Posted by Hate Company on January 27, 2000 at 09:48:28 PM EST:
Le spectacle n'est pas une cause mais un effet. Dans un
monde ou la causalite fonctionne (cf. le mauvais infini de Hegel), quel effet ne
devient pas cause? Pourquoi le spectacle ne serait-il pas cause? La theorie de
Debord et la pseudocritique de Voyer ne seraient pas l'effet de cette cause? Et
le metier et le salaire de Lebovici?
Yes, you are partially right in that. Every effect becomes a cause. However,
being partially right, you are at the same time wrong. What we're interested in is
not if the Spectacle (which is an effect) is in turn a cause of other things, but
which is the first cause, the principal cause. In our case it is not God (as
Christians believed) or Economy (as Marx believed). Voyer made quite clear
that this principal cause is Communication. Thus, what excists is just an effect of
the alienation of Communication, the spectacle included.
La pensee des choses. Pourquoi les choses pensent ce que la classe dominante
pense? Pas de chance ou complot? Pourquoi les choses ne pensent pas comme
les pauvres? Parce que les choses ne sont pas pauvres?
The things think what the rulling class thinks, because the things have become
"goods". A "good" is by definition a thing that thinks like the rulling class does.
A "good" only thinks about money. It's as simpe as that.
La classe dirigeante. Les riches sont malheureux ou heureux? S'ils sont
malheureux, c'est-r-dire plus malheureux que les pauvres (sinon on ne peut pas
dire qu'ils sont malheureux), ils n'en deviennent pas pauvres?
The answer is simple: one can be both rich (with the economic sense of the
word) and unhappy. It's exactly because moderm wealth is an alienated one,
because it consists of alienated Communication, that one can be both rich (again,
with the economic sense of the term) and unhappy. Rich have all the
Communication in their hands, but in its alienated form.
Peut-on etre riche sans qu'il y ait des pauvres?
In the economic sense of the word, no. But the wealth isn't defined by economy,
as Voyer pictured very well. The rich persons have more money, it's true. But
their wealth isn't based on this. This is just an after-effect, a decoy. They are rich
because they own the communication. Thus, there can be rich persons without
poor ones: when communication is free, and therefore not alienated.
Un PDG, salarie d'une grande entreprise fait-il partie de la classe dominante?
Et son directeur financier? Et un medecin r son compte? Et un acteur de
cinema? Et un ecrivain declasse?
They are part of the rulling class in as much as they own communication. Do the
math, yourself.
La realite. Qu'est-ce que la realite? Est-ce qu'elle existe avant l'humanite et ou
est-ce qu'elle proccde de l'activite humaine? Si elle preexiste d'ou vient-elle, et
qu'est-ce qui la distingue de la non-realite? Sinon, en quoi la realite se
differencie-t-elle de ce que les teleologues appellent verification pratique?
It is not different. It is "verification pratique".
Theorie et realite. Si j'ai bien compris, les situationnistes ont d'abord fait leur
theorie et ensuite ils l'ont verifiee?
Yes, just like, for example, Hitler first formed his theory and then tried to realize
it. Fortunately, he failed. How can a revolutionay theory be a priori real? It
speaks of a world yet to come. Only the scriptings of assholes, such as Alvin
Toffler can be real at once: they speak of that which excists.
En 68 par-dessus le marche, le moment de leur defaite? Et Voyer n'a pas fait de
68? Qui nous dit qu'il n'en fera pas un ? D'aprcs lui c'est pas dans un siccle
qu'on parlera de lui, l'encule?
Well, Voyer's theory should be part of every '68 to come. But, how do '68s
come? By divine intervention? I don't think so. A theory must be made real. It's
a tough job but somebody's got to do it.
What is to be done. C'est pas Lenine qui avait ecrit un petit livre r ce sujet?
Yes it is. As a matter of fact I used that question as an ironic reference to his
book.
Retournons la question r celui qui la pose : et toi, r ton avis, Hate Company,
qu'est-ce qu'il faut faire? Dans quel but?
If I knew what is to be done, I would have been doing it! The question "What is
to be done" is not a theoritical one (as that asshole Lenin believed), thus its
answer cannot be known a priori. It's answer is a practical answer. One can only
know what is to be done by doing it, one can only change this world by changing
it. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", says an english proverb. "What is
to be done" in this sense doesn't have an answer: it is a call to arms. This is the
essense of the 11th thesis on Feuerbach.
Qu'est-ce qui t'empeche de repondre r la question: tout a une fin? ou non?
This is what epistimology calls an "uncheckable claim". One can never know if
all things have an end or not, because to check if all things have an end one has
to wait for the end of all things to occur. If they do not have one, this would take
an infinity. If they do, then the observer should have an end too, every observer
as a matter of fact, so who would be there to testify that all things do have an
end? Hence, this grand teleologic question, is just an uncheckable claim, an
amusement for the easily amused, just like the ancient problem of the man who
says "I always lie". So there you are.