8/3/2019 Debord2006h

1/3

The Organization Questionfor the SIby Guy Debord

1. Everything the SI has been knownfor up till now belongs to a period thatis fortunately over. (More precisely, itcan be said that that was our secondperiod, if the 1957-1962 activity thatcentered around the supersession ofart is counted as the first.)

2. The new revolutionary tendenciesof present-day society, however weakand confused they may still be, are no

longer confined to a marginalunderground: this year they areappearing in the streets.

3. At the same time, the SI hasemerged from the silence thatpreviously concealed it. It must nowstrategically exploit this breakthrough.We cannot prevent the termsituationist from becomingfashionable here and there. We mustsimply act in such a way that this(natural) phenomenon works more forus than against us. To me, whatworks for us is not distinct from whatserves to unify and radicalizescattered struggles. This is the SIstask as an organization. Apart fromthis, the term situationist could beused vaguely to designate a certainperiod of critical thought (which it isalready no mean feat to haveinitiated), but one in which everyoneis responsible only for what he doespersonally, without any reference to

an organizational community. But aslong as this community exists, it willhave to distinguish itself fromwhoever talks about it without beingpart of it.

4. Regarding the necessary tasks wehave previously set for ourselves, weshould now concentrate less ontheoretical elaboration (which shouldnonetheless be continued) and moreon the communication of theory, onthe practical linkup with whatever new

gestures of contestation appear (by

quickly increasing our possibilities forintervention, criticism, and exemplarysupport).

5. The movement that is hesitantly

beginning is the beginning of ourvictory (that is, the victory of what wehave been supporting and pointingout for many years). But we must notcapitalize on this victory (with eachnew affirmation of a moment ofrevolutionary critique, at whateverlevel, any advanced coherentorganization must know how to loseitself in revolutionary society). Inpresent and forthcoming subversivecurrents there is much to criticize. Itwould be very poor taste for us tomake this necessary critique whileleaving the SI above it all.

6. The SI must now prove itseffectiveness in a new stage ofrevolutionary activity or elsedisappear.

7. In order to have any chance ofattaining such effectiveness, we mustrecognize and state several truthsabout the SI. These were obviously

already true before; but now that wehave arrived at a point where thistruth is verifying itself, it hasbecome urgent to make it moreprecise.

8. We have never considered the SI asan end in itself, but as a moment of ahistorical activity; the force ofcircumstances is now leading us toprove it. The SIs coherence is therelationship, striving toward

coherence, between all ourformulated theses and between thesetheses and our action; as well as oursolidarity in those cases where thegroup is responsible for the action ofone of its members (a collectiveresponsibility that holds goodregarding many issues, but not all). Itcannot be some sort of masteryguaranteed to someone who would bereputed to have so thoroughlyappropriated our theoretical basesthat he would automatically derive

from them a perfectly exemplary line

8/3/2019 Debord2006h

2/3

of conduct. It cannot be a demand for(much less a pretension of) an equalexcellence of everyone in all issues oractivities.

9. Coherence is acquired and verifiedby egalitarian participation in theentirety of a collective practice, whichsimultaneously reveals shortcomingsand provides remedies. This practicerequires formal meetings to arrive atdecisions, transmission of allinformation, and examination of allobserved lapses.

10. This practice presently requiresmore participants in the SI, drawn

from among those who declare theiraccord and demonstrate their abilities.The small number of members, ratherunjustly selected until now, has beenthe cause and consequence of aridiculous overvaluation officiallyaccorded to each of them merely byvirtue of the fact that they were SImembers, even though many of themnever demonstrated the slightest realcapabilities (consider the exclusionsthat have occurred over the past year,whether of the Garnautins or the

English). Such a pseudoqualitativenumerical limitation both encouragesstupidities and exaggeratedlymagnifies the importance of eachparticular stupidity.

11. Externally, a direct product of thisselective illusion has been themythological recognition ofautonomous pseudogroups, seen asgloriously situated at the level of theSI when in fact they were only feebleadmirers of it (and thus inevitablysoon to become dishonest vilifiers ofit). It seems to me that we cannotrecognize any group as autonomousunless it is engaged in autonomouspractical work; nor can we recognizesuch a group as durably successfulunless it is engaged in united actionwith workers (without, of course,falling short of our Minimum Definitionof Revolutionary Organizations). Allkinds of recent experiences haveshown the coopted confusionism of

the term anarchist, and it seems to

me that we must oppose iteverywhere.

12. I think that we should allow SImembers to constitute distinct

tendencies oriented around differingpreoccupations or tactical options, aslong as our general bases are not putin question. Similarly, we must movetoward a complete practical autonomyof national groups as soon as they areable to really constitute themselves.

13. In contrast to the habits of theexcluded members who in 1966pretended to attain inactively atotal realization of transparency and

friendship in the SI (to the point thatone almost felt guilty for pointing outhow boring their company was), andwho as a corollary secretly developedthe most idiotic jealousies, liesunworthy of a gradeschool kid, andconspiracies as ignominious as theywere irrational, we must accept onlyhistorical relationships among us(critical confidence, knowledge ofeach members potentials and limits),but on the basis of the fundamentalloyalty and integrity required by the

revolutionary project that has beendefining itself for over a century.

14. We have no right to be mistakenin breaking with people. We will haveto continue to be more or lessfrequently mistaken in admittingpeople. The exclusions have almostnever marked any theoreticalprogress in the SI: we have notderived from these occasions anymore precise determination of what isunacceptable (the surprising thingabout the Garnautin affair was that itwas an exception to this rule). Theexclusions have almost always beenresponses to objective threats thatexisting conditions hold in store forour action. There is a danger of thisrecurring at higher levels. All sorts ofNashisms could reconstitutethemselves: we must simply be in aposition to demolish them.

15. In order to make the form of this

debate consistent with what I see as

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/11.mindef.htmhttp://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/11.mindef.htmhttp://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/11.mindef.htmhttp://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/11.mindef.htm

8/3/2019 Debord2006h

3/3

its content, I propose that this text becommunicated to certain comradesclose to the SI or capable of takingpart in it, and that we solicit theiropinion on this question.

GUY DEBORDApril 1968

Note added August 1969:

These notes of April 1968 were acontribution to a debate onorganization that we were about toengage in. Two or three weeks laterthe occupations movement, which

was obviously more pleasant andinstructive than this debate, forced usto postpone it.

The last point alone had beenimmediately approved by the SIcomrades. Thus this text, whichcertainly had nothing secret about it,was not even a strictly internaldocument. Toward the end of 1968,however, we discovered thattruncated and undated versions of ithad been circulated by some leftistgroups, with what purpose I dontknow. The SI consequently decidedthat the authentic version should bepublished in this journal.

When the SI was able to resume thediscussion on organization in fall1968, the situationists adopted thesetheses, which had been confirmed bythe rapid march of events in theintervening months. The SI hadmeanwhile proved capable of acting in

May in a manner that respondedrather well to the requirements thatthese theses had formulated for theimmediate future.

Since this text is now receiving awider circulation, I think I shouldclarify one point, in order to avoid anymisunderstanding regarding therelative openness proposed for the SI.I was not advocating any concessionto united action with the semiradicalcurrents that are already beginning to

take shape; and certainly not any

abandonment of our rigor in choosingmembers of the SI and in limiting theirnumber. I criticized a bad, abstractuse of this rigor, which could lead tothe contrary of what we want. The

admiring or subsequently hostileexcesses of all those who speak of usfrom the viewpoint of excessivelyimpassioned spectators should not beable to find a justification in acorresponding situ-boasting on ourpart that would promote the beliefthat the situationists are wondrousbeings who have all actuallyappropriated in their lives everythingthey have articulated or evenmerely agreed with in the matter ofrevolutionary theory and program.

Since May we have seen themagnitude and urgency this problemhas assumed.

The situationists do not have anymonopoly to defend, nor any rewardto expect. A task that suited us wasundertaken and carried out throughgood and bad, and on the whole it wascarried out correctly, with the meansavailable to us. The presentdevelopment of the subjective

conditions of revolution should leadtoward formulating a strategy that,starting from different conditions, willbe as good as that followed by the SIin more difficult times.

G.D.

La question de lorganisation pourlI.S. appeared in InternationaleSituationniste

#12 (Paris, September1969). This translation by Ken Knabbis from the Situationist InternationalAnthology (Revised and ExpandedEdition, 2006). No copyright.

http://www.bopsecrets.org/cat.htmhttp://www.bopsecrets.org/cat.htmhttp://www.bopsecrets.org/cat.htmhttp://www.bopsecrets.org/cat.htm