Originally Posted by MrDibble
There's nothing wrong with Nietzsche, I like him myself. He could be wrong about some things, but his central thesis I don't have a problem with.
As for the pro-Situ thing, personally I think
a) they don't really grok what Situationism was really about, they over-intellectualize it and try too much to force it to fit an anarchist mould when it really wasn't an anarchist movement.
b) they're too post-Leftist for my tastes, again for overly-intellectual reasons. Again, that's too simple a statement, but I mean that I see divorcing anarchism from its leftist roots is personally a mistake. By all means distance yourself from Marxism or any particular ideology, but replacing that with such wank as anarchoprimitivism and rejection of morality is never going to overcome capitalism. There's a lot to like in post-Left anarchist thought, but I think overall rejection of roots is a bit hasty.
Heh. I wasn't familiar with Situationism, so I checked Wikipedia, and found this this quote from Guy Debord:
The only people who will be excluded from this debate are... those who in the name of some sub-anarchist spontaneism proclaim their opposition to any form of organization, and who only reproduce the defects and confusion of the old movement ó mystics of nonorganization, workers discouraged by having been mixed up with Trotskyist sects too long, students imprisoned in their impoverishment who are incapable of escaping from bolshevik organizational schemas. The situationists are obviously partisans of organization ó the existence of the situationist organization testifies to that. Those who announce their agreement with our theses while crediting the SI with a vague spontaneism simply donít know how to read.
This, of course, doesn't reject anarchism, just some of its more idiotic variants, but I like the snark. Situationism itself, on the other hand, just seems kind of ridiculous.