First, thank you for writing to me,[1] because it is preferable to have a written critique than a critique by "word of mouth."[2]
I believe that it is necessary to make certain things precise again: there is no "situationism," even if my article[3] carried this title -- there are only situationists.
I contest the cultural activity of anarchism (like that of "Marxism") in the sense that it is a cultural activity of the XIXth Century. Because it is quite necessary to recognize that the appearance of "theoreticians" dates from this era and that we are linked to them.
All of the meaning of the article can be false if one doesn't bear in mind that it is a question of the culture of today, in the sense of a pseudo-culture and a pseudo-science (Planete).
To speak of liberty today can only be to make a sad pleasantry if one doesn't refer to the central themes of the "milieu," of conditioning and propaganda.
At this level, all of the ideologies are the same, even the libertarian ideology, because the words no longer carry the same meanings. All the powers currently speak of liberty . . . the greatness of man, etc. . . . In brief, they are all humanists -- in the sense that the Nazis constructed stalags for their prisoners.
In any case, I think that this article will not please anyone, neither the anarchists, nor the situationists. But I estimate that I have been foolishly honest. Because to develop certain themes, I was obliged to mention the texts of the SI.
On the subject of your book, I must say that I have not read it. But in admitting that in it you respond to all the problems of the era, you do so theoretically but not in practice. The individual in our era has the value of a fly on a sticky paper-strip.
Finally, seeing that I can not develop everything here, I would like to respond to your last phrase, which motivates your letter -- "is not oriented in a fashion to emphasize that what is valuable is already among the anarchists." Actually, [in anarchism] there are many things, quite often scattered, without coherence (theoretically, at least). In the indicated sense, I have been obliged to make a "libertarian apology."
Thus, I will not insist on the positive sides of anarchy.
But, for example, were there anarchists capable of being interested in the surrealism of their era?
In any case, I think that, instead of critiquing "situationism" through a short article, it would be better to read their pamphlets -- Situationist International -- The Old Mole [bookstore], rue des fosses-jacques, Paris, 5th -- I send you the pamphlet by the Strasbourg situationists along with this letter.
For you to judge.[1] See letter dated 5 December 1966.
[2] The French employed here is qu'en dira-t'on.
[3] See What is situationism?, published in Le Monde Libertaire #127, December 1966.
(Never published. Private distribution. Translated from the French and footnoted by NOT BORED! September 2005.)