I

"Class rule is no longer able to disguise itself in a national form; the national governments are as one against the proletariat."

Karl Marx. The Civil War in France.

1

That banal melodrama, the Cold War, has ended its record run on the stage of history, taking only the naive by surprise. Even before the curtain has finally closed, the protagonists have regrouped their forces; enemies embrace and nations shed their masks to reveal to the world that everybody looks the same. What formerly presented itself as high tragedy now appears as farce; Nixon visits Peking, China supports the quasi-Trotskyist government of Ceylon against a Maoist-style insurrection, the "arch-renegade" Tito is awarded the Lenin prize. Old foes have become reconciled: China and Japan, North and South Korea.

Even characters that once appeared rebellions are now as respectable as the rest; Regis Debray is a public-relations man for Allende - the heroic guerrilla has become a social-democrat. While analysts Left and Right seem dazed by the sudden turn of events, it should be noted that this script had been determined long in advance; behind the ecumenical festivities, we recognize that experienced director, the commodity economy. Though the masters of state power toast each other with celestial platitudes in the banquet halls of the world, a more mundane force has been issuing the invitations. If the Chinese have learned to play the U.S. national anthem, it is because American businessmen have learned how to speak Chinese.

2

The global peace proclaimed by capitalism today is merely another victory in the perpetual war of the commodity a war which has imposed itself everywhere, above and below the surface of political reality. Only a journalist would think that China and the U.S. merely intend to exchange ambassadors. The resolution of former political antagonisms is only the reflection of a convergence of economic interests; this similarity was always implicitly present, but the need for an expansion of advanced capitalism's markets, coinciding with the primitive development of modern industry (lack of consumer goods, etc.) in the bureaucratic states necessitates that such an affinity be openly expressed. The Cold War was an ideological ruse whereby the competing variants of capitalism could present each other as the absolute enemy; in the pseudo-socialist countries this accomplished a social unification in the face of the "enemy," which concealed the class divisions existing in these societies. In the West the spectre of totalitarianism was flung in the face of the proletariat as the meaning of "communism," effectively intimidating much of the working class. But this charade has long since served its purpose, and the prospect of economic gain has consigned it to an irrevocable past.

3

The decline of the spectacular pseudo-conflict between "Eastern" and "Western" forms of capitalism has come as an especially hard blow to all the leftist ideologues who had built a career out of it The movement of history has put an end to all their feeble hopes of a "revolution from the Third World." The "anti-imperialist" ideology, which sought to transpose the concept of "class-struggle" onto a global context where the Third World would represent the "proletariat" has proved bankrupt as the Third World "socialist" bloc disintegrates into an infinity of local nationalisms. Unlike their vicarious imitators in the West, the real Maoists in Peking have had sufficient intelligence to know who their friends are and who their enemies are. The new-found friendship between the U.S. and China, which became a military reality during the India-Pakistan war, may have upset the well-laid plans of all the idiotic leftist sects, but those who have arranged the romance know what they have in common. The imperialism which lies at the heart of commodity production is not the exclusive domain of the Western powers; Russia and China have proved themselves adept at mastering this technique. Capitalism reigns everywhere.

4

The various local pseudo-socialisms in China, Cuba, etc. which once "opposed" capitalism have not escaped the fate of their 'Bolshevik forebears, These peculiar forms of state-capitalism have emerged in countries which had no indigenous bourgeois class capable of maintaining an effective social hegemony, and the bureaucracies have only taken the place of the bourgeoisie in effecting a transition from feudal to capitalist modes of production. This "revolution," which sought to export itself everywhere in the Third World, has now shown its true nature China now demands full partnership in the capitalist .community of nations; Cuba is only an impotent colony of the Soviet Union. Castroism, which once trained its guerrillas for an armed conquest of Latin America, now finds its task much easier; besides recognizing itself in Allende's Chile, it openly flirts with the military regime of Peru. Maoism, having sustained numerous defeats in Africa, Indonesia, and India, has abandoned People's War (Lin Piao) for People's Diplomacy (Chou Enlai); its latest converts to the new line include Greece and Iran. Bureaucratic power makes strange bedfellows.

5

The commodity has indeed succeeded in levelling all the walls of China. But this fact is only a superficial manifestation of a global realignment of power which is presently taking place the Peking and Moscow summits, if nothing else, have established the necessary formalities. The various partners have recognized each other for what they are, masters of state and economy who have a vested interest in maintaining this power. This recognition is only the prelude to the formation of an international counter-revolutionary alliance which has already made itself felt in Ceylon, Poland, and Bangladesh, and which will be heard from again whenever the actions of the world proletariat threaten its continued existence. However, concerted action is only possible if traditional areas of conflict have been neutralized; such a reduction in tension has begun, in the Middle East and Indochina. The Stalinist bureaucracy of North Vietnam and the hyper-national Arab states find themselves isolated even among their "socialist" comrades; like their counterparts in the Western camp (South Vietnam, Israel),these countries have only been the pawns of an international chess-game in which the players sit in Washington, Peking, and Moscow. The deals made there will bring an end to the Vietnam War and at least continue the stalemate in the Mideast. Formerly troublesome elements such as the Palestinian guerrillas have been rendered virtually harmless within the Mideast; the Palestinian movement, which never advanced beyond a militantly primitive nationalism and hardly posed a revolutionary alternative to the institutionalized nationalism of the Arab states, has been reduced to a state of absolute impotence (reflected in terrorism) in the wake of the destruction of its forces in Jordan, 1970. The lesson of nationalism which the West taught all the other areas of the world returned to haunt it in the form of wars of "national liberation." But as the more advanced countries move into an era of internationalism, the nationalist rites of other countries will necessarily be cut short.

6

The global unification of capitalism has proceeded with less pageantry elsewhere in the world. Previous formal power groupings are dissolving: NATO and the Warsaw Pact now only exist in the minds of the two major powers that created them. The European countries may well pride themselves on having met the "American challenge" and turning it into a challenge to American economic predominance. Independent power groupings are emerging in Europe and Japan which can negotiate on an equal economic basis with the U.S. While unable to agree on the exact method of exchanging their currency, the European countries have succeeded in putting their Markets truly in Common. But while the European bloc proclaims its "independence" from the U-S., it acts as proxy for it in foreign affairs. The conciliatory German, Willy Brandt, has managed to demolish the rusting Iron Curtain. Behind the Ostpolitik for which Brandt was awarded the Nobel prize lies the Realpolitik of the commodity. The eventual demolition of the Berlin Wall will only he a physical complement to the destruction of trade barriers that is currently in progress. Brandt is not merely under-taking these policies in order to be a "statesman" - the trump card that he holds is the stability of the German Mark. The new economic order in Europe, which began with the EEC and is now being extended, allows each country to compensate for its individual economic deficiencies; nations that are heavily industrialized (like West Germany) can draw upon other countries' excess labor in order to maintain their position and to compete with the more advanced powers. The Marshall Plan has paid off its dividend in the form of a blitzkrieg of Volkswagens and Toyotas.

7

The developments in the bureaucratic sphere of Eastern Europe under the hegemony of the Soviet Union have been of an entirely different nature. Economic development in the individual countries ha been hindered by the permanent political crisis confronted by the ruling bureaucracies. The events of 1968 (Czechoslovakia) and 1970 (Poland gave the bureaucrats of the Soviet bloc a bad scare- Since the Czech uprising, the USSR has been forced to grant a certain degree of parochial "autonomy" to its satellite countries; these regimes are permitted room to experiment with their own "individual roads to socialism," within certain defined limits. The hard-line Stalinists, like Moczar in Poland and Ulbricht in East Germany, are disappearing in favor of more "flexible" technocrats. in the realm of international politics, such mavericks as Ceauceseu can be easily tolerated the Rumanian Premier, after all, beat everybody else to the punch two years ago by inviting Nixon to pay a diplomatic visit. But the essential relationship of these countries to the U.S.S.R. must be maintained: the Czechoslovak rebellion, precisely because it took place in the most industrially advanced Eastern European country, posed a serious threat to the economic interests of the Soviet Union, and the Kremlin cannot allow a similar situation to occur again. The same considerations are at work in Poland. In 1970, the Polish bureaucrats were faced with the specter of their annihilation in Gdansk when the workers spontaneously revolted against Party rule; widespread looting occurred, and in Szceczin, the CP headquarters was destroyed. The workers answered the oppressive "socialism" of the Communist bureaucracy by maintaining their strike despite State repression and setting fire to several of the tanks that were sent in to crush the insurrection. The danger of a repetition of these events has led the ox-coal-miner Gierek to remodel the government from top to bottom.

II

"The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a world-historical existence. World-historical existence of individuals means, existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.'

- Karl Marx. The German Ideology

1

The answer to the riddle of history, which Marx discovered so long ago in the economy, now reveals itself openly. But at the same time the present masters of the economy - the bourgeoisie and its bureaucratic counterpart - wish to put an end to history by presenting the current state of affairs as the only possible order. Despite their schemes, however, history has already exploded on the scene: the historical forces of the negation of capitalism announced themselves in the May-June 1968 events in France. The revolt of May heralded the physical reappearance of the class struggle; the myth of the "immunity" of advanced capitalism to revolutionary developments was conclusively shattered. The movement of occupations that extended itself throughout the country was not confined to one sector of production alone - professionals, office workers, and high school students as well as industrial workers occupied the vital terrain of society. That such a crisis could even have occurred at all sent the ideologues scurrying for various convenient ways of explaining it away the struggle was presented as essentially a student revolt that had gotten out of hand or a general demand for long-needed reforms in the outmoded Gaullist system. But the initial panic of the authorities was succeeded by calculations on how they could maintain themselves; the call for self-management that emerged (often unconsciously) from the occupations was adopted by many of the trade-union leaders and used as a weapon to get the workers to return to their jobs. In one sense, the May movement formed the basis of an orgy of reform whereby capitalism could perpetuate itself. Despite its recuperation, however, the real implications of this movement cannot be suppressed, and they will continue to manifest themselves in France and elsewhere. The radical history made by the proletariat has already disturbed the calm of the sleep that capitalism imposes throughout its world.

2

No sooner had the old world regained its balance than new proletarian movements emerged in the wake of May. Perhaps the most important of these arose in Italy, where workers and students took to the streets, defying both the cops and the Italian CP. What began as a series of strikes for higher wages soon developed into a movement wildcat strikes and fighting in the factories which left the trade union behind. New forms of struggle grew out of this activity - in factories spontaneous work stoppages which mobilized entire shop floors won occur, often resulting in managers being roughed up and machines smashed. In the Southern town of Battipaglia, the workers took over the local administration and elected a committee of delegates to a municipal affairs. But the "hot autumn" of 1969 had its initial source the specific character of the Italian economy, which because of concentration in the Northern industrial area has forced many workers from the underdeveloped South to seek employment in major centers such as Turin and Milan. It is these workers who are among the most militant in factory struggles. Furthermore, the government in Italy has been traditionally unstable since the end of World War II, with the constantly changing assortment of center-left and center-right coalitions producing an extremely fluid situation conducive to a variety of movements - including neo-fascism. And if the Italian workers have gone beyond the labor unions, they still remain vulnerable to the leftist groups (Potere Operaio, Lotta Continua, Il Manifesto) that prepare the basis for a new bureaucratic structure while proclaiming their support for the most extremist actions taken by the workers: the Base Committees that appeared in many plants in 1969 were often infiltrated and taken over by these manipulators. But the mere fact that all the powers of the Italian State have been marshalled to prevent another "hot autumn" demonstrates that the struggle of the Italian proletariat has gone beyond the stage where it can be easily defused - it continues unabated despite overt police repression. When the proletariat discovers that the true source of revolution lies only in themselves and in their own autonomous action, the "issues" that initially appeared to direct their struggle are swept away: the essential demand of the proletariat transcends all particular demands.

3

The proletariat has also announced itself elsewhere, but in a less coherent form than in Italy. Behind the "religious" civil war in Northern Ireland lies the class struggle which is at its origin. But here the ideologists (IRA, People's Democracy) have been at work for a long time to ensure the maintenance of the false divisions in the Irish proletariat, The immediate issues - discrimination in job opportunities and in housing - still play a major role in determining the direction of the struggle, which has remained confined to the Catholic enclaves and has yet to extend itself to the factories and other areas of production. The twin factions of the IRA, with their archaic nationalist ideology, have attempted through such spectacular actions as bombing and terrorism to recuperate the struggle into a purely military conflict. At present, the situation in Ireland remains tenuous; the initial conquests of the proletariat have been virtually eradicated by the British troops, and the growth of reactionary Protestant militantism has strengthened the hand of the IRA by raising the possibility of sectarian war. The true depth of the class struggle in Ireland will be measured by the Irish workers' response to the attempted subversion of their actions. But visible class conflict in Great Britain has not been confined to Ireland. In the "home" country of England, there have been several instances of factory occupations. to protest Heath's "redundancy" cutbacks; however backward their principal slogan, "the right to work," may be, these actions are in themselves quite radical and concretely pose the question of the occupation of the means of production. The recent unofficial activity of British dock workers demonstrates that the struggle has already begun to go beyond the unions; the workers organized the wildcat strike on a nationwide level, electing delegates to coordinate strike activity. Battles with police occurred, and when the union leaders attempted to gain control over the strike, the workers disobeyed their orders and on one occasion physically attacked the head unionist after a strike settlement meeting. Radical incidents have taken place in other countries: during the recent general strike in Quebec, workers seized several radio stations, and mines have been occupied in Australia. But in each case the trade unions have remained in control.

4

The struggle against capitalism is not necessarily confined to the "advanced" sector. The advance of bureaucratic state-capitalism in the Third World does not preclude the possibilities of genuinely revolutionary activity occurring in "underdeveloped' countries; it only means that no one can entertain any illusions as to the exact nature of a revolution which opposes every imperialism and ruling class. The experience, however brief, of the struggle for self-management in Algeria has already outlined the possibilities for such a revolution, The revolution in the Third World must begin where this struggle left off, guarding against the emergence of future Ben Bellas and consciously posing (both practically and theoretically the question of workers' councils and self-management. The radical movements that have recently occurred in the Third World have been dominated by all sorts of mystifications. The expropriations of large estates by Chilean peasants have mostly been accomplished under the leadership of the Guevarist MIR, and the spontaneous insurrection of Cordoba, Argentina, in 1969, where militias and armed occupations appeared during the fighting, was to return as a caricature in 1971 when Peronists and various guerrilla groups dominated the street actions. In order for the possibilities contained in these revolts to extend themselves, future

movements in Latin America and elsewhere in the Third World must take place over the ruins of these long-discredited ideologies.

5

Despite the situation in Italy and elsewhere, revolutionary possibilities have not emerged everywhere. In most areas absolute tranquillity reigns; the more advanced welfare states (Sweden, Netherlands) have perfected their pacification programs - here, the recuperators have realized the Bolshevik dream of remaining one step ahead of the masses. The once-promising revolts of youth and minorities have in many cases proved to be ephemeral; their demands have been easily integrated into the system. Capitalism has succeeded in rivalling the leftists in an ability to reform society. But despite this reform, capitalism has yet to find a solution to the social crisis which is latently present, even in the most advanced societies. While revolution is by no means inevitable, it is equally true that radical activity exists on a potentially international level.

6

The two facts which dominate history today, the end of the Cold War and the reappearance of the proletariat as a radical force, only confirm the critique of modern society presented by the Situationist International ten years ago. But this confirmation will be of purely academic interest unless the situationist critique is executed in practice, and no one can delude himself about the nature of the practical task which remains to be accomplished. It would be empty voluntarism to talk of any present "world-wide revolt" or the workers' councils of the future without delineating precisely the specific nature of the struggles now taking place. Another May '68 will not simply "happen," any practical advance towards self-management will not occur until the critique enters as a decisive force in history. Those who talk about the "unity of theory and practice" without attempting to pursue an immediate radical practice are mere spectators of revolution. Rather than adopt a contemplative attitude, which admires at a distance past theoretical and practical achievements, the task of any revolutionary organization is to go beyond what has already been done, elaborating a theory and practice which is commensurate with contemporary conditions. The situationist revolution has yet to be made; the world is still the terrain of capitalism - the point remains to change it.

7

The International of capitalism has yet to be answered by an effective International of revolution. This does not mean, however, that the formation of such an International can he conceived in a purely formal sense; since objective conditions differ in each country, the application of revolutionary theory to a given practical situation cannot adhere to a mechanical "universal" pattern. Interventions in potentially radical struggles must analyze the specific characteristics of these situations a well as place them within a global context; although they are part of the same general struggle, a wildcat strike in America and a factory occupation in Italy pose different tactical requirements. In the past few years the most radical proletarian struggles have been isolated in order to generalize these struggles, an exchange of experiences between revolutionaries is needed. In the same way, the potential for self-management contained in each situation must be concretely brought out from the events, rather than imposed from outside. It is not enough merely to invoke a past tradition of workers' councils (Russia 1905 Kronstadt 1921, Spain 1986, Hungary 1956 - unless the present possibilities for self-management are examined, such reliance on the past degenerates into ideology.

8

Self-management is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call self-management the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

From Subversion

I

The history of modern society is a bag of tricks that the dead have played on the living. The forms and structures which are today prevalent everywhere did not simply appear by virtue of some fortuitous technological development; they have their origins in a social and historical fact the seizure of the means of production by the revolutionary bourgeois class. The privative appropriation by this class of the labour of the proletariat was concomitant with an appropriation of society in its entirety. What initially appeared as a purely economic conquest soon extended itself to a colonisation of all aspects of life and the occupation of the terrain of society as the terrain of capitalism. The bourgeoisie came to power in a physical environment that was. only partially the result of its own design and ever since its social victory it has consciously striven to obliterate any trace of a past in which it did not dominate.

The project undertaken by the bourgeoisie of remodelling the world after its own image has proved to be one of unlimited duration. The development of productive forces has in fact required a constant renovation, both structural and organisational, of society. The temporary success of the bourgeoisie has been transformed into a seeming permanence only through an economically induced and sustained ephemerality. But this socially planned obsolescence cannot be confused with technological chaos; the autonomy of the bourgeois economy can only be maintained through a continual exertion of power by the dominant class. The image the bourgeoisie has imposed everywhere has been the image of class society: from the factory towns of its infancy to modern suburbia, capitalism has produced a social structure which conforms with the needs of commodity production. This structure has undergone a series of successive transformation, nonetheless, its actual basis in the economy has remained.

An increased technical capacity (cybernetics, media) on the part of advanced capitalism to control the very conditions of existence has resulted in the society of the spectacle, where life itself becomes a show to be contemplated by an audience which is forced to be passive, the modern proletariat. The spectacle, which is both at the origin and the goal of modern society, is in a perpetual state of modification. The consumer society' of the sociologists is actually a society which is consumed as a whole - the ensemble of social relationships and structures is the central product of the commodity economy. Yet the theoretical concept of the spectacle, which was elaborated by the Situationist International, is in need of considerable revision. The forces described in Debord's Society of the Spectacle have come to maturity and in doing so they have prepared the foundations for a further modernisation of bourgeois society. While the form of this society only confirms the insights of the S.I., it is necessary to re-elaborate the critique of the spectacle and to delineate the nature of its contemporary development.

II

If the structures of bourgeois society have been determined by an economic reality, it is equally true that the development of society vis-à-vis the economy has been uneven. Today, bourgeois society is faced with a structural crisis which in many ways resembles previous economic crises. This crisis is only superficially a natural, environmental one and it is not surprising that all the 'critical' ideologists have concentrated on this latter blatancy. The decomposition which manifests itself everywhere is only incidentally ecological in nature and has resulted, not from mere technological excess, but from a contradiction between accelerated forces of capitalist production and an outmoded social framework. The directionless expanse of urban areas characteristic of bourgeois society up until the present is a remnant of the 19th century doctrine of laissez-faire; as advanced capitalism increasingly attempts to rationalise all of its processes, its social structure is necessarily modernised. But this rationalisation has by no means proceeded in a uniform, linear progression - capitalism has been forced to reconstruct itself. The urban revolts of the 1960's and the environmental hazards resulting from the continued growth of industry provided American capitalism with a vision of its annihilation. Now, after this immediate threat has receded through the diligent efforts of its mechanisms of recuperation, capitalism wishes to turn-a temporary truce into a permanent victory. This project is designed not only to defend the present system but to perpetuate its existence indefinitely.

On a purely physical level, capitalism has sought to resolve the crisis caused by its unlimited quantitative growth. The urban glut spawned by primitive industrial development has proved to be unmanageable and is being replaced by a more ordered structure. The advance of urbanism has not only resulted in the destruction of the traditional city but in the construction of the foundations for a controlled 'post urban' society. The excesses that were the by-products of industrialism are being eliminated in favour of more 'rational' alternatives. The obsolete form of automotive transport is being replaced by rapid transit systems which allow for both a greater degree of unity and diversity. Space is becoming unified in a different manner than before; having consumed the city, capitalism must deploy its component parts across the terrain of society at large. Mass-transit allows larger areas to be connected together, creating a vast urban area with no fixed centre and which contains within it many mini-cities. This movement of decentralisation and diffusion is at the same time the construction of a rationalised social territory. Advanced capitalism quantifies space to the extent that it generalises uniform, archetypal models of urban society. In every area, one finds the same kind of design implemented in the construction of shopping centres, schools, housing, etc. But this rationalisation of the terrain is also its aestheticization the line of demarcation between the spheres of culture and the economy has long since disappeared. Office buildings and shopping centres now disguise themselves as works of art and museums appear as supermarkets.

Like its predecessors, modern architecture is a social architecture. With the current need for a reunification of the space of bourgeois society, stress is being placed on the construction of planned communities. These 'model' communities have so far been realised on a primitive scale', nonetheless they contain an indication of the future by reproducing the axial relationships of society within a limited area- The planned towns are in most cases clusters of smaller units, each with a central area of day care centres, schools etc, Within these areas an attempt has been made to replace isolation with a sense of community:

One town even constructed a common driveway so that residents would be forced to have contact with each other. These beginnings are only rudimentary, however, when compared with designs for the future. Perhaps the most avant-garde tendency of urban design is represented by Soleri; his 'arcologies' would contract the present city into compact, highly dense urban areas. Industrial and residential areas would be separated and constructed in such a way that a 'personal'. feeling of community would be retained. Soleri's cities "in the image of man" represent only the next logical step in the perfection of the controls already inherent in the present spectacle; the cities would only be a concentration of the contemporary image of bourgeois society.

All the current changes in the spectacular organization of appearances, however, are only part of a change in the appearance of organization. The contemporary reconstruction of bourgeois society involves not only its form but its content. The reform of the environment is simultaneously a reform of power which exhibits itself on many levels. Structurally. the hierarchical matrix of power which was physically embodied in the traditional city now reproduces itself on an infinite and local level. The advanced spectacle h4 dispensed with a physical centre of command in favour of a poly-centered system of authority. The 'Invisible City' dreamed of by Mumford as a 'radical' alternative to modern society is fast becoming a reality. As the locus of power shifts from rigidly defined structures to a multi-faceted nexus of relationships, new organisational forms are emerging which will bind the individual more closely to his social environment. The decentralisation of authority is not to be confused with its destruction, it merely represents its further extension.

III

The alienation which is at the root of the modern spectacle became visible during the last decade. This visibility was expressed in a recognition by its inhabitants that the programmed survival of bourgeois society was no longer tolerable. The various soporifics produced by the spectacle: mass culture, commodities, etc., proved to be inefficient in ensuring the continued functioning of the system. The discontent which smouldered at the surface threatened to disrupt the entire fabric of capitalist society - the residents of the bourgeois necropolis had awakened from their sleep. The threat of this awakening turning into open revolt forced the guardians of class-society to develop new weapons in their arsenal of social control if they were to maintain their position. This development has taken the guise of an accelerated structural reform; everywhere capitalism modifies itself, utilising new technical, cultural and ideological means to re-establish its authority over an unruly populace. In doing so, it has proved capable of recuperating even that which seemed to pose a radical threat to its existence.

The vital process of socialisation - the mechanism of integrating individuals into society - broke down when people began to question the roles allotted them. The sterile vapidity of reified existence was all too easily seen through and large sectors of the population attempted to define themselves in opposition to spectacular life. But since this opposition expressed itself almost entirely in a cultural form, it was easily reintegrated into dominant society as just another cultural fragment. Bourgeois society was able to resist the challenge to itself by creating new roles and cultural forms within an expanded framework. While the spectacle previously sought to impose a contemplative attitude everywhere, it now endeavours to generalise an active alienation. This "active alienation, the alienation of activity and the activity of alienation", which Marx perceived in the act of commodity production, now extends itself to all aspects of life. This extension results not only in a quantitative increase in alienation but in a qualitatively different kind of alienation.

Not content with mere spectators, the spectacle now seeks to engage the proletariat as an active participant in its reified world. The present expansion of alienation is a demand for its reciprocity, resulting in a reciprocal alienation in which the distinction between spectator and show, between signified and signifier, becomes blurred. In place of mere passive reception emerges a reified subjectivity in which the individual is able to choose among a number of possible responses - he is given the illusory freedom of a greater role in the construction of the world of his own alienation.

The advance of such an active alienation has had a direct relationship with developments within the sphere of capitalism's star commodity, culture. 'Avante gardist' experiments in 'participatory' theatre are now being applied to mass-media as a whole. As usual, capitalism has proved to be one step ahead of its professional critics: McLuhan's voyeuristic fantasies of "participation' via the media, for instance, are being realised on a far more complex level than the vicarious tribal rites which he imagined for the 'global village' of the commodity. The strictly unilateral communication which McLuhan celebrated gives way before a kind of bilateral monologue in which the spectator's response serves as a stimulus for further transmission. The spectacle's house futurist, Buckminster Fuller has envisioned a world which would be governed by a 'telepathic' interaction between the masses and their rulers. With the development of Cable TV, which allows 'for greater specialisation and cultural diversification, and two-way receiver-transmitters, media has advanced beyond a simple reproduction of images for a passive audience - the entire sphere of consumption has acquired an added dimension.

Besides this advance in technics, bourgeois society has enlarged the domain of its economy. Where the marketplace dominates life it is not surprising that life-styles should become integral parts of the market-place. Even such supposedly 'rebellions' ways of living, such as the bohemian milieu, have become packaged as commodities for cultural consumption. The spectacle now affords everyone the luxury of a reified existential self-determination; the individual can select a mode of 'life', including a particular time and milieu, from among several alternatives. The administrators of the commodity economy have even gone so far as to inculcate a nostalgic yearning for the past; in a society where the present has been reduced to a moment of an already determined future, various atavistic life-styles (Renaissance, '20's, '50's, etc.) have flourished. The meaning of consumption has also changed; the mere possession of things (and extravagant displays of commodity indulgence) has been supplemented by a possession of experiences. The spectacle has been able to turn the contempt for "materialistic" values to its own advantage - it now offers the non-material for sale. The transition from simple accumulation to acculturation has been accompanied by an expansion of 'leisure' industries whose purpose is to ensure that all areas of time, including that not spent in work, are occupied by the spectacle. The reduction of the working day has only resulted in increased possibilities and incentives for consumption.

IV

The present reform of bourgeois society is predicated upon an ad-mission of the sins of its past. Behind this confession, which exhibits itself in the form of ritualised denunciations of pollution, waste, poverty, etc., lies the preparation for a continuation of class society and the ersatz nature which capitalism imposes throughout its world. While acknowledging the excesses of its previous development, capitalism in no way wishes to relinquish its control over society. Rather, it proclaims itself capable of constructing a hygienic environment of exploitation to replace the present decrepit order. The accumulation of misery, which manifests itself everywhere - both physically and socially - has brought the spectacle into a showdown with the forces of its own decomposition. But by a spectacular sleight-of-hand, bourgeois society has only to admit that it is decomposed and it gains a new lease on life. By reshuffling the deck of hierarchical power, it prepares to deal out yet another hand. If all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, his bourgeois descendants think they can by merely changing the guard.

With their customary stupidity, the various ideologists of 'social criticism' are playing their part in reassembling the pieces. One of the most useful auxiliaries to this process has been the "ecology movement". The favourite vision of these lifeguards is that of an in-dependent technology which is rushing madly towards an environmental 'gotterdammerung'. This ideological charade transposes the responsibility for such a crisis upon an imagined collectivity, humanity as a whole, which supposedly exists 'independently' of any class relationships. Ignoring the realities of class society, these critics (Ehrlich, Fuller, Mumford) have little difficulty in imaging a 'transformation' of society which has nothing to do with classes. This ruse is convenient for those who do know something about class power: the administrators of the spectacle are able to use the spectre of environmental holocaust to achieve a greater unity - it enlists the support of a duped citizenry to aid in cleaning the environment of their alienation.

The ecological 'revolution' is only a call for a further quantitative modification of the technics of bourgeois society; it consciously aims for a reform of the pseudo-nature produced by capitalism. This kind of reformism reaches its most absurd (and logical) limit in the demand for a pure' consumerism. While seeking a 'total' change in the form of society, the environmentalists actually project the basis of bourgeois society ad infinitum. The synergistic 'utopia' proposed by these ideologists as a solution to the ecological crisis is merely a sterile and technologically rationalised version of the present spectacle. Those who want to gain the controls of 'space-ship earth? wish to replace the traditional elite with a more professional one. In their future society, which would be nothing more than a perfected technocracy, the proletariat will not have assumed control over the means of production, it will merely have a greater choice in the direction of technological development. By seeking to make the spectacle less destructive, the ecologists only want to save capitalism from itself. In their reformed spectacle exploitation will be made more 'democratic' and its more advanced model will be extended everywhere.

The role of intellectual accessory to capitalism has not been confined to the environmentalists, however. Even those critics who had fancied themselves to be 'radical' with their sociological analyses of the isolated 'ills' of capitalism have been caught with their ideological pants down. That which once passed itself off as a radical critique of modern society now reveals itself as a mere modernist complement to this society. The criticism of the 'wasteland' of mass-society is now expressed as a self criticism of the ruling class - city planners and governmental bureaucrats now talk about the 'quality of life'. Since their critique never went beyond the form of bourgeois society, all the leftist ideologues could never realise that the content of this society could continue despite changes in its outward appearances. These changes have resulted, not in an Orwellian totalitarianism (the wet dream of an impotent Left), but in an advanced welfare-state which has been able to incorporate many of the 'radical' solutions of the Left in order to perfect its functioning.

V

Marx's perception that the act of commodity production is at the same time an act of social reproduction has been verified by the subsequent development of capitalism. The modern spectacle, moreover, has attempted to extend the scope of this social reproduction beyond the labour process. The proletarians "who daily remake their lives" are now required not only to reproduce the conditions of their survival but to participate in its organisation the colonisation of daily life achieves near-perfection when the colonised themselves begin to create and operate the machinery of their own oppression. The possibility that such a state of affairs could come about had been predicted by the SI ten years ago when it formulated a critique of the 'Cybernetic Welfare State'. But if this description is not to become a facile one it must here-examined- Cybernation cannot be understood in the limited sense of a programmed rationalisation in which men assume the characteristics of machines. while the spectacle seeks to pacify all of existence, it also attempts to create mechanisms whereby it can regenerate itself.

Having perfected the most extreme disassociation of society, capitalism now strives to maintain its coherence in the face of open social disintegration. Concomitantly, the abstract separation characteristic of recent society is being replaced by an imposed collectivity - a communal isolation. This communalization of alienation, reflected in the community control' of services, schools, local governments - even police, is an attempt to counteract potentially destructive tendencies by placing more of the responsibility for operating society with various constituencies (neighbourhood and ethnic groups, minorities). Today, the archaic hierarchy of the past is being supplanted by its modernist replacement, an accumulation of mini-hierarchies, From the universities to the poverty agencies, from the factories to the office buildings, various ideologies of 'participation' assist in the construction of a humanist alienation which brings the individual and society closer together.

Besides creating structures which are more 'responsive' to the inhabitants of bourgeois society, modern capitalism has refined the psychological dimension of alienation. This refinement has not been accomplished by enlisting the doctrines of crude behaviourism (Skinner, etc.) but through the use of the most modern and 'radical' tendencies of psychiatry. This school (Laing, Erikson, Perls), which formulated itself in opposition to traditional Freudianism, has only perpetuated the basically repressive function of psychiatry. Through the techniques of gestalt, encounter groups etc., the adjustment of the masses to reality is carried one step further. Here, alienation is viewed as essentially an internal matter; once anxieties are released through group therapy sessions, individuals are supposedly better able to 'cope' with their existence. While formerly such innovations were the privilege of the intelligentsia, capitalism is making wide use of these methods in the factories and the schools in order to reduce social tensions. As workers are made to join encounter groups to vent their hostility to their bosses, the role of the psychiatric police force becomes increasingly important.

With such resources at its disposal, advanced capitalism has sought to correct many of the deficiencies inherent in its earlier forms. Having located the areas of decomposition, the social technicians of the spectacle are attempting to reverse this process and turn it into one of reconstruction. White formerly relying on overt repression to maintain itself, bourgeois society now devises a thousand more subtle methods of control. In promoting a social pacifism, capitalism attempts to conceal the social violence at its base. Like the good salesman it is, the spectacle knows how to change its image and to do so without missing a step. But by transforming itself in such a manner, bourgeois society has left itself open to possible attack by those it seeks to pacify. The machinations of hierarchical power have been rendered even less mysterious by its decentralisation. This loss of mystique puts the dominant elite's privileged possession of society into question; when the specialists of power are forced to publicly admit that they are no longer capable of running society by themselves, there is little that physically stands in the way of the proletariat bringing the show to an end.

The present modification of capitalism is nothing else but capitalism's modification of its world. As a fragment establishing itself as a whole, the commodity economy has requisitioned all of society for its purpose. The augmented survival proliferated by the contemporary spectacle in no way alters this fact and if bourgeois society has succeeded in regenerating itself through a conscientious policy of reform, it has not obliterated the possibility of its overthrow The spectacle remains confronted by the permanent crisis of its possible destruction. While attempting to integrate the masses more fully into its operations, advanced capitalism can only offer them the ability to 'choose between several varieties of alienated existence. The modernisation of the system can only temporarily alleviate its tendency to create the most extreme dissatisfaction on the part of the proletariat - the vast majority of society who have no power over the conditions in which they are forced to survive. While having weathered the storms of the last decade, the spectacle has by no means had the last word. The society of the spectacle seeks continually to overcome the barriers to its continued existence, but it overcomes them only by means which again pose these barriers in its way and on a more formidable scale. The real barrier of spectacular reproduction is the spectacle itself.

VI

The greatest revolutionary idea concerning urbanism is neither urbanistic, technological, or aesthetic. It is the decision to rebuild the entire territory according to the needs of the power of the workers' councils, of the anti-state dictatorship of the proletariat, of executory dialogue.
Guy Debord. Society of the Spectacle, Thesis No.179

The terrain of society remains that of the enemy and as such it must become the terrain of revolution. The transition from the old world to the new is not simply a change in the administration of society but in its use and this recognition is what separates revolutionaries from those who would merely rival capitalism in an ability to reform society. If the situationists have had the merit of describing modern bourgeois society in its totality, it is equally true that they have conceived of its total negation. Unlike the senile leftists of all varieties. the situationists have been concerned not with the quantitative amelioration of this society but with its qualitative supercession. From the beginning, the S.I. considered its task to be the practical realisation of a revolution of everyday life. With its early experiments in 'psycho-geography' and the systematic exploration of cities, the S.I. attempted to define the possibilities for a revolutionary transformation of society. Even if these initial experiments now appear as somewhat naive, the radical character of the attempt to expose the terrain of society for its practical subversion remains. In attempting to create situations which put the whole of life into question, the S.I. revealed the fundamentally social character of the present revolutionary project.

The politics which emerged from the city (polis) has now made the entire world its city. Politics, inherently an alien objectification of man, has in turn objectified a world of alienation - bourgeois political economy has carried this process to its most extreme materialisation. For the proletariat, then, which exists at the level of the most extreme alienation, the annihilation of class society is at the same time an annihilation of the political realm. Proletarian revolution is the affirmation of an unmediated practical dialogue with the world in which all the means of society are at the disposal of the proletariat. The transformation, through the labour process, of personal powers (relationships) into their alien and material objectification can only be eliminated by the action of individuals in again subjecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the commodity spectacle. This revolutionary project is not possible except through the collective action of the proletariat in transforming society so that it conforms, not with the dictates of the commodity economy, but with the desires of its inhabitants. The struggle for self-management is not only a struggle for the means of production but for society as a whole.

Proletarian revolution requires nothing less than the construction of a society in which the individual finds his confirmation rather than his objectified denial. In place of the imposed collectivity of the spectacle it establishes an authentic community and "in the real community the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association. (Marx) All the various bureaucratic pseudo-socialisms have only imitated the bourgeoisie's authoritarian use of the social terrain; every-where, the Leninist counter-revolutionary project has found itself confirmed in Stalinist architecture. Only in the free construction of situations, in the introduction of the element of play into the design of the world, will a genuine socialism be realised.

The technical capacities now in existence enable the immediate, concrete realisation of Marx's vision of a communism in which "in practice the senses have become direct theoreticians." The practical critique of urbanism exhibited in the revolts of the 1960's (Watts, Detroit, etc. marked only the beginning of this process; having seized the terrain of society it is necessary to reconstruct it. The direct democracy of the workers' councils must extend itself to a direct democracy of the environment so that "man is affirmed in the objective world not only in thought but through all his senses.,' To make the world a sensuous extension of man rather than have man remain the instrument of an alien world is the goal of a situationist revolution. For us, the reconstruction of life and the rebuilding of the world are one and the sane desire.

To go beyond the point where we can only talk about the world to the stage where we can talk to each other in the construction of a new world it is necessary to engage in the most radical practice possible - the critique of human geography must become a critique executed in acts. The development of such a practice entails an active intervention by revolutionaries in all aspects of society; up until now the concept of intervention has been limited almost exclusively to various points of production (factories, schools, etc.. In addition to this, it is now necessary to extend the tactics of subversion to confront the present modification of the spectacle directly. Rapid transit systems, shopping centres, museums, etc., as well as the various new forms of culture and media must be considered as areas for scandalous activity. It is the commonplace, the banal, which seems to be secure from attack and yet which is the easiest to subvert. It is on the terrain of daily life that the spectacle is most vulnerable.

Digitised by Subversion. Some minor corrections by libcom.org

Self-Management and the Spanish Revolution

1936 ~ 37

I

"For the first time since the attempts to establish socialism in Russia, Hungary and Germany following the First World War, the revolutionary struggle of the Spanish workers demonstrates anew type of transformation from capitalist to collective modes of production, which despite its incomplete nature was carried out on an impressive scale."

Karl Korsch - 1939.

Thirty six years after its first victories, the Spanish Revolution remains the most significant of the various practical experiments in self-management which have taken place in this century. The experience of the Spanish workers' councils forms an important point of departure for the modern proletariat, both in terms of its accomplishments and its failures. The widespread dissimulation of this aspect of history made by the proletariat only reinforces its fundamentally radical character. Suppressed by bourgeois historians and leninists alike, and distorted into an unrecognisable myth by those anarchists who treasure it as one of their" golden moments", the revolutionary movement in Spain continues to be a source of embarrassment for ideology. The activities of the "uncontrollable elements" of the Spanish proletariat proved to be a scandal to all parties. The revolution was eliminated long before the victory of the fascists by a combined force of Stalinists, liberals and 'libertarian' bureaucrats of the very anarchist movement in whose name the most radical members of the working class had acted. The Spanish 'Civil War' only began after the defeat of the Revolution.

*

The revolution in Spain represents the last stand of the traditional proletarian movement and within its history are contained all the positive aspects of this movement as well as the counter-revolutionary forces and ideologies which were to oppose it. The struggle which had developed between Leninism and the councils in Russia was to be repeated in Spain on a larger and more profound scale. By rediscovering the councilist form in its own practice, the Spanish proletariat were the heirs of Kronstadt and the councils in Germany and Italy; with the Spanish councils the revolutionary movement which had been defeated by Social-Democracy and Bolshevism reappeared. The Spanish Revolution was an international struggle, not only in the sense that its combatants came from many countries, but because its existence stood in opposition to all the ruling powers of the world. As the Italian anarchist Berneri observed: "Today we are fighting against Burgos, but tomorrow we will have to fight against Moscow in order to defend our freedom." This war against hierarchy; moreover, was to become a struggle against ideology in general.

*

Before the revolution, the CNT had attempted to integrate the councils within its ideological schema; the document produced by the CNT Congress at Saragossa (June 1936) was essentially a councilist program and recognized the councils as the basic organ of revolution. While advancing a revolutionary theory of workers' councils, however, the CNT itself was not a councilist organization - the principle of direct democracy under which the councils wee to operate was not reflected in the structure of the anarchist organisation. while the lessons of the Bolshevik counter-revolution were not lost on the Spanish anarchists, their refusal of a 'revolutionary' representation - a party holding power in the name of the proletariat - was purely formal. The matter of democratic organization was to become anarchism's undoing. Although its explicit call for a social revolution - one in which the proletariat would assume management over the means of production without the mediation of the state - remains one of anarchism's merits, the actual practical task of making such a revolution was beyond it.

*

In understanding the Spanish Revolution, it is not a question of merely rendering its "unconscious tendencies conscious" but in explaining the actions of a highly class conscious proletariat actions which were veiled in ideology, yet transcended it. The appearance of the councils in 1986 was the product of 50 years of revolutionary activity, most of it under the aegis of the Spanish anarchist movement. Yet the actual revolution marked the tactical failure of the anarchists; the expropriations of July were in response to a fascist putsch and not an anarchist insurrection. The anarchists' faith in the apocalyptic powers of a general strike had largely proved to be chimerical; the CNT-FAI had failed, in rising after rising, to be capable of extending the locus of revolution beyond the parochial confines of a few cities or regions. By 1936, the ideology of anarcho-syndicalism had been shown to be obsolete; the spontaneous development of workers' councils during the course of the 1933 Aragon insurrection and the Asturian miners' revolt represented a practical advance upon the anarcho-syndicalist program of building a revolutionary society based on unions. The revolutionary committees of Aragon and Asturias, which had established themselves as a social and economic power in addition to their military capacities, were to reappear all over Republican Spain in July 1936 and their existence threatened the leadership of the CNT-FAI as much as the Republican government.

From its inception, the Anarchist movement in Spain had retained an implicitly hierarchical. structure which embodied a dualistic separation of political and economic sectors. While the anarchist union, the CNT, was to organise the working class in preparation for social revolution, the recently formed FAI was to constitute a "conscious minority" of anarchist militants. The CNT-FAI was patterned upon an elitist conception of organization much like Bakunin's Alliance for Social Democracy which he had defined as being composed of "federations of workers, forming free pacts with one another, with a small secret revolutionary body that permeated and controlled them." The clan-destine FAI saw itself as a "motor producing the quantity of fabulous energy needed to move the syndicates in the direction which most conforms to the longings of Humanity for renovation and emancipation." In practice, this organization was to act as a quasi-Leninist vanguard party and the latent hierarchical divisions of the CNT-FAI as a whole were to become a social reality after July 1936. The immense revolutionary activity of the anarchist masses was to be reversed in a struggle in which the official CNT-FAI was to take the side of the bourgeois Republican state and its new4ound ally, the Communist party What was accomplished by the factory councils, agrarian collectives and workers' militias in the year 1936-7 was in spite of the policies and actions of the official anarchist organization. Nonetheless, despite the obstacles erected in its path, the movement for self-management in the Spanish Revolution provides the clearest historical example of a genuine socialism.

78

II

"The awareness that they are about to make the continuum of history explode is characteristic of the revolutionary classes at the moment of their actions"

(Benjamin)

The historical explosion that was the Spanish Revolution cannot be explained under the convenient rubric of a 'Civil War'; it represented the unfolding of an acute class-struggle in which the Spanish proletariat participated as much for itself as against Franco. The fascist rising was answered, not by the impotent Republican government, but by a popular insurrection which involved men, women and youth and destroyed, in less than a month, the entire matrix of Spanish society. The armed proletariat of July accomplished a de facto abolition of Church and State and replaced capitalist modes of production with economic and social forms of its own. In the subsequent year, the councils established by the working-class were to become a third force fighting against both the fascists and the attempts of the Republican government to re-establish its authority. The success of the workers' and peasants' militias cannot be measured in purely military terms. While checking the fascist advance, these militias more importantly implemented a revolutionary program of expropriation and collectivisation. The slogan "war and revolution at the same time" formed the basis of the militias' actions. Wherever possible throughout Republican Span, workers seized the factories, peasants collectivised their land and a revolutionary force was organised to generalise and defend the revolution: "we carry a new world in our hearts, a world that is growing at this very moment." Durruti)

*

The period of revolutionary occupation which began during July demonstrated the viability of the councilist form. The Spanish councils (unlike those previously in Russia, Germany and Italy) were able to pose the question of self-management practically, proceeding beyond the necessary arming of the workers to the organisation of production. In the industrialised areas of Catalonia, an anarchist stronghold, the proletariat proved capable of administering and improving a modern urban economy, increasing productivity while maintaining necessary services for the population - revolutionary Barcelona is witness to the success of self-management in Spain. Similar results were achieved in the rural areas of Aragon and Valencia, where modern agricultural techniques were introduced in the process of collectivisation. The most radical aspect of this movement, however, was not the simple rationalisation of the Spanish economy but the attempt made to practically realise a critique of political economy. From the beginning of the occupations, the Spanish proletariat proclaimed a communismo libertario in which money and commodity labour were abolished. In spite of admittedly primitive economic conditions, the Spanish councils and collectives were able to devise a system of distribution and exchange which represented a qualitative suppression of the relations of capitalist production. The dilemma of 'economic' or 'moral' incentives, a problem for the bureaucratic classes of pseudo-socialist. countries, was not encountered in revolutionary Spain. The radical translation of the dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" into reality was incentive enough for the proletariat to meet and in fact excel the demands imposed by war.

*

The spontaneous capacity for organization demonstrated by the Spanish proletariat during the revolutionary period disproved, once and for all, the Leninist falsehoods about the need for "correct leadership'. The assumption of direct power over the means of production was accompanied by the establishment of a direct democracy of the proletariat in which the basic organs of power were the councils – "revolutionary committees created by the people in order to make the revolution". (CNT, December 20, 1936).. Despite differences in their individual characteristics, the councils and collectives, operated on essentially the same basis: delegates were elected to perform specific tasks and co-ordinate production - these delegates had limited powers and were subject to recall by the general assemblies of workers and peasants, in which all important decisions were made. Besides establishing an internal democracy, the councils sought to extend their power by co-ordinating activities with each other; unity was created between the factory councils and agrarian collectives, not only in the militias where workers and peasants fought side by side, but in the actual federation of movements and the exchange of delegates. While bourgeois sociologists and historians have attempted to portray the revolutionary activity of the anarchist peasants as a 'primitive religious movement', one must only examine the Program of the Federation of the Aragon Collectives to perceive the advanced consciousness of the rural proletariat: "We propose the abolition of the local boundaries of the property we cultivate...unoccupied work-teams will be used to reinforce the collectives that are lacking labour power." The Spanish movement for self-management was not a demand for simple regional autonomy - councilist federation was designed to supplant traditional authority in its entirety.

*

The form in which the councils appeared was directly related to the organization of the workers' militias where the principles of direct democracy had first been developed. In July, the armed columns of the Spanish proletariat were, in fact, the Revolution. Their function was as much social as military; the liquidation of bourgeois elements by the militias was not carried out 'in defence of the Republic' but as an initial step in the radical transformation of Spanish society. The militias themselves never intended to be part of a regular army; in itself, the militia structure represented a radical break with conventional modes of warfare, simply because it was organised along revolutionary democratic lines. Like the insurgent armies of the Russian and German Revolutions, the Spanish militias represented the military arm of councilist power; the soldiers' councils, like the factory assemblies and collectives, elected revocable, mandated delegates. The non-hierarchical character of these militia columns is evidenced in the fact that differences in rank and pay were non-existent. The history of the Spanish militias remains an example of armed proletarian power: the revolutionary columns resisted any attempt at 'militarization', designed to turn them into regular army units, to the end. Defiantly, their slogan became: "militiamen, yes! soldiers, never!"

III

"We must carry out a total revolution. Expropriation must also be total. This is not the time for sleeping, but for building...If the Spanish worker does not carve out his liberty, the state will retain and will reconstruct the authority of the government, destroying little by little the conquest made at the cost of a thousand acts of heroism."

-Solidaridad Obrera, Aug.26, 1936

*

Despite the rapid advance of the workers' militias in Republican Spain, the social revolution which began in July failed to establish the absolute authority of councilist power. While the Republican government had been severely weakened, it did not, of course, abdicate in favour of the proletariat; after July, dual power existed in 'Anti-Fascist' Spain between the forces of a new revolutionary order and the remnants of the bourgeois Republic. The councils of July had made the government virtually irrelevant and had practically superseded the syndicalist structure of the CNT~FAI; they were defeated to the extent that they failed to see the necessity of consolidating their power - a consolidation that would inevitably mean the abandonment of all traditional organisations. Although the slogan of Asturias, UHP (unite, proletarian brothers!), reappeared during July and united various factors of the proletariat around a common program of revolutionary activity, ideological divisions soon manifested themselves again and prevented a lasting unity. The proletariat split along party lines, the anarchist rank-and-file and POUM (a small Marxist party) being the only ones to support the Revolution. Despite this, the revolutionary proletariat were in a majority - unfortunately, however, they did not take advantage of their position. A misplaced trust in the leadership of the CNT~FAI led to a situation where the anarchist masses were to acquiesce to the gradual abolition of their power. Invoking the Stalinist slogans of "Unity" and "discipline", the CNT-FAI sought to persuade the proletariat that the elimination of the councils and militias was a necessity imposed by the exigencies of Civil War.

*

While the anarchist proletariat undertook the reconstruction of society along the lines of self-management, the official CNT-FAI was preparing to accede to its compromise. The collaborationist policy of the anarcho-bureaucrats became clear when they put aside their anti-statist ideology and actually joined the government. Playing into the hands of the Stalinists, who were rapidly organising the Republican petit-bourgeoisie into a counter-revolutionary movement, the CNT ministers consented to governmental action against the councils. Government inspired municipal councils, which included extra-proportional representation for the UGT and Communist party, were created in an effort to replace the councils of the proletariat. Additionally, the CNT leadership helped draft the Decree of Collectivisation of October 24, 1986, which would limit the councils' power; in place of self-management they proposed to establish a form of 'workers' control' in which the workers' committees served a purely advisory role.

*

The failure of the Spanish Revolution lies in its inability to extend itself to a point where the councils and militias would assume total control over the revolutionary movement and, as a consequence, over Republican Spain as a whole. While immensely successful in organising military and economic affairs, the Spanish councils failed, to give positive practical and theoretical expression to their own existence. Unable to define themselves in relation to the CNT-FAI, they were everywhere outmanoeuvred. Every attempt at action against the enemies of the Revolution in the Republican camp was thwarted; the Stalinists and liberals were able to reconstruct the machinery of government virtually unhindered. Successive Republican ministries sabotaged the attempts at self-management, denying credit to factories, etc, without serious retaliation - the anarchist militias who were denied arms did not disarm those who were preparing their demise. The destruction of the Spanish Revolution did not, of course, proceed without opposition, but the recognition by the proletariat of its betrayal did not come until well after the initial moves against the councils and militias. Herneri was one of the first to openly pose the crucial question facing the revolution in an open letter to the anarchist' politician Montseny he wrote: "The dilemma, war or revolution, no longer has any meaning. The only dilemma is this: either victory over Franco through revolutionary war or defeat. The problem for you and the other comrades is to choose between the Versailles of Thiers and the Paris of the Commune, before Thiers and Bismarck make their holy union." Unfortunately, the forces of the Spanish Thiers had already acted; the left-wing anarchist masses, who co-operated with militants of POUM, did not offer significant opposition until early 1937. The left-anarchist group, the Friends of Durruti, conducted a widespread agitation among the workers' militias for a defence of the Revolution, but by this time the initiative had passed from the proletariat to the forces of its enemies.

*

The campaign of the bourgeois Republican forces (the government, the Communist and Socialist parties) against the workers' councils became overtly violent in May, 1937 when the Stalinists and Catalan Nationalists moved on the self-managed Barcelona Telephone Exchange. Following this action, the working class of the city rose spontaneously to defend their Revolution; barricades were erected, the police disarmed and armed workers were in control of the city. At this point, the counter-revolution could have been reversed, at least in Catalonia. The anarchist militias at the Aragon front were prepared to march to Barcelona - victory was far from assured for the government and the Stalinists. The Barcelona workers, however, remained in purely defensive positions and hesitated to move beyond their own districts. This stalemate worked to the advantage of those who sought to pacify the situation and, as before, the central leadership of the CNT~FAI was to offer its services of 'conciliation' - from the beginning of the insurrection, these recuperators urged the workers to dismantle their barricades and return to work. The CNT was resisted in its pacification program by the Friends of Durruti and others who called for the defence of the councils and a victorious conclusion to the fighting. Despite this resistance, the CNT continued in its efforts to 'mediate' the dispute and prevented anarchist militiamen from entering the city. Thus isolated from external support, the insurgents of Barcelona were easily surrounded; while the CNT called for a 'return to normality,' Stalinist agents began to implement their by-now standard methods of repression, assassinating select groups of the most radical elements and disarming the workers, thereby establishing 'unity'. In the months after May, these tactics were employed throughout Republican Spain: Lister's troops eliminated the agrarian collectives, the militias were dissolved, POUM was suppressed and the CNT, now expendable, was evicted from the government. The councils were defeated within a year after their appearance; the "thousand acts of heroism" of the Spanish proletariat were not enough to prevent the victory of the counter-revolution.

IV

What was so difficult to accomplish in Spain-1936, today becomes the absolute minimum for any proletarian revolution. The experience of the Spanish workers' councils provides an example of only the beginnings of councilist power; the technical resources of contemporary capitalist society will enable the modern proletariat to accomplish in a few days what the Spanish revolutionaries were never able to complete - the self-management of the means of production. The possibilities for the radical transformation of society are that much greater now because the 'economic question' can and must become a banality. Whereas in Spain "full employment" was a revolutionary goal, the success of any future councils will be measured by their concrete efforts to eliminate work as much as possible. Because of the extreme conditions of emergency in which it took place, the Spanish Revolution was never a festival, even to the extent the Commune was. The pleasure denied the Spanish proletariat awaits the revolutionaries of today.

*

Beyond the economic and technical developments which separate the modern proletariat from the tradition of the Spanish councils, there remains an essential link - many of the problems encountered in 1936 will continue to confront any revolutionary movement. In its defeat, the Spanish Revolution demonstrates the role played by enemies within the ranks of the proletariat recuperators who are not as easily recognized as the clowns of the various Leninist parties. As Spain shows, councilist power does not always succumb to an external 'villain' conveniently played by the Noskes and Trotskys of the world; the councils can defeat themselves if they fail to take the offensive and establish their authority everywhere. The modern proletariat will avoid the fate which befell revolutionary Kronstadt or Barcelona only through an awareness of the immensity of the task which awaits it. The exemplary actions of the Spanish councils and militias could not compensate for the failure of the Spanish proletariat to perceive the obstacles which still remained in its path. The radical history of the future will be conscious or it will be nothing.

Taken from the Subversion website, now located at AF North

If we are radical enough to imagine the reality of a situationist revolution, we can also think of its consequences. Up until now, the situationists have been unique in their willingness to speak of the positive aspects of proletarian revolution, but even in this respect very little has been said about the concrete problems which will arise in any practical attempt in self-management. While we have no desire to create any sort of blueprint for revolution, these questions cannot be dismissed out of hand; if we can talk of the workers' councils of the past, we can also talk of those in the future. Unless self-management is viewed theoretically as a contemporary possibility, it win remain as an easily distorted myth. The facility with which situationist theory can be turned into an ideology is shown most clearly in the psittaceous repetition of certain phrases and certain traditions in current 'situationist' texts. From now on, we are the enemies, not only of the pro-situs, but of those situationists who are merely procouncilist.

The absence of sustained practical experience in councilist organization necessitates a far-reaching theoretical debate on the nature of such organization. A similar debate was initiated after the Russian and German Revolutions by Korch, Pannekoek, Gorter, etc., but the results obtained during this period have long ceased to be directly applicable in practice. Raoul Vaneigem's Notice to the Civilised Concerning Generalised Autogestion (Internatonale Situationniste No. 12, reprinted in ANARCHY No.7,1972) represents one of the few attempts after Pannekoek to theoretically pose the questions faced in any revolutionary situation where councils emerge. Based on the experiences of May '68, Vaneigem's theses are important, hut altogether tentative; much of the piece is concerned with a theoretical vindication of Fourier and the analysis of a future councilist power is somewhat facile. Pannekoek's prescient observation that "when the workers seize the factories in order to organise production a number of new and difficult problems arise also" (Workers Councils) has not been invalidated by the technical progress of the bourgeois economy. The development of modern economic forces, while enabling a radical resolution of problems of communication, distribution, etc., has also created a situation not anticipated in previous councilist theory. The rapid decline in the productive sector of the proletariat in advanced capitalist countries has rendered the traditional model of councilist organization, the factory assembly, obsolete.

The shop floor can no longer be considered as the primary base of councilist power. The occupation of the factories will form only one of many initial steps towards the conquest of society by the proletariat -today in most advanced economies, the actual productive sector of the working class constitutes a minority of the proletariat as a whole. Thus, the task for a councilist revolution, which seeks to establish a total democracy over society, will be to involve, not only the factory workers, but all of the proletariat in its activity. The present economic reality of bourgeois society cannot be radically overcome, however, by a simple quantitative proliferation of the councils throughout all areas of the proletariat. The councilist form itself must be re-examined in view of a contemporary definition of the "means of production".

It is no longer possible to talk only of workers' councils in the strict sense of the term. The conventional image of workers' soviets is as archaic today as the Bolshevik Jacobinism which defeated them was 50 years ago. Since the tasks of any councils which will arise in the future must extend beyond the sphere of production, the councilist form itself must extend beyond the work-place. In any period of revolutionary occupations, it will be necessary to distinguish between several types of councils - productive, service, neighbourhood, etc., - but such a distinction in no way resolves the difficulties posed by total revolution. The councils will inevitably eliminate various 'parasitical' sectors of the economy arid this elimination will liberate large numbers of the proletariat from work. At the same time, however, it will destroy the councils in these areas and will entail the incorporation of those displaced within other organisational structures. Vaneigem's proposal to merely "open the factory gates" to those not involved in a vital capacity retains an outmoded conception of the functioning of the councils and is, in fact, elitist There can be no 'vanguard' of the councils, no 'centre' of self-management; the revolution will be in the hands of a majority or hierarchical divisions will reappear despite the most democratic principles.

The organization of the councils must be such that they embrace all of society. Assemblies will have to be constituted not only in work areas but in other areas as well. The delineation of the various tasks, powers, membership, etc., of these different forms of organization will be one of the first priorities of the assemblies. Following this, perhaps the greatest difficulty for the revolutionary proletariat will he that of avoiding any kind of parliamentarism in the organization of the councils. The concept of revocable, mandated delegates will remain a purely formal principle until it becomes a practical reality. Even such a realisation, though, does not ensure the success of direct democracy. Delegated authority, however accountable to a democratic base, always contains the possibility of developing in opposition to a power without mediators. In any revolutionary situation, bureaucratisation will remain a very real contingency - one that must be confronted, not only through the rotation of delegates, but through an awareness of the hierarchical tendencies which are likely to develop. certain forms of organization (co-ordinating committees, etc.) will be delegated with more authority than others and, as a consequence, must be closely supervised by the general assemblies. Only the continued, active participation of these assemblies and, hence, the proletariat as a whole will prevent the possible rise of any councilist bureaucracy.

The ability of the councils to solve the question of their own organization will determine the success of self-management. In any case, the process whereby the operation of society can be reduced to a "simple administration of things" will undoubtedly be long and complex. The power of the councils will have a meaning which can only be supplied by the revolutionary proletariat - the councils are its power and it is there that the problems raised by theory can be answered. At present, we can only dispel the illusions which will face such a power; its real obstacles can only be overcome in practice.

Digitised by Subversion, with some minor corrections by libcom.org