|
| |
Six Postscripts to
the Previous Issue
(excerpts)
It seems to us that the insurrections of the blacks in Newark and Detroit have
indisputably confirmed our 1965 analysis of the Watts riot [The
Decline and Fall of the Spectacle-Commodity Economy]. In particular, the participation
of numerous whites in the looting demonstrates that in its deepest sense Watts really was
“a revolt against the commodity,” an elemental reaction to the world of
“commodity abundance.” On the other hand, the danger represented by the leadership
that is trying to constitute itself above the movement is now taking more definite shape:
the Newark Conference has adopted the essential features of the Black Muslim program of
black capitalism. Stokely Carmichael and the other “Black Power” stars are
walking the tightrope between the vague and undefined extremism necessary to
establish themselves at the head of the black masses (Mao, Castro, power to the blacks and
we don’t even have to say what we’re going to do about the 9/10 of the
population who are white) and the actual unavowed paltry reformism of a
black “third party,” which would auction off its swing vote in the American
political marketplace and which would eventually create, in the person of Carmichael and
his colleagues, an “elite” like those that emerged out of the other American
minorities (Poles, Italians, etc.), an elite that has so far never developed among the
blacks.
In Algeria, too, Boumédienne has unfortunately proved the correctness of our analysis
of his regime [The Class Struggles in Algeria].
Self-management there is now completely dead. We have no doubt we will eventually see it
return under more favorable conditions. But for the moment no revolutionary network has
succeeded in forming on the basis of the offensive resistance of the self-managed sector;
and our own direct efforts toward this goal have been extremely inadequate. [...]
Daniel Guérin wrote to us to say that our note about him [The
Algeria of Daniel Guérin, Libertarian] was unfair and that he wanted to explain
himself. We met him. He had to admit that we gave a correct account of his analysis of
Algeria, which is at the opposite pole from ours. He complained only of having been
presented as a sort of agent of Ben Bella. We stated that our note in no way suggests such
an idea. Guérin explained his admiration for Ben Bella by psychological arguments whose
sincerity we don’t question: He had found Ben Bella very likable, particularly after
thirty years of disappointments with his other militant anticolonialist North African
friends, who have generally ended up becoming government officials. Ben Bella remained a
man of the people, that was his good side. He became President of the Republic, that was
his failing. Guérin already found Ben Bella’s Algeria “miraculous” and
reproached us for demanding a succession of additional miracles. We replied that such a
succession was precisely our conception of revolution; that any single “miracle”
that remains miraculous (i.e. isolated and exceptional) will quickly disappear. We
proposed to Guérin that he publish a text in response to our article; but he considered
that his oral explanation was sufficient. [...]
SITUATIONIST INTERNATIONAL
1967
Translated by Ken Knabb (slightly modified from the version in the Situationist
International Anthology).
No copyright.
| |
|