Those of my comrades who have already read your article on the SI have all found it very good; and we appreciate the quantity of exact information that you have gathered together in a page.
It would not be great praise to say that it is the best article on the subject so far, since you know that the practically serious articles have been very few.
To the question that you justly pose at the beginning, "why doesn't one speak of it?" I believe that one can respond more precisely: on the one hand, there still are not visible currents in modern society seeking a global critique (I mean to say: in an actually new way); on the other hand, we have not accepted, on one of a crowd of occasions, to be partially recognized and received in cultural recuperation -- in the "Godard generation" -- with the result that we have remained as badly seen as theoreticians as "artists." The latter would be the minimum of the required seriousness!
The principal merit of your article is certainly that you say how we are close to the anarchists on the fundamental options and, at the same time, you show where the difference, which is essential, resides. Such confrontations will certainly be necessary in the general movement of supercession of the old positions of revolutionary critique.Cordially,
(Published in Guy Debord, Correspondance, Volume 3, 1965-1968. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! August 2005.)