The reader of the texts in the "first series" and the consecutive discussions, it seems to me, comes to similar conclusions as those Guy [Debord] reached in his text of 27 April . Except for that which concerns the existence of the SI [Situationist International] in France and thus its mode of existence, it appears to me more and more difficult to arrange and separate the three "essential points already touched upon."
The only way the SI can continue being a revolutionary organization is to do more and other things than it has done before. This is a banality, but it merits being said to better localize the center of the crisis.
It is now a question of reinforcing our specificity (point "a" raised by Guy), because the absence of theoretical development among us (point "b") has, on the one hand, fixed our practical attitude in a bit of "situ-boasting" and, on the other hand, brought in tendencies of the old revolutionary politics (the Councils, etc.); it is of course the lack of verified participation -- always verifiable -- of all (point "c") that has, at the same time, occasioned the arrest of our theoretical elaboration and the abandonment of our specificity.
If we want these debates to involve a theoretico-practical revival, it is necessary that we define the minimum situationist practical-style (plunder, etc.) as the power to make the theoretical work indispensible and necessarily specific to the situationists.
All this must find its practical verification soon. The production of #13 of the journal  will permit us to see if we are at least capable of making a journal equal (and thus superior) in quality to those that have already appeared. This test won't be the last.
Note: written by Rene Riesel, 12 May 1970. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! August 2004.Translator's notes:
 The French situationists intended to produce a thirteenth issue of their journal Internationale Situationniste, but never did.