8/3/2019 Debord2005f

1/4

LetterFrom Guy DebordTo the participants in thenational conference ofPouvoirOuvrier

5 May 1961

Comrades:

The last national conference ofPouvoir Ouvrier[held 24 April 1961],as the near-totality of the participantsare certainly aware, was not verysatisfying. More serious than theweakness of the theses chosen fordebate, the functioning of thediscussion made appear at every

instant how the real organization ofPouvoir Ouvrieris radically foreign tothe new type of revolutionaryorganization justifiably defended andillustrated by all the work of theSocialisme ou Barbarie journal. To saythis is nothing new; the organizationhas never hesitated to present itsfrank critique of itself at the mostgeneral levels. Unfortunately, whatappears new is drawing conclusions.

The inseparable questions of the

proper life of the organization and itsexternal work are dominated by theorganization's mistrust of all sorts ofnovelties -- including those that areclearly foreseen in its programmatictexts -- and by the infinitely weak usethat it puts the participation andcreativity of its militants, who areunited, however, on the basis ofcomplete participation.

The survival -- in practice -- of the

conceptions of specializedrevolutionary activity and specializedmilitants, not only effects PouvoirOuvrier, in so far as a bureaucraticnucleus has formed (because PouvoirOuvrierhas banished the logicaloutcome of the specialized militant:the permanent), but also it offers aterrain of choice for diverse variantsof dogmatism. The inevitable divisionin Pouvoir Ouvrier-- where it doesn'tdevelop veritable political oppositions-- again manifestly creates a division

into two age groups, but, in the last

analysis, is independent of age: it isan unacknowledged division, not evena useful one, bewteen teachers andstudents.

The division of society into directorsand executants is nearly abolished assuch at the heart ofPouvoir Ouvrier(by the revolutionary ideology, thestatus and the weak dimension of theorganization and its current tasks),but it reappears under its corollaryaspect of division between "actors"and spectators. This spectacle doesn'tlack very instructive aspects; but it isexternal to the revolutionary project inthat one encounters the frequentlymade justification for the spectacle asa form of instruction, at the same timethat all instruction traditionallypresents itself in the mode ofspectacle.

In the spectacle ofPouvoir Ouvrier,there are stars -- of whom severalappear to me very interesting, it isunecessary to recall. The regretablething is that their relationship to thespectators whom they attract (andeven on the points on which they

maintain a precise accord with thespectators) remains quite secondaryin comparison to the continuous playbetween them, and indefinitelyrepeatable. Their spectacularopposition has never been sanctionedby anything; the stars never convinceone another: they neutralizethemselves day after day. So that theinterventions of the spectators, evenin the optimum case in which they areauthenticated by the mediation of astar, only encounters the impotence

of decision proper to the spehere ofthe invulnerable combatants.

The official meetings ofPouvoirOuvrierare truly something Homeric,not only for the invectives of the godswho confront them, but by the speciesof immortality of their quarrel, whichseems to remain on the tops of theheads of several generations ofmilitants, those mortals. (An exampleof this mechanism of habit: the

tactical recourse to [rhetorical]vehemence is accepted -- regretfully

http://www.notbored.org/debord.htmlhttp://www.notbored.org/debord.html

8/3/2019 Debord2005f

2/4

-- by several members of the PouvoirOuvrierelite, who have allowed suchvehemence to those of long standing.I think that it intimidates manycomrades who keep quiet or censor

themselves on the most importantquestions. However, if one chooses toconfront this tactic on its own terrain,the unusual tone is generallyperceived as insolent, or even as badfaith.)

It is clear that I do not deny thepossibility, for certain young militants,to quickly accede to the sector of thestars. I deny the interest of thispromotion.

It is a thick and concrete separation ofroles, not some heavy fatality of allcollective action, that thrusts therichest communications of interestand efficacity (including, of course,that of the "stars," of which the officialspectacle ofPouvoir Ouvrieronly letsan impoverished reality filter through)into the clandestinity of informalrelations. The crushing role ofunconscious, uncritiqued habit in allthe relations between the comrades of

Pouvoir Ouvrierexplains the survival,at first sight unbelievable, of certainhabits of incoherent thought in aproject as theoretically sound asPouvoir Ouvrier.

One can "understand," on the"human" plane, many of the defects inPouvoir Ouvrier(the pre-eminence ofseveral sour or automatic personalrelations) by recognizing them as theproducts of an isolation courageouslyaccepted by a limited group of people.But, on the political plane, there is noexcuse to dutifully let these problemsrot, which impedes the transformationof a transitory group of "critique andorientation" into a revolutionaryorganization.

The task of revolutionaries today is tocreate an organization such asPouvoir Ouvrier"at another level" ofpolitics. This task can not wait untilsuch-and-such a date or time; it is

necessary to create it now, or never,

because, in all constitutedorganizations on this side of thequalitative leap, time doesn't work forthe organization, but against it.

So, the wait-and-see-ism of manycomrades, who think that thenumerical development ofPouvoirOuvrierwill bring it into closer relationwith its fundamental goals, seemslittle justified to me. I have stated thatthe people quite capable ofunderstanding all of the implicationsofPouvoir Ouvrier's platform arealready part of the organization. Ifthey weren't, one could discuss thenecessity of waiting for them. Butthey are there. However, they hardlyexpress themselves: Pouvoir Ouvrier,founded on the contestation of allaspects of current society, is notparticularly favorable to thecontestation of the least of its ownhabits. A certain conformism, in whichprobably no comrade can individuallyrecognize himself, appears as analienated will in the functioning of theorganization.

The unfortunate consequences,

among the people who are preciselyassembled on the perspectives of aradical critique, are obvious. Barjot[Cornelius Castoriadis] wrote in a noteat the end of I[nternal] B[ulletin] #17(May 1960): "the organization is calledupon to enlarge. Whatever its currentideological richness, it will be, withoutdoubt, little in comparison with thecontribution it can furnish to newcategories of adherents. It will beimpossible for us, not only to profitfrom the enrichment of the

organization's ideology, but simply tointegrate these new adherents, if wedo not disencumber ourselves of asectarianism inherited from thepast . . ." One couldn't say it better.

The argument, very frequent inPouvoir Ouvrier, according to which allthe faults of functioning do notprevent it from being "the best," themost conscious [organization] -- thusthe basis for a subsequent

development more in conformity withits principles -- obviously supposes

http://www.notbored.org/cornelius-castoriadis.htmlhttp://www.notbored.org/cornelius-castoriadis.html

8/3/2019 Debord2005f

3/4

that one addresses oneself tosomeone who defines himself,preliminarily, as a revolutionarymilitant (resolved to work in all casesin a political organization that is

closest to his ideas). The use of thisargument is in absolute contradictionwith the general analysis of thedepoliticization of modern capitalistsociety; and in absolute contradictionwith the project of a new type oforganization, which can onlyconstitute itself by calling upon acompletely different spirit than that ofthe traditional revolutionary militant,who is en route to disappear from theentire surface of the planet.

The idea, more unfortunate thanderisory, according to which thereality of the organization can (must)soveriegnly escape from allcontestation, naturally limits theexercise of this contestation to theparticular people who leave it, or,more generally, to those who do notjoin it. It is equally the weight of thisidea that renders ill the work of"rectifying" Pouvoir Ouvrier: allcritique of what this organization

rejects in its "unconscious" will beboldly taxed by sabotage -- by theparalyzing instances of the Superegoof the organization, to continue thisdubious psychoanalytic analogy.

The fundamental critique is thushindered; one throws away the ballastwith all the rest. One says to us: theorganization is what it is, but [at least]it is here. Elsewhere, there is nothinglike it. It is piquant to recover in thissort of sentimental blackmail the

vacant, Bolshevik illusion -- with themasses at least -- of Trotsky at theThirteenth Congress ("right or wrong,it is my Party"), an illusion of whichone has seen the long exploitation. Ibelieve that it is, at first, more correctto ask oneself, as the Englishcomrades did in their platform, towhat extent an unsuccessful attemptby a new revolutionary organizationrisks aggravating the discouragementof the workers. In the French group,the question is a little different,especially since it is a question of

students, the teacher/studentrelationship doesn't really weigh uponcertain people, and even less when itis masked by an ideology thatexpressly critiques relationships of

this type. But, in the end, theundiscussed recognition of the greatrevolutionary value of theorganization can not suffice to preventdiscouragement, even amongstudents, who have not really beenintegrated into the organization. Onecan be assured that if they haven'tsucceded in understanding thereasons for their disappointment, theydiscreetly leave with a badconscience.

As to the quite real fact that, formany, Pouvoir Ouvrierrepresents aterrain of socialization, a game, etc., Idon't think that this meritsconsideration from the point of view ofthe revolutionary critique of humanaffairs, which normally leads to a goodnumber of [organizational] ruptures.These even include the ruptures byseveral young militants that Barjotseems to fear when he recalled,towards the end of the [previous]

national conference, that theorganization, if its wants to extenditself, can not be made "of a lot ofpeople integrated into professionallife" (my tactical divergence fromBarjot on this point will be that ofrecalling that this organization can not"extend itself" again, but can onlyreconstitite itself).

To conclude:

Given the absence of tendencies inPouvoir Ouvrieron the questions thatappear really central to me, andconsidering that this fact renders theentirety of the organizationresponsible for a functioning that isn'timposed upon it bureaucratically, Ihave voted, in so far as I'm a delegateto the conference, for the pure andsimple continuation of the old EditorialCommittee.

Given my opposition, explained

above, to the organization as it is

8/3/2019 Debord2005f

4/4

today, I find myself obliged towithdraw from it (all the more, I mustbear in mind my situationistcomrades, a question that has neverbeen approached by Pouvoir Ouvrier

since the departure of Canjuers[Daniel Blanchard], but which doesn'tremain any less real for that). Ispecify, if all this can have someusefulness, that I haven't spoken froma Lefortist perspective; but from thenecessity of a really effectiveorganization (not the utopia in whichcertain members ofPouvoir Ouvrierbelieve). And not in favor of someprivatization, either; but against therole of private life uncritiqued in theorganization or, symmetrically,

outside of it -- as illusorycompensation for its unsatisfiedmilitants.

Please believe, comrades, in my deepsympathy for you in any case; and forall that, in your action, goes towardsthe deepening of your programmeand its translation into action.

Guy

(Published in Guy Debord,Correspondance, Volume 2, 1960-1964. Translated from the French byNOT BORED! April 2005.)

http://www.notbored.org/blanchard.htmlhttp://www.notbored.org/blanchard.html