- Paperback: 50 pages
- Publisher: Sabotage; Pmplt edition (January 1, 2002)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0951441736
- ISBN-13: 978-0951441732
- Product Dimensions: 0.2 x 5.2 x 8.2 inches
- Shipping Weight: 3.2 ounces
- Average Customer Review: 1.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #12,889,722 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Guy Debord Is Really Dead Paperback – January 1, 2002
|New from||Used from|
Browse award-winning titles. See more
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top customer reviews
At the center of the author's diatribe seems to be Debord's revisionist nature (the word 'kitsch' is appropriated to describe this tendency) in dealing with the failure of the SI during and following the 1968 social and cultural revolution in France.
Whether anyone had ever doubted that the Situationist International was incapable of ever achieving the inexorable aims of the organization at its outset is uncertain, but this failure seems weigh heavily in the arguments laid forth here.
Starting with a presupposition that by-and-large all discourse following the dissolution of the SI has been by 'wild-labellers' with no real knowledge of that 'Talmud of radical critique', Debord's 'Society of the Spectacle', we are faced with, in effect, an armchair critique of Debord's popular legacy.
Much of the muckraking that soon follows seems to stem from the SI's increasing Franco-centric nature, and then to Debord himself, who is described as pompous, autocratic and finally delusional, doing his best to cover his historical tracks with a certain deal of revisionism in the hastily assembled 'La veritable scission dans I'Internationale'. Not only easy targets but hardly worth our attention, if we are truly considering the legacy of Guy Debord and his central role in the formation (and dissolution) of the Situationist International.
After several tired criticisms (particularly those borrowed from the Encyclopedie des Nuisances) and then a (perfectly reasonable) defence of Raoul Vaneigem's split with the SI, we are presented with a conclusion of sorts:
'Conclusions are already clear in the development of our arguement, always suggested by the text and by its gaps.' What does this mean, especially in the clear absence of any 'development' herein? It means the author realized this hatchet job did in fact have nothing to say, and so chose the easiest means of escape from a jumbled invective: red-faced, they storm out of the room.
there has been criticism directed against Debord and the SI that has been constructive and insightful. this however is one of the worst literature on the subject - if not THE worst.