8/3/2019 Debord2005e

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/debord2005e 1/3

Letter

From Guy Debord To Attila Kotanyi12 July 1961

Dear Attila

Concerning Alain's[1] letter (dated 29 June [1961]), which, as you know,obliges one to draw several clearconclusions.

After leaving Antwerp fifteen daysago, I went directly to Tours. Alainwasn't at the meeting. Two days later,when he telephoned me, I respondedthat I didn't want to speak to him. In

light of the essential question raisedby Robert[2] in Brussels -- thepossibility of a minimum of cohesionin the collective activity boldlyannounced by Alain -- the eventresponded beyond measure. I haven'tseen Alain again since we left you: itis obviously useless to bore oneself amoment longer with pathetic fanciesthat are destined to remain idlechatter. From whence comes hisletter, officially addressed to you, of which Richard[3] gave me a copy the

same evening.

 The extraordinary weaknesses of intelligence and vocabulary in thisletter are quite far from the ideasexpressed by Alain in our presence,but unfortunately are representativeof what, in his conduct, lacks rigor andcourage. I don't know where he getsthe idea that I proposed to "select"people for the famous tendency thathe planned with his friends (on the

other hand, they have refused to evenaddress themselves to C. Chabrol,[4] who made the most interestingintervention at the [Pouvoir Ouvrier]national conference, simply becausethey didn't find it "sympathetic"). Ionly asked that they at first try toreach an accord amongst themselves(very doubtful) before beginning anaction that is nothing more than theapplication of the principles of S[ocialisme] ou B[arbarie] -- an accordsuspectible of being approved by 90%

of the current organization and of 

starting at last an action that wouldn'tbe too derisory towards the exterior. This [perspective] has obviouslyframed our relations with P.O. And wehave never, until now, encountered

reasons for being interested in thesepeople, other than their membershipin P.O. This was clear. And to theextent that I have always dissuadedthe perspective of a split[5] that, inthe most irresponsible and hollowmanner, Alain prophesized atBrussels.

It seems clear that Alain has not madea complete account of all thathappened, to judge from his currentbitterness. One can correct a formulathat holds Alain dear by saying that S.ou B. fabricates opponents in its ownimage. To adopt [a total of] three suchformulae, one thinks oneself installedat the center of the world and itsrevolutionary critique; and oneimmediately begins to set up thespectacle of the melodrama of thesesorry thoughts. But the heart of theproblem is that Alain and his friendswho affectively resemble him scarcelyhave the capacity to be opponents:

they are just complainers.

 The passionate side of his letter,which is comical because it isperfectly out of place, can only beexplained by the disappointments of "revolutionaries" who still search fortheir fathers. If one such father isBarjot [Cornelius Castoriadis], youcan, it seems, count on two years of obedience. If these sons can notenvision themselves growing up to beBarjot, they immediately complain

about it.

From whence comes this sufficientlynauseating little phrase, which is atwisted confession: "Of course onewants young people, because they areeasy to flatter and influence. Oneviolates their minds . . ." I havedifficulty believing that this is thesame Alain whom we know; he daresto resort to the appeal, the "protectionof the young woman in distress": does

he define himself as young? Whowants to violate whom? Who has ever

8/3/2019 Debord2005e

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/debord2005e 2/3

"flattered"? As for influence, I quitebelieve that we have influenced moreor less the mass of people; I do notsee any reason for being proud, norbeing the least bit embarassed. That's

life.

But especially for whom does onewant "the young"? For the SI? This isprecisely where the shoe pinches. Hehas stated that we [in the SI] do notrecruit new recruit members and, inall cases, not from the ranks of P.O.members.

Also, weighed by honest people as if we were so many grapes that are a

little too green, we are found to befunctioning "according to the pitifulmode of scandal" (one day, speaking just in case they reproached us fornever envisioning such possibilities, Iexplained to them that we have madeseveral badly); [we are] neo-Stalinists,perhaps, but surely "taking ourselvesfor Gods"; and this in the intellectualneo-salons (of l'impasse de Clairvaux ). This is all too much bullshit to discussfurther, at least with Alain.

It is necessary, however, to note thatthis group, which seeks to define itself within P.O., is composed of the mostconscious individuals in anorganization that will be at the centerof all real re-launches of therevolutionary movement; and thatseveral of them will surely go quite abit further than that. But they stillpossess very fragmentary knowledge(I have never given it to beunderstood that I am the only one --that we situationists are the onlyones? -- to have "understoodMarxism," and even less have takenglory in it; but it is quite necessary tosay that someone who has understoodthe dialectic can not designate oursupposed goal as "a very pure crystal,untainted by contradictions . . ."). It isthus highly improbable that they willmanage to act together now. And themost resolved of them (Bechir[6])certainly situates himself beyond P.O.In the first rough sketch of this group

within P.O., there are too many peoplewho think in terms of ditties, who

want to be loved, who still have notunderstood the fact that declaringthemselves to be interested insomething does not automaticallymake them interesting.

 Thus, in its relations with P.O., P.O.B.[7] must only count on itself, becausethe state of crisis in P.O. still getsworse. And the remainingperspectives must be examined bythe SI [at its upcoming conference] atGotenberg [Sweden].

Attached is a copy of a publicationthat was sent by five Englishmen -- doyou know them? -- who boldly launch

themselves into "situationism"[English in original] and clamor forstocks of our documents. [Alexander] Trocchi, who is in London this week,takes charge of contacting them toremind them that the thing[situationism] does not exist, and tosee what they want to do. I expectRaoul [Vaneigem] to be here in threedays.

Cordially yours,Guy

[1] Alain Girard, member of S[ocialisme] ou B[arbarie].

[2] Robert Dehoux.

[3] Richard Dabrowski, member of S.ou B.

[4] Another member of S. ou B.

[5] The split between S. ou B. and P.O.took place in 1964.

[6] Bechir Tlili, Tunisian studentenrolled in preliminary study with Jean-Francois Lyotard, member of S.ou B.

[7] Belgian P.O.

(Published in Guy Debord,Correspondance, Volume 2, 1960-

8/3/2019 Debord2005e

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/debord2005e 3/3

1964. Footnotes by Alice Debord. Translated from the French by NOTBORED! April 2005.)