reflections on subjectivism and intellectualism (1977)

Written by Joel Cornuault in 1977, translated (from here) and published by me in January 1978.


See also this

rtfb 8

1:  “Disinterest compounded daily”

rtfb 8.2

rtfb 8


rtfb 9.2

rtfb 9

2: Double Reflection

rtfb 9.4

rtfb 10

rtfb 10.2

Samotnaf note from 1978: “This is abstract situationist rhetoric: there are no final resistances to the supersession of hierarchy”.

rtfb 10.3

separate deck chairs

rtfb 10.4

Samotnaf note from 1978: “Such is the vicious circle of the intellectualist that he will almost certainly noddingly smile in intellectual “recognition” of such a critique: but his schizoid reaction always returns to haunt him, at the very least in his dreams.”



Translated from Les evenements courants 3: Quelques reflexions sur le subjectivisme et l’intellectualisme pour servir a la critique des separations.

woman attacks cop polltax

the supersession of the separation between intellect and feeling: poll tax riot, u.k., 1990


Page counter added 30/3/13


2 responses to “reflections on subjectivism and intellectualism (1977)”

  1. SK avatar

    Your note 3 seems misguided, inserting an abstraction where there is none. While “there are no final resistances to the supersession of hierarchy” in the abstract, the author talks about THE OLD hierarchies, appropriately enough for a critique inseparable from a concrete historical perspective. I think it is fair to say that what were already the old hierarchies when this was written (for example the Marxist-Leninist parties that ruled half the world and effectively suppressed revolution in the other half) have by now been pretty finally superseded in various ways almost everywhere – even in places like China where new hierarchies with the same names but completely different (in some ways completely opposite) methods and aims continue to dominate.

    1. Sam FantoSamotnaf avatar

      You really got me there – having possibly read it unclearly 37 years ago I’m going to get in my time machine and correct this essential point, so then you won’t be able to have a go at me 37 years later for my unforgivable error…or maybe it was never clear what the “old hierarchies” were in the context in which it was written.

      Whilst most of the time you’re really sussed,and very original, occasionally you seem to go right off beam (which I suppose is what almost all of us do – but that’s no reason not to point it out), in this case, nit-pickingly pedanticly off-beam.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.