8/3/2019 Debord2005h
1/2
LetterFrom Guy DebordTo J.-L. Jollivet[1]8 December 1961
Dear comrades
I agree to send you the twonominated negatives,[2] if you
aren'ttoo pressed for time (I myself don'thave them on hand). You
can havethem in 10 to 15 days.
To respond to the question of yourletter of 4 December [1961] on
themotives for my departure fromPouvoir Ouvrierand the possible
theoretical divergences between thesituationists and this
organization, Isend you a copy of my [5 May 1961]letter of
resignation, of which youhaven't any knowledge. I add to it atext
previously written in opposition toseveral stupidities published in
theS[ocialisme] ou B[arbarie] journal.
As to the letter of 5 May, severalcopies have been circulated in
PouvoirOuvrier, then quickly lost in the sands.Finally, I point out
that the firsteditorial note in I[nternationale]S[ituationniste] #6
must be read as acritique of the positions ofPouvoirOuvrier. That
is to say, of thenotorious insufficiency in practice,which doesn't
go without a serioustheoretical insufficiency at a certainlevel (I
mean by that: as [a lack of]critique of traditional politics on
theextreme Left, for which, without goinginto detail, they have
reason not tomake).
I believe that these documents mustbe accompanied by a
summaryclarification of the connectionsbetween Pouvoir Ouvrierand
theSituationist International [SI]:
Last year Canjuers [Daniel Blanchard]made contact with the SI in
Paris, and,after sufficiently long discussions tookplace between
him and I, we drafted"Preliminaries," which isn't, as youhave
written in N[otes] C[ritiques] #1,
a publication ofPouvoir Ouvrier.[3]
This text was in fact published by theSI, as a platform for
discussionproposed to the entirety of thesituationists and the
militants ofPouvoir Ouvrier. But, from the
beginning, it was presented as thesole responsibility of
Canjuers andmyself, without engaging any of theothers. It was the
exposition of what,it seemed to us, must be accepted byall (thus it
is a little weak on severalpoints). Later on, it was discussed
atlength and finally accepted by the SI;but it seems to me that one
didn'tstart to read it in Pouvoir Ouvrieruntilten months later. In
the meantime,Canjuers left France for a year, andthis discussion
came to a stand-still.
Several situationists had meanwhilebegun to participate, in a
sufficientlybadly defined way, in the activities ofPouvoir Ouvrier:
in France, becausethe current, archaic but invasiveproblems of
local capitalism made itdisagreeable not to be tied to apolitical
group; in Belgium, because,after the strike, the moment
appearedfavorable to launch an organization(called Pouvoir Ouvrier
Belgique[POB]).
Where are we now? A tendency, veryweak from all points of view,
which,after the discussions of the [mostrecent] national
conference, had triedto constitute itself in Pouvoir Ouvrierin
May-June 1961, has been able to donothing and its members are
nowdispersed. The subsequent evolutionconfirms to me the judgments
of myletter of 5 May [1961], so much sothat [it now appears] they
weren'tsevere enough: I have had the
occasion to read, three months afterits publication, an Internal
Bulletin(#25)[4] that recounts the debates ofthis national
conference. It is socomical in its falsity that it no longerappears
very useful to us to discusswith those who produce -- or cover-up--
such a clumsy farce (the case ofCanjuers become
belatedlyresurgent). Thus, the last situationistshave withdrawn
from POB inNovember [1961]. In Paris, I no longerhave contact on
the personal plane
with the one or two Pouvoir Ouvrier
http://www.notbored.org/debord.htmlhttp://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_edn1http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_edn2http://www.notbored.org/debord-5May1961.htmlhttp://www.notbored.org/blanchard.htmlhttp://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_edn3http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_edn4http://www.notbored.org/debord.htmlhttp://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_edn1http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_edn2http://www.notbored.org/debord-5May1961.htmlhttp://www.notbored.org/blanchard.htmlhttp://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_edn3http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_edn4
8/3/2019 Debord2005h
2/2
militants (and this quite ruined by thepressure of the
others).
We estimate that the work of creatinga new revolutionary
organization will
be very difficult, theoretically andpractically: less hurried
and lesscasual. But, on the other hand, theconstitution of this
organization canbe the point of departure for a veryrapid
development; contrary to thepatient administration of a
smallcapital of militants that enriches itself6% every year.
I ask you now to take good note ofthis information (see the
precise
terms of the letter to Jollivet) that Ihave been obliged to give
you, not toany other counsel (inside or outside ofPouvoir
Ouvrier).
I know too little the conditions inwhich you find yourselves, to
know ifan adhesion (a critical adhesion, thisgoes without saying)
to PouvoirOuvriersignifies an advance or aregression. These two
factors, as youwell know, are often of the samecloth.
Still, I add that we approve of thePouvoir Ouvrier's position
againstLefortism (which we consider weak inits theoretical premises
and offensivein its practical results). You also knowthat, in the
case ofNotes Critiques,whose autonomy with respect toArguments we
appreciate very much,we clearly see the same peril ofconstituting,
despite yourselves, a"Leftist cover" for Morin and his fine
team; which, to judge in allmoderation, appears to us to
jointogether bad faith and imbecility (inthe jumble of [Notes
Critiques] #22,only the short text [5] by GeorgeBuchanan stands
apart).
If one of you comes this way, call me.
Quite amicably,G.-E. Debord
[1]J.-L. Jolliver, editor of the journalNotes Critiques.
[2] The town of Mourenx (on themodel of Sarcelles) and the
Milwaukeestadium built for 43,000 spectatorsand [a sufficiently
large] parking lot.
[3] A correction appeared in NotesCritiques #2.
[4] April-May 1961.
[5] "For the second revolution,"followed by "Towards the
secondrevolution," in issue 25-26.
(Published in Guy Debord,
Correspondance, Volume 2, 1960-1964. All footnotes by Alice
Debord.Translated from the French by NOTBORED! April 2005.)
http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_edn5http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_ednref1http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_ednref2http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_ednref3http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_ednref4http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_ednref5http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_edn5http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_ednref1http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_ednref2http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_ednref3http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_ednref4http://www.notbored.org/debord-8Dec1961.html#_ednref5
