The repeated agreement on our weaknesses again hasn't resulted in a practical accord on the postivity of what we attempt to accomplish together. Two principles are henceforth beyond discussion: no impertinence in and with the SI [Situationist International]; and general participation in the uninterrupted proof of creative capacities (the permanent re-adhesion of which Christian [Sebastiani] spoke).

It is less a question of being together in a sort of organic community, which we don't want, than a question of acting together. And it is ridiculous to suppose that this is only possible and desirable when we meet once a week (one recently evoked the now-manifest tendency to think at a pre-determined time). To think by group discipline obviously amounts to thinking one way for the group and another for oneself, thus thinking as badly of one as of the other. If it appears necessary to be more and more explicit among us concerning our specificity, it is nevertheless distressing to have to say how each member should comport himself so as to strive to be at the center of the organization, to make the group an extension of what it wants to be. Our wager is simple: it supposes that we have sufficient passion to fashion the radical theory and practice that will astonish the masses. For all the reasons we can see, those who lose this bet will no longer have a place among us.

To be emphasized, in particular:

-- the "Manifesto" [1] and its tactical application
-- not meeting with other groups or autonomous individuals until they have proved their autonomy
-- to make precise and recall our specificity in theoretical and practical elaboration

One of the things lacking is a long discussion of the function of the worker in the commodity-spectacle society and our strategy.

I propose that these projects or suggestions are centrally held in an open dossier and communicated to each [situationist]. Under this series of themes: finance, agitation, discussions, work in progress or desirable, etc.

I emphasize that I'd like to see a precision of the orientation of the journal in a clearly unitary sense. It seems to me that #13 [2] must evoke the firing of mortar shells against all positions, including our positions that have been occupied by the enemy (put together close to Rene-Donatien [Vienet's] formula for a generalized assault):

-- short corrosive notes, easily readable because grouped by themes and illustrating the "Notification" [to the readers]
-- each theme is a recollection and a precise rendering of our offensive sectors (spectacle, survival, separation, parcelization, totality, supercession, etc.)
-- what we expect from the revolution (and how), that which isn't revolutionary (what will never be, what can become revolutionary); critique of terrorism[3]
-- also recollect those whom we have never accepted, met with or discussed anything (Christians, Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc.), and those with whom we will never discuss anything (our candidates for guard dogs, etc.)
-- perhaps a denunciation of the notion of the Party and the incorporation of formulations in the style of graffiti we'd like to see on the walls
-- appealing to exemplary news items
-- #13 must be a #9 to a superior degree

Note: written by Raoul Vaneigem, 19 May 1970. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! August 2004.

[1] The situationists planned to write and publish a "Situationist Manifesto" modeled on Marx & Engel's "Communist Manifesto" (1848), but never did.

[2] The situationists planned to publish a thirteenth issue of their journal L'Internationale Situationniste, but it never came out.

[3] See Vaneigem's comments on Terrorism or Revolution (1972).