What do you think?
Rate this book


59 pages, Paperback
First published November 22, 1966
“The principal platitude of all future revolutionary organization must be the theoretical and practical denunciation of Stalinism in all its forms.” (Situationist International, On the Poverty of Student Life 1966, p.32, Active, 2023)Bold strategy, let us see how it pans out (it does not). Instead, the author instructs us to imitate:
“Japan [...] the only industrialized country where this fusion of student youth and working class militants has already taken place.” (Situationist International, p.27)That is correct “be more similar to the country that got nuked”, and is now basically US territory with troops stationed there. The author of this pamphlet turns defeats into successes! This patented “success” is now to be worshipped and repeated:
“The first great ‘failure’ of workers’ power, the Paris Commune, is in fact its first great success” (Situationist International, p.28)Unfortunately when les communards were “storming heaven” they stopped short of the bank:
“in the economic sphere much was left undone which, according to our view today, the Commune ought to have done. The hardest thing to understand is certainly the holy awe with which they remained standing respectfully outside the gates of the Bank of France. This was also a serious political mistake. The bank in the hands of the Commune -- this would have been worth more than ten thousand hostages. It would have meant the pressure of the whole of the French bourgeoisie on the Versailles government in favour of peace with the Commune [….] the Commune, composed as it was of Blanquists and Proudhonists” (F. Engels, Introduction 1891, in: K. Marx, The Civil War in France, p.13, FLP, Peking, 1970)But, to do otherwise would be so-called:
“Stalinist counter-revolution” (Situationist International, p.14)
“edulcorated Stalinism: Togliatti’s, Garaudy’s, Khrushchev[!!!], Mao’s, etc.” (Situationist International, p.15)Now this is a “situation”, and not at all an unholy garbling of ideas. The whole text is just breaking down. Here we have a veritable “revolution” in logic: “Stalin = Khrushchev” (don’t laugh!)