the mass media (TV, news, show business, advertising), the practice of mass consumption and the architecture which is built to facilitate the efficiency of labour, consumption and the general functioning of the dominant economic system. As Anselm Jappe states ‘Not just work, but likewise other sorts of human activity-what is known as ‘free-time’-are organised in such a way as to justify and perpetuate the reigning mode of production’ (Jappe, 1999; 10) The spectacle is the agenda of the ruling economic and social system, it’s a one way dialogue, it announces that ‘all that is good will appear, everything that appears (within the spectacle) is good’ (Debord, 1967; 15). Debord asserts that this spectacle ‘corresponds to the historical moment at which the commodity completes its colonisation of social life’ (Debord, 1967; 29). In essence the point at which the whole of everyday life is organised in accordance with the rational of commodity relations.

The modern spectacle ‘depicts what society can deliver, but within this depiction what is permitted is rigidly distinguished from what is possible’ (Debord, 1967; 20). Importantly for Debord this passification, mechanisation and division has lead to what he termed the ‘proletarianization of the world’ (Debord, 1967; 21). The average individual has no effective choice or control within the existing order. It is this struggle between those who organise society and those who are ‘being positioned in a perspective (Vaneigem, 2001; 93), which now characterises the class struggle for Debord. In accordance with this those who may be considered proletarian are ‘all people who have no possibility of altering the social space-time that society allots for their consumption’ (Knabb, 1981; 108).

In the first edition of The Society of the Spectacle Debord identified a diffuse and concentrated spectacle, being present in the western capitalist societies and Soviet Russia, which he saw as a state capitalist society, respectively. However he comments in the preface to the third edition that these realms of the spectacle had given way to a new form of the spectacle which could be observed in most economically developed countries. The old differences had been superseded by the ‘integrated spectacle’ in which the spectacle ‘has spread itself to the point where it now permeates all reality’ (Debord, 1990; 9).

Whilst I understand Marx’s fetishism theory to be the phenomena of considering products of labour simply as consumer goods, ignoring or overlooking the toil of the proletariat and their objectification into products themselves in the course of production.

Now I can see the similarities between these two theories in that they both relate to ‘false consciousness’. However surely the spectacle is an attempt to perpetuate and broaden ‘false consciousness’ while fetishism is a form of ‘false consciousness’?

The theory of the spectacle and in particular the notion of ‘false desires’ like ‘false needs’ is one that can be manipulated and easily misunderstood, whilst also being ambiguous. It is not for anyone else to tell you what you desire and what you shouldn’t want (as advertisers do). I’m sure that there are people who can sit in front of a screen all day and feel quite contented whilst playing with a substitute for real life. Its also clear that this isnt , for want of a better word, a natural or real desire as it is created, by a company with ideological and economic interests and is a spectacle, something to be consumed, rather than lived. Now computer games, interactive tv etc etc, perhaps create some ambiguity, in that advertisers will tell you that ‘you are in control’ or that you can live another life, or realise your desires, however it should be patently obvious that this isnt ‘reality’ nor a ‘desire’ but a created need, a temporary escape. I suppose it depends whether you are content with existing in a manufactured, intangible, representation of life as an escape from reality or conversely you wish to change reality so to realise your own desires, eg having total control over the direction and content of your own life and ultimately being a free individual.

''The Mehdi army is "severely damaging" little apart from wc peoples' lives (Iraqi + US + UK).''

I'm not entirely sure about this assault on the lives of working class britons by the mehdi army, however on the point of the oil, oil prices are rising not simply because of the whole classic 'supply and demand' but because it is becoming increasingly expensive to pump oil because of the attacks on pipelines and offices in iraq and the cost of defence to attempt to defend against such attacks.

to be fair i should have put a question mark at the end of the statement 'supporting the iraqi militia'.

In regards to 'buthcherspoon' though, i dont believe it was simply the increase in oil prices in the 1970s that drove capital into LEDC countries, surely this process had been going on for a period of time before hand and the oil prices simply accelerated a trend. The price of transport is one cost but how about the labour costs, the cheap labour, un-unionised workforces and little call for safety restrictions in LEDC's surely played just as catalystic part in the process.

The movement of capital across borders doesnt have to be considered in a completely negative way, its globalised the working classes more than ever.

Is anyone here suggesting that the iraqi people (no matter what denomination) should stand by a nd let the oil reserves be sucked out of the country? Its not a matter of 'supporting' someone because of their religion, rather inspite of it, much of the humanitarian work done in central america in the 1980's early 90's, and probably still now is done by charitable priests and members of the church, now ok they may be mystified fools but in a roundabout way they do benevolent work. In the same way i implicitly and passively 'support' those who sabotage the oil wells and pielines in order to stem the pillage of oil.

If lower oil prices ment a wealthier working class and a more stable capitalism then shouldnt we back the coup planned for equitorial guinea in the hope that we can get a more efficient and reliable supply of oil into the country? I'm sure mr thatcher would be happy to oblige.