Bajo el capitalismo, toda la ideología transmitida por la burguesía a . humanas: barbarie, esclavismo, feudalismo, capitalismo. Sólo en un sistema socialista, basado en la propiedad social de los . al comunismo, una etapa similar al comunismo primitivo natural de las primeras sociedades humanas. Whereas, in the feudal mode, the exploitation of peasant-surpluses was , Estructura social del concejo primitivo de la Extremadura and E.M Schtajerman , La transicin del esclavismo al feudalismo, Madrid: Un balance de los estudios sobre el socialismo y el comunismo en la. Pirámide del sistema capitalista, alegoría crítica del capitalismo. El esclavismo: el hierro revolucionó la economía en su conjunto. El feudalismo: fue la concentración de grandes extensiones de tierras en manos de los.
|Published (Last):||13 August 2007|
|PDF File Size:||5.54 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.70 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Home Documents Historical Materialism feudalissmo Post on Nov 93 views. Bunyard, Tom Editorial Introduction pp. Haldon, John Centuries of Transition pp. What Kind of Transition? Astarita, Carlos The Problems of Comparison pp. A Left Forum pp. Spronk, Susan; Webber, Jeffery R. Los comunistas y el mundo del trabajo en la Argentina, Historia del trotskismo en Argentina y Amrica Latina.
Pensamiento Economico – Socialismo by Cesio Araya on Prezi
Marx en la Argentina: Sus primeros lectores obreros, intelectuales y cientficos pp. Contributi a una rilettura pp. Cesarale, Giorgio Citizens to Lords: These concerns are used as a means of clarifying Debords theory of spectacle and of highlighting its virtues and failings.
The essay uses Debords remarks on subjectivity and temporality to pursue the theoretical dimensions of his interest in strategy, and thereby addresses his Hegelian Marxism via his comments on the relation between strategy, history and dialectics. His concerns with temporality are, however, also shown to pertain to the theory of spectacles shortcomings as an account of capitalist society. The essay thus attempts to draw out some of the more-neglected foundational material upon which the theory of spectacle rests, contending that the former may be of greater contemporary interest than the latter.
Their anti-art stance has been canonised into the pantheon of art-history, and both psychogeography and dtournement that fluid language of anti-ideology2 have become tropes of popular culture. In the judge presiding over the closure of Strasbourg student-union felt compelled to describe situationist ideas as eminently noxious, and warned that their diffusion constituted a genuine threat;3 today, by contrast, they are actively taught within the university-environment.
Outside the lecture-hall, their popularity has led to the French states purchase 1. Quoted in Dark Starp. I will show that temporality by way of its relation to subjectivity and historical agency is not only foundational for Debords theoretical work, but also central to the SIs broader ambitions.
In consequence, I will suggest that these themes can be used not only to clarify the meaning of Debords theory, but also to highlight its failings and virtues; and through doing so, I shall argue that, if any aspect of this material can be classed as noxious, then it is perhaps not the theory of spectacle itself.
I will suggest that Debords theory can be seen to base its critique of capitals appearances on those appearances, occluding the social relations from which they arise and thus perpetuating the fetishism that it sought to attack. Yet, if one addresses the theory through its concerns with time and history, one can perhaps access something that may be rather more interesting, and perhaps also rather more pertinent: Furthermore, if the themes of time, history and strategy are taken together, one may be able to go some way towards reconstructing and evaluating the salient aspects of Debords Hegelian Marxism.
I will show that the latters emphasis on praxis, autonomy and anti-dogmatism drives this materials militancy, and thus perhaps also prompts its contemporary interest. Consequently, and as opposed to those who would claim that Debords relevance lies in the homologies between his theory of spectacle and more recent notions of subsumption,7 real abstraction8 or semio-capitalism,9 4. See also my Capitalism and Spectacle: For Hardt and Negri, for example, The Society of the Spectacle is perhaps the best articulation, in its own delirious way, of the contemporary consciousness of the triumph of capital Hardt and Negrip.
I shall also advance the contention that these more foundational concepts actively invite the supersession of the theory of spectacle; and, towards the end of the paper, I will also propose that they can in fact be seen to stand in contradiction to it. The importance of time and history to this material can perhaps be illustrated by way of the following initial clarification of Debords concept of spectacle.
Contrary to what seems at times to be popular belief, The Society of the Spectacle is not a diatribe about the mass-media: Debord himself describes the latter as the spectacles most stultifyingly [crasante] superficial manifestation,10 and states that the spectacle cannot be understood as a product of the technology of the mass dissemination of images.
Debords famous opening dtournement of Marx13 corresponds to his contention that capitals reversal of subject and object had been perfected [acheve]: One is thus separated from autonomous control over ones own life, and thus from history; a separation that the situationist project sought to rectify. This interpretation will be developed during the course of this essay, and I shall begin by introducing the connection between Debords views on history and his concerns with strategy.
To that end, we might now look briefly at the strategic conception of writing15 employed in his Comments on the Society of the Spectacle All quotations from Debordp.
The whole life of those societies in which modern conditions of production prevail presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles Debordp. Hussey, for example, writes that by the year in which the book appeared there was clearly a sense of defeat in Debords thought and demeanour.
The first thing to note pgimitivo is the import of history to the Comments analysis. Capitslismo states in this text that people who lack all historical sense can readily be manipulated,20 and adds that with consummate skill the spectacle organises ignorance of what is about to happen and, immediately afterwards, the forgetting of whatever has nonetheless been understood.
Yet Debord also adds the following, enigmatic claim: I will show that those ideas might clarify Debords linkage of the strategic and the historical, cmounismo, on that basis, offer a conunismo of the Comments feudalis,o which I suggest that it is perhaps not quite as bleak a text as it might seem. First, however, I shall aim to introduce the possible import of this discussion; Plant is however careful to note that the picture [the book] paints is by no means closed and hopeless ibid.
Situationist Internationalp. Such unification was Debords principal response to the problem of articulating a critique of spectacle within spectacular discourse. The Society of the Spectacle, for example, comunlsmo extensive use of dtournement, and thus, in a sense, actualises its critique through its very enunciation. Many further examples can be found throughout esclavksmo uvre,26 but the Comments is rendered particularly interesting in this respect by fsudalismo of its account of the spectacles integration into society.
Attendant to this was Debords concern that his work could be studied and used30 by those who devote themselves to maintaining the system of spectacular domination;31 an issue that led him to believe that he must take care not to give too much information to esclavidmo anybody.
Debords cinematic works are similarly composed of dtourn films; Debords autobiography, Panegyricis intended to show, through its subjective extravagance, the non-value of current society Debordp. For the final sense of the integrated spectacle is this that it has integrated itself into reality to the same feudalisom as it was describing it, and that it was reconstructing it as it was describing it.
As a result, reality no longer confronts the integrated spectacle as something alien. See, for example, Plant and Best and Kellner For the highest ambition of the integrated spectacle is.
This is of course easily dismissed, but see Eyal Weizmans work on the Israeli Defence Forces use of Debord, Deleuze and other such writers as means of re-conceiving urban combat Weizman Compare Debords comments on the explanatory diagrams to his Game of War: Plant, for example, observes that there is a great deal more to the Comments than sits on the page,36 but falls short of saying quite what is missing; Brown is also left asking what the missing ingredient37 might be.
Historical Materialism 19.1 (2011)
Kaufmann even goes so far as to claim that, in order to describe a society in the grip of a multiplicity of secret services, Debord became a kind of ironic Hercule Poirot,38 but he gives no indication as to quite what the great detective has hidden.
I would, however, suggest that one can begin to resolve this problem by noting that Debords orimitivo wording indicates that the books lures might lie in its plan or structure, and capitalisml the hallmark of the era might be an encounter with them: This can be qualified by capitalsimo following statement, taken from a letter of to a reader of the Comments: One can call lure anything that misleads rapid reading or computers.
In any case, there isnt a single inexact or deceptive piece of information [in my book].
I suggest another hypothesis to you: What if the only lure is the very evocation of the possibility of there being lures? On pourra y rencontrer, comme la signature mme de lpoque, quelques leurres Debordp.
Imries translation of the second sentence readers will encounter certain decoys, like the very hallmark of the era; Debordp. Perhaps [the suggestion of feuralismo is a lure?
Perhaps the only one? I do not believe, Debord writes, that one must translate lures, originally a term used by hunters and that evokes a lost trail, by the brutal trampa [trap] there is no false information, which might make the reader fall into error, in my book Debordp.
Socialosmo a suitably dialectical manoeuvre, sociqlismo Comments thus uses the spectacles own nature against it: There are, of course, any number of objections that one might want to make here, not least because this runs entirely counter to any notion of popular appeal or intelligibility Debord was never one to make concessions to his audience.
It is worth noting here that an feudalidmo number of commentators have taken to making similar claims. Giorgio Agamben once wrote that Debords books should be used. I will attempt to rectify this to some extent, but not by presenting Debords books as esoteric field-manuals: Sun Tzu is particularly apposite in this respect because of the captalismo between the Taoist and Hegelian focus on interrelated opposites.
See, for example, Sun Tzus recommendation that one should use the enemy to defeat the enemy Sun Tzup.
Sun Tzu in fact provides the epigraph to the Comments, and was said by Debord to be similar to Machiavelli and Clausewitz by virtue of the purportedly dialectical aspects of his work Debordp. See Kaufmannpp. Class War Games I thus hope to shed some light on the mode of thought spoken of in the following passage, taken from a letter of The principal work that, it appears to me, one must engage in as the complementary contrary to The Society of the Spectacle, which described frozen alienation and the negation that is implicit in it is the theory of historical action.
One must advance strategic theory in its moment, which has come. At this stage and to speak schematically, the basic theoreticians to retrieve and develop are no longer Hegel, Marx and Lautramont, but Thucydides, Machiavelli and Clausewitz.
In Debord made a list of the citations and dtournements employed in The Society of the Spectacle in order to assist its translation Debordpp. However, the phrase employed in the lines quoted above ltre ngatif qui est uniquement de la mesure ou il supprime ltre is left unattributed there.
Brown, who has translated Debords list of dtournements on his website Browntraces it albeit without signalling his interpolation to Kostas Papaioannous preface to a French edition of Hegels lectures on the philosophy of history that first appeared in Hegel Unfortunately, Papaioannou doesnt reference the source of the quotation either which perhaps informs its absence from Debords own list. I have as yet been unable to trace it further, but it may be a corruption of the Phenomenologys lessence ngative qui est seulement dans la mesure ou elle supprime ltre Hegelp.
There was no such thing, in [the SIs] view, as some original human nature, complete with its desires and its imaginary register, that a bad society had later perverted Jappep.
During the development and evolution of these modes of social organisation the power to shape history is said to grow as it becomes increasingly separated from its producers, culminating in the perfected separation of the spectacle. The book thus contends that modern society or, rather, the society of offers a new and previously unrealisable capacity for free self-determination: For the SI, labour could be superseded through technological automation,53 and it was in this sense that the goal of the situationist revolution was not the possession of the means of material production per se, but, rather, of the means of producing ones own life: The point, Debord claimed in The Society of the Spectacle, was to take effective possession of the community of dialogue, and the playful relationship to time, which the works of the poets and artists have heretofore merely represented.
The latter, as Vaneigem put it, had seemingly disappeared forever beneath an avalanche of sound systems, T. Crary is thus quite wrong when he writes that a striking feature of Debords book was the absence of any kind of historical genealogy of the spectacle Craryp.