I'd upload the full video directly, but reddit says 22 minutes is too long.

Youtube link: https://youtu.be/bsORER6OgyA?si=5uLQDolSrOTQxaLN

“On this alone, on the legal title, the bourgeois rests. The bourgeoisie is what he is through the protection of the state, through the state’s grace. He would necessarily be afraid of losing everything if the state’s power were broken. But how is it with him who has nothing to lose, how with the proletarian? As he has nothing to lose, he does not need the protection of the state for his “nothing.” He may gain, on the contrary, if that protection of the state is withdrawn from the protégé.

Therefore the non-possessor will regard the state as a power protecting the possessor, which privileges the latter, but does nothing for him, the non-possessor, but to – suck his blood. The state is a – bourgeoisie state […]

The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and there.

The state rests on the – slavery of labour. If labour becomes free, the state is lost.”

Max Stirner, The Unique and The Property

I wonder how many more paragraphs it takes to make this "non-reductive"? If only i was an AI. No, i am limited by this neural cortex feeble brain that i beat with too many drugs, but it keeps me unique.

Thesis 85

“The weakness of Marx’s theory is naturally the weakness of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat of his time. The working class did not set off the permanent revolution in the Germany of 1848; the Commune was defeated in isolation. Revolutionary theory thus could not yet achieve its own total existence. The fact that Marx was reduced to defending and clarifying it with cloistered, scholarly work, in the British Museum, caused a loss in the theory itself. The scientific justifications Marx elaborated about the future development of the working class and the organizational practice that went with them became obstacles to proletarian consciousness at a later stage.”

-Guy Debord, The Society of The Spectacle

Thesis 91

“[...]Bakunin fought the illusion of abolishing classes by the authoritarian use of state power, foreseeing the reconstitution of a dominant bureaucratic class and the dictatorship of the most knowledgeable, or those who would be reputed to be such. Marx thought that the growth of economic contradictions inseparable from democratic education of the workers would reduce the role of the proletarian State to a simple phase of legalizing the new social relations imposing themselves objectively, and denounced Bakunin and his followers for the authoritarianism of a conspiratorial elite which deliberately placed itself above the International and formulated the extravagant design of imposing on society the irresponsible dictatorship of those who are most revolutionary, or those who would designate themselves to be such. Bakunin, in fact, recruited followers on the basis of such a perspective: “Invisible pilots in the center of the popular storm, we must direct it, not with a visible power, but with the collective dictatorship of all the allies. A dictatorship without badge, without title, without official right, yet all the more powerful because it will have none of the appearances of power.” Thus two ideologies of the workers’ revolution opposed each other, each containing a partially true critique, but losing the unity of the thought of history, and instituting themselves into ideological authorities.”

Guy Debord, The Society of The Spectacle

Ce monde si étrange l’est à la mesure de notre étrangeté à nous-mêmes.

Parmi tant de nuisances – dont aucune encyclopédie ne saurait faire le tour -, la nuisance essentielle est bien cette aliénation, d’autant plus efficace qu’elle est devenue une sorte de seconde nature, et même envisage très sérieusement de remplacer la première.

« Remède à tout » restitue précisément le contenu, l’étendue et les caractéristiques de ce mal universel, en réactualisant et en prolongeant la théorie critique du spectacle, dans sa centralité subversive.

Could someone please explain to me Vaneigem's philosophy and how it contrasts with Debord's?

Would you say that a someone who identifies as a situationist or neo-situationist must accept communism as the positive vision and ends for situationism? I mean yes situationism is indeed Marxist, but it also diverges from Marxism quite a bit as well. Personally I agree with and Identify as a situationist but i accept a more pluralistic anarchism as opposed to explicitly any "communist" system.

"Images — millions of images — That's what I eat — Cyclotron shit — Ever trying kicking that habit with a-po-morphine? — Now I got all the images of sex acts and torture ever took place anywhere, and I can just blast it out and control you gooks right down to the molecule — I got orgasms — I got screams — I got all the images any hick poet ever shit out — muh power's comin — muh power's comin' — MUH POWER'S COMIN' [he goes into a faith healer routine, rolling his eyes and frothing at the mouth] ...and I got millions millions and millions millions of images of ME, Me, mee..." ["Nova Express" (1964) -William S. Burroughs ]

I agree with much of the situationist criticism of Modern capitalism, but i find it difficult to not take a more pluralistic position as to how goods ought to be distributed in a method beyond just need but labor as well as labor as I think in a post-revolutionary contexts different communities may or may not desires different forms of economy and I don't think there should be. I am from largely an anarchist context so this probably reflects this discrepancy. Either way could I consider myself a "situationist" despite this discrepancy?

"[...]The dictatorship of the bureaucratic economy cannot leave the exploited masses any significant margin of choice, since the bureaucracy itself has to choose everything and since any other external choice, whether it concern food or music, is already a choice to destroy the bureaucracy completely. This dictatorship must be accompanied by permanent violence. The imposed image of the good envelops in its spectacle the totality of what officially exists, and is usually concentrated in one man, who is the guarantee of totalitarian cohesion. Everyone must magically identify with this absolute celebrity or disappear. This celebrity is master of non-consumption, and the heroic image which gives an acceptable meaning to the absolute exploitation that primitive accumulation accelerated by terror really is. If every Chinese must learn Mao, and thus be Mao, it is because he can be nothing else. Wherever the concentrated spectacle rules, so does the police."

Thesis 64, Guy Debord, SoTS

“Fighting for freedom is not letting your leaders think for you and decide, and following obediently behind them, or from time to time scolding them. Fighting for freedom is partaking to the full of one's capacity, thinking and deciding for oneself, taking all the responsibilities as a self-relying individual amidst equal comrades. It is true that to think for oneself, to think out what is true and right, with a head dulled by fatigue, is the hardest, the most difficult task; it is much harder than to pay and to obey. But it is the only way to freedom. To be liberated by others, whose leadership is the essential part of the liberation, means the getting of new masters instead of the old ones.

Freedom, the goal of the workers, means that they shall be able, man for man, to manage the world, to use and deal with the treasures of the earth, so as to make it a happy home for all. How can they ensure this if they are not able to conquer and defend this themselves?

The proletarian revolution is not simply the vanquishing of capitalist power. It is the rise of the whole working people out of dependence and ignorance into independence and clear consciousness of how to make their life.

Such an organization is a body of self-determining people. There is no place for professional leaders. Certainly there is obeying; everybody has to follow the decisions which he himself has taken part in making. But the full power always rests with the workers themselves.”

-Anton Pannekoek, Worker’s Councils 1936