Class Wargames Presents Guy Debord's The Game … · Preface "I'm not a philosopher, I'm a...

Class WargamesPresents

Guy Debord'sThe Game of War

(the extended film script)

by

Richard Barbrook&

Fabian Tompsett

2012,Unpopular Books

Poplar

Published by:Unpopular Books, Poplar

All enquiries etc. should be addressed c/o:Salamander Press (London) Ltd,Island House,Roserton Street,London E14 3JD

This text is placed in the public domain in a gesture prefiguring theabolition of copyright.

Typesetting by:Salamander Press (London) Ltd.

Funded with support from the Arts Council of England

Copyleft: Class Wargames 2009http://www.classwargames.net

All proceeds from tha sale of this book will go towards the overthrow(sublation) of a capitalism.

IISSBBNN 997788--11--887711559933--9911--44

CCoovveerr XXeennooggrraapphhss bbyy AAlleexx VVeenneessss::Front: Overlooking the Thames,Back: Dorothy and Michael Hintze Sculpture

Galleries,Victoria & Albert Museum,

Dedicated to

Elena Mikhailovna Duffield(née Vorontsova)

1975 - 2012

Comrade, Class Wargamerand friend

Preface"I'm not a philosopher, I'm a strategist.”

- Guy Debord

We present here the extended film script of Class Wargames PresentsGuy Debord's The Game of War which provided the basis for Ilze Black'sfilm of the same name. Her final version involved the severe editing of thescript that we reproduce here as the full original text.

When I was first approached in 2007 by Richard Barbrook as towhether I would be interested in recreating the game which Guy Debordhas described in his 1987 book, Le Jeu de Guerre, he was somewhatsurprised to learn that I had already played the game. I had bought acopy back in the 1980s. However, when Debord ordered all remainingstocks of his books to be pulped in 1991, Le Jeu de Guerre became a bit ofa rarity as it had not sold well. In fact, back in the 1980s, I had printed upa number of boards. Indeed after rummaging through a pile of bric-a-brac, I was able to produce fifty odd sheets of vinyl printed with thefamiliar board design printed. Yes, I had played it and indeed consideredproducing a short run of copies in the late 1980s. However more pressingmatters meant that the game got forgotten.

So, some twenty years after it had been originally published, Iwas in a collective which was playing The Game of War in a series ofpublic venues ranging from Salute wargaming convention (organised by

5

the South London Warlords) to the former HQ of the Imperial RussianArmy located in the Hermitage Gallery, St Petersburg. This latter gigwas organised by Stefan Lutschinger, who helped curate the Cyberfestarts festival in St Petersburg in 2008. He quickly became a key memberof the group, joining artists Rod Dickinson and Alex Veness, figurinedesigner Mark Copplestone and web designer Lucy Blake, Richard, Ilzeand myself. Soon we were part of a revival of the game which involveddiffering groups across the globe. Not only had Éditions Gallimardrepublished the French edition in 2006, Alex Galloway of the RadicalSoftware Group in the USA had produced an on-line version calledKriegspiel. By 2007, Atlas Press had published Don Nicholson-Smith'sEnglish translation and by 2009 Ilze Black had realised our script as afilm.

Our collective took the name Class Wargames – which includeda reference to the political broadsheet Class War, which I had helpedproduce back in the 1980s. Thanks to Elena Vorontsova, another recruit,the film has been re-edited for a Russian version. We had been able togive demonstration play-throughs of the game accompanied byscreening of our film. This enabled us to show why Debord feared that TheGame of War might turn out to be the only one of his works “to whichpeople will venture to accord any value”.

As this revival unfolded, we realised that what seemed at firstglance a minor error in the English translation of rules, made the gameunplayable. We stumbled across academic attempts to discuss the gamewhich revealed that they too had not actually played the game. Werealised that what was crucial about our approach was that, as we werewriting this script, we were repeatedly playing The Game of War. It wasthis re-iterative experience which took us beyond recycling a piece oftwentieth century nostalgia (or even a nostalgia for adolescent hoursspent wargaming). As we learnt from the game, we understood its value

6

as a training tool. Far from being an alcohol-fuelled whimsy developedby a man well passed his prime (as some unkind critics hinted at), westarted to appreciate what Debord had set himself out to achieve.Richard and I are indebted to the input of all those who played the gamewith us, for, without their contribution, we would have been unable toproduce this film script.

While we were going about our work, Christine Albanel – whosubsequently has become an Executive Vice-President of the mobiletelephone corporation, Orange – had declared Debord's archive a“national treasure” in her capacity as French Minister of Culture.However, while the modern-day grandee may feel obliged toacknowledge Guy Debord's intellectual prowess, more and more peopleare coming to suspect that the current economic plight of the capitalistsystem has structural origins which cannot be dealt with through somequick-fix such as the politicians like to dream up. Although much of thework of the Situationists has been recuperated, the persistent need to getmove beyond capitalism becomes more and more apparent. As our script– and Ilze Black's excellent film made from it – illustrates, the politicaltensions of class antagonism have not been swept aside by thedevelopment of corporate-consumerist society. Indeed, we foresee thecrisis as underscoring economic and political tensions which once againputs class war on the agenda. In this context, the publication of this scriptis a small contribution to developing an approach to the strategic andtactical thinking which will be needed to face the conflicts of the future.

Fabian Tompsett

7

Class Wargames PresentsGuy Debord's

The Game of War

CONTENTS

1.0 Terrain

2.0: Arsenals

3.0: Combat

4.0: Cavalry

5.0: Lines of Communication

6.0: Final Credits

Terrain

SSuummmmaarryy ooff rruulleess The terrain of combat is abstracted as a twenty by twenty five grid ofuniform squares. The two armies are composed of combat units andcommunications units, each of which needs its own square toaccommodate it. Some terrain squares are designated as mountainswhere no playing piece may enter. The mountains block the lines ofcommunication and prevent a combat unit from giving support toanother piece whether in attack or defence. These two mountain rangesare ruptured by a single square, which represents a pass. These naturalfeatures on the board are complemented by forts and arsenals. Thearsenals serve as the fountainhead of the lines of communication: anetwork of straight lines radiating to activate the playing pieces. Theforts and passes offer a numerical advantage to their occupier’s capacityto defend themselves. Cavalry are unable to make charges againstcombat units placed on these terrain squares.

MMiilliittaarryy tthheeoorryy Look at the layout of the board. The terrain on each side is subtlydifferent. In the North, the two arsenals - here and here - are closetogether in the centre of the board separated by a predominantlyvertical mountain range. These two forts provide a strong defence for theleft flank while the other one over here is protecting the arsenal on theexposed right flank. In contrast, look how the South’s arsenals are placedat either end of the board, a horizontal mountain range dominates thecentre of its territory and these are its three forts spread out along thefrontier.

11

Before the fighting begins, the two players must decide their openingstrategy. Does the North – as in this deployment of its forces - abandon itsweak right flank to concentrate its combat units near its forts on the left?Or – in this alternative layout - does it leave a minimal force to hold thisstrong position on the left while its cavalry makes an outflankingmanoeuvre across the open terrain on the right. In the South, the player isinstead faced with the dilemma of an extended frontline. If the bulk ofthe army is deployed on one flank either on the right like this - or on theleft like this, the arsenal on the other flank can be easily taken. But,without a massing of forces on one side or the other, the South will lackthe firepower to beat the opposition in combat. Notice how in thisdispersed deployment, the South would almost certainly be defeated ifthe North concentrated its forces on this side of the board and thenlaunched an attack on the South’s left flank like this – or did the same onthe other side of the board and made an outflanking move on the rightlike this. In the game as in war, there is no optimal deployment – onlysome that are better than others.

Now let battle commence! As turn follows turn, the players must try totransform their strategic vision into tactical superiority. Both sidesmanoeuvre their forces seeking the best position on the board to fight inthe open, besiege forts and make outflanking moves. They are locked in alife-or-death struggle to break their opponent’s lines of communicationwhile preserving their own. Understanding the strengths and weaknessesof the terrain on both sides of the board is the key to victory. BecomeFrederick the Great in the Seven Years War: a few well positionedcombat units in strong forts - like the North has done here - can distractthe enemy long enough for superior forces to be concentrated for aknockout blow on the opposite flank. Be like Bonaparte crossing theAlps in 1796 to take on the Austrian army in Italy. A successful attackagainst a weakly defended mountain pass - like the South has justcarried out here - can shatter an opponent’s over-extended lines of

12

communication. Good generalship is a skill that is perfected throughpractice. Play The Game of War – and you will learn how to fight and winon the political and cultural terrain of the class war.

‘The instinctive understanding of a battlefield can bereduced to two aspects. The first is having the ability tojudge how many troops should be deployed where on theterrain. This habit can only be acquired through practice oncampaigns. The other talent, far superior to this, is to be ableto distinguish straightaway all the advantages which can begained from a terrain. You can acquire this talent andperfect it, as long as you have been born with a fortunategenius for war.’

Friedrich Hohenzollern,The King of Prussia’s Military Instructions to his Generals.

SSiittuuaattiioonniisstt ppoolliittiiccss At first sight, the terrain appears to be a simple grid of squares puncturedby the mountain ranges. However, when the player comes to considerhow the units behave in combat, a complex topological transformationbecomes apparent. As the power for one piece to support anotherradiates in straight lines, this leaves certain squares unsupported. Thisfeature is even more dramatic when considering the long-range guns ofthe artillery and reaches its apogee as increasingly complex supplynetworks are constructed out of the maze of ley lines issuing from thearsenals and the communication units.

At the outset, each player is given half of the game board upon whichthey secretly deploy their pieces. When both sides reveal their positions,the terrain is immediately transformed into the anticipation of threats

13

and opportunities emerging from the possibilities of the battlefield. Thevictor will be the player who can master this spatial-temporal situationby seizing the tactical advantage at the most strategic point.

The location of the arsenals imposes a war of position on the openingmoves of the game. The skilful player learns how to maintain thisdefensive strategy while simultaneously transforming it into a war ofmanoeuvre. Only a successful offensive strategy opens up freedom ofmovement for your own army, while simultaneously restricting youropponents’ options. But beware! Those who squander their opportunitiesor overlook their own weaknesses will soon find the tables turned againstthem.

The mountains give The Game of War its peculiar psychogeography,channelling the opposing forces into distinct theatres of confrontation.The defensive bonuses added to combat units in forts and passes can givea critical tactical superiority, holding back the enemy’s advance whileforces are mustered for a counter attack. The player who lacks a profoundknowledge of psychogeography will find themselves at a loss, while theiropponent weaves the disruption of the mountains and the bulwark of theforts into a more proficient command of the terrain as a whole.

The two opponents can be considered as contesting rival interpretationsof the topology of physical space under spectacular capitalism, each ofwhose coherence is to be tested by the other in real time. If they are ableto keep their forces in supply, then they will maintain the effectiveness oftheir army. But, if the coherence of their network of communicationbreaks down, they will experience a kind of vertigo, whereby thestability of their psychogeographic perception is disrupted: theirmachinations are foreclosed as they are obliged to refocus on salvagingwhat may turn out to be a hopeless situation.

14

The terrain is more than the territory. It is where the social relations ofcombat, movement and communication are played out. The Game of Waris the ludic manifestation of the class struggle. The terrain does notmerely constitute space, a formless mass of thinly spread squares. It istransmuted into psychogeography by the opposing armies whichconfront one another on the board, whose contestation determines thestrategic pinch-points where the successful player uses their tacticaladvantage to ensure they enjoy victory. In this way, Debord’s gamemirrors the Situationist critique of the capitalist enclosures of the land.When the Spies for Peace in 1963 successfully occupied one of theRegional Seats of Government – bunkers built by the British ruling classto provide a venue from which they could rule the radioactive ashes ofthe world in the event of thermo-nuclear war – this revolutionary act wascommended for ‘revealing the degree already attained by state powerover the terrain, its highly advanced establishment of a totalitarianfunctioning of authority’. Play The Game of War – and you will learn howto transform the enclosed lands of spectacular capitalism into theparticipatory playgrounds of cybernetic communism.

‘The proletarian revolution is that critique of humangeography through which individuals and communitieswill begin constructing places and events suitable for there-appropriation not only of their labour, but also of theirtotal history. By virtue of the resulting mobile spaces ofplay, and by virtue of freely chosen variations in the rules ofthe game, the autonomy of place and the authenticity of lifewill be discovered.’

Guy Debord,The Society of the Spectacle.

15

Arsenals

SSuummmmaarryy ooff rruulleess

Each side has two arsenals, which serve as the nodal points for a networkof lines of communication. These are the straight lines radiatinghorizontally, vertically and diagonally from the arsenals. Each turn, theactive player may move up to five playing pieces which are incommunication with at least one of their arsenals. The player then maynominate a single attack, mobilising those playing pieces which are incommunication and whose combat value can be brought to bear on thechosen square. Likewise, when the defender’s combat value is calculated,its pieces too must be in communication with an arsenal at the moment ofconflict. A player can destroy an opponent’s arsenal by moving one oftheir combat units onto its square. Any opposing piece must first bedislodged. The arsenal is destroyed as the obligatory attack for the turn inwhich it is occupied. The player who eliminates both of their opponent’sarsenals first wins the game.

MMiilliittaarryy tthheeoorryy The arsenals are situated on or near the back row of squares immediatelyfacing the two players. Here are those of the North grouped togetheraround the axis of its vertical mountain range. These are the South’sarsenals placed far apart on the opposing flanks of its territory.Bonaparte once joked that an army marches on its stomach. However, heforgot to add that soldiers need much else besides. The arsenals providethe rival armies not only with their food, but also with wages, recruits,weaponry, ammunition, uniforms, transport and medical care. Thefrontline must always be connected to its supply bases in the rear. The art

16

of war requires the support of a war economy. It is important to realisethat the arsenals are a symbolic representation of the major cities of theNorth and the South. From the palaces, parliaments and ministries inthese urban centres, the ruling elites of both sides send out orders to theirarmies in the field. State power is the driving force of military violence.War is a continuation of politics by other means.

Depriving the enemy’s army of sustenance from its two arsenals is thepath to victory. Troops can neither move nor fight without economicsupport and political direction from these urban powerhouses. Whilebreaking lines of communications can temporarily disable an opponent’scombat units, it is destroying the arsenals that will inflict irreparabledamage on the enemy. Learn from Bonaparte’s divide-and-rule strategywhen he first concentrated his forces to defeat the Austrian armydefending Vienna in 1805 and then overwhelmed the Prussian forcesprotecting Berlin in 1806. Seizing control of these two capital citiesended – for the moment - organised resistance to French domination overEurope. The North is following this excellent example by attacking firstagainst this arsenal here – and then swinging its forces around like this totake the other arsenal over here. But, whatever happens, don’t repeatBonaparte’s fatal mistake in 1812 of occupying Moscow while failing toprotect his lines of communication from a counter-attack by the Russianforces based in St Petersburg. At the end of this campaign, it was theFrench army that had been cut off from its supply bases and eliminated.See how the South has forgotten its military history in this game. Takingone of the enemy’s arsenals here means that its army – like Bonaparte’s inRussia - is now in a position where it can no longer keep open its own linesof communication. Successful generalship requires an intelligentcombination of courage and caution. Play The Game of War – and youwill learn how to dominate the bastions of political and economic poweron the battlefields of modernity.

17

‘When an army begins an operation, whether it is to attackthe enemy and invade his theatre of war or to take uppositions along its own borders, it necessarily remainsdependent on the arsenals which are its sources of supplyand replenishment and it must maintain communicationwith them at all times. They constitute the basis of itsexistence and survival. The army and its arsenals must beconsidered as a single whole.’

Carl von Clausewitz,On War

SSiittuuaattiioonniisstt ppoolliittiiccss In The Game of War, each player has two arsenals. Victory is achievedwhen one side dominates the board by destroying the communicationsnetwork created by their opponent’s arsenals. The players of the gameare mirror images of each other. Both of them are the good guys,champions of proletarian self-emancipation striving to overthrow thebastions of bourgeois hegemony. The enemy’s arsenals represent thepolitical and ideological superstructure of capitalist exploitation: thecentralised hierarchies of the state and the media. In this Situationistgame, smashing these bulwarks of spectacular oppression anticipates thetriumph of libertarian communism.

For each player, their own arsenals are the embodiments of proletarianpower. The Situationists celebrated the determination of our class to escapefrom the isolation and alienation of industrial civilisation. Representativedemocracy is insufficient. Trade unions and socialist parties can only improveliving conditions within the existing capitalist system. Participatorydemocracy is the leitmotif of the next stage of human civilisation. Massmeetings and community media prefigure the social institutions of our

18

emancipation from the rule of capital: the Workers’ Councils.

The two players exercise their Situationist faculties by taking on the roleof the dictatorship of the proletariat. Their twin arsenals are Workers’Councils: symbols of our class as the directing force of hi-tech modernity.Anticipating the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, The Game of War is arefutation of the false utopia of Leninism in its multiple variants. ‘AllPower to the Workers’ Councils’ might have been the watchword of the1917 Russian Revolution. But, when the Bolsheviks seized control of thestate in October of that year, this democratic yearning was cruellyreduced to an empty slogan. In the name of the Workers’ Councils,Lenin’s party reconstituted the despotism of the absolute monarchy in adeadlier form. The arsenals of Bolshevism are those of the bourgeoisenemy – and its communication units are generals, the archetypes ofspecialised power. In contrast, the Situationist player understands thattheir arsenals are Workers Councils: the proletariat determining its owndestiny in general assemblies. Their communication units aren’t generals,they’re revocable delegates whose authority derives from theparticipatory institutions of cybernetic communism. As soon as they stepoutside the network of ley lines emanating from the Workers’ Councils,their power disappears. Both sides have been set the same task: theascendancy of interactivity over the institutions of daily life.

All those who play The Game of War are Situationists. Through thesensuous practice of successfully defending and attacking arsenals, theycan become revolutionary theoreticians of proletarian self-emancipation. The best of them will apply these skills acquired bymanoeuvring pieces across the board to win victories in the struggles thatthey’re engaged in through everyday life. But remember this well - ClassWargames is not concerned with those who want to be expert players ofThe Game of War. We despise opportunists seduced by such a miserablepreoccupation. Those who suffer the agonies of defeat when a superior

19

opponent destroys their arsenals often discover more about themselves -and the world in which they live - than those who take victory in theirstride, particularly when that victory arises more through luck thanjudgement.

We know that The Game of War constitutes a proletarian zone ofdevelopment. This microcosm of class contestation is a dialectical activityinvolving not merely its players, but also the whole social ambience inwhich it is played. The game is a tool for conviviality, a spatial-temporalsituation created on the tabletop. Players can approach the game in waysof their own devising, whether using cunning schemes for seizing theenemy’s arsenals elaborated in advance or responding with a flippancywhich develops in direct proportion to the amount of alcohol andmarijuana consumed. Others may choose not to participate as players,preferring to flirt, chat or strategise with those around them. ClassWargames is dedicated to creating moments in time and space where thefate of an arsenal is experienced at an intense emotional, creative andintellectual level. Winning proletarian power requires deep militaryknowledge. Play The Game of War – and you will learn how to give yourall to the fight for collective liberation.

‘Reworking appropriated material not only leads to thediscovery of new forms of creativity; in addition, clashinghead-on with all social and legal conventions, it cannot failto be a powerful weapon in the service of a real classstruggle. The cheapness of its products is the heavy artillerywhich breaks through all the Chinese walls blockingunderstanding. It is the real means of proletarian artisticeducation, the first step towards media communism.’

Guy Debord and Gil Wolman,Methods of Detournement

20

CombatSSuummmmaarryy ooff rruulleess

Fighting between the two armies is dealt with arithmetically. Thecombat units consist of the infantry, cavalry and artillery pieces. Thecommunications units have no offensive combat value, but cancontribute to the strength of the defence. The active player nominates asquare occupied by their opponent to attack. They then designate whichof their units are participating this assault. The defender indicateswhether the threatened piece is reinforced by one or more nearbycombat units. Each playing piece has a numerical combat value forattack and defence. The defender can benefit from a terrain bonus fromthe passes and forts located on the board. The combined combat values ofthe two sides in this engagement are totted up and compared. The activeplayer’s offensive has no effect unless the total combat value of the attackexceeds that of the defence. Where the aggressor’s final score onlyexceeds that of their opponent’s by one, the defending playing piecemust retreat to an adjacent square as one of the permitted five moves oftheir next turn. If this is impossible, the playing piece is removed from theboard. The unit is also destroyed when the attacker’s combined combatvalue exceed that of the defender’s by more than one.

MMiilliittaarryy tthheeoorryy The two players – North and South - have deployed their pieces in theseopening positions. The game begins with both sides manoeuvring toachieve tactical superiority at key strategic points on the board. Eachknows that a combat unit’s value is stronger in defence than whenattacking. The first priority is ensuring that their troops are able toprovide support for each other against the enemy’s offensive moves.

21

Imitate Wellington at Waterloo in 1815 who constructed an inter-locking defensive line which repulsed every French attempt to break it.See how North’s infantry and artillery pieces are positioned here so eachone benefits from the combined combat value of the whole group. But, inthe game as in war, this cautious strategy may be able to stave off defeat,but it won’t deliver victory. Smashing the enemy’s communicationsnetwork can only be achieved by going over to the offensive. Here theNorth’s army has just repelled an outflanking manoeuvre by the South.Now it is time to seize the initiative on the battlefield. The North mayhave fewer troops on the board than its opponent, but it can combine thecombat values of these infantry, cavalry and artillery units to make asuccessful attack against the South’s piece on this square. The two sides’scores are calculated and the North has a 2-point advantage. The Southhas lost its cavalry unit. Even better, the South’s line of communication tothis arsenal is now dangerously exposed. The North knows what to donext. One strike here - and the game is over.

Emulate Bonaparte’s strategy in the 1805 Austerlitz campaign. TheFrench army routed the much larger combined forces of the Austrian andRussian empires through first making outflanking manoeuvres whichforced them to disperse their troops to protect their lines ofcommunications - and then concentrating its own attack on the weakestpoint in the enemy’s defence. Winning a decisive battle over a keystrategic square on the board delivers an elegant victory. But, sometimes,the final result of a combat isn’t immediately obvious. In this position, theNorth will have to destroy this powerful group of pieces before it cansend the South down to defeat. Follow the example of Grant in the closingyear of the American Civil War. His Union forces wore down Lee’s Armyof Virginia in a series of costly battles until the Confederate army nolonger had enough men to defend Richmond – the sole remaining arsenalof the slave-owners’ rebellion. Sacrificing pieces is tactical brilliancewhen the enemy’s losses are greater. Military logic is cruel and pitiless:

22

individual soldiers are killed or maimed so the army as a whole cansavour the fruits of victory. Play The Game of War – and you will learnhow the combatants of the revolution – by combining in an unstoppableoffensive - can impose their will upon the guardians of reaction.

‘The art of war consists, even with an inferior army, of alwayshaving more forces than one’s enemy at the point where oneattacks or at the point at which one is defending; but this artis learnt neither from books, or through habit, it is anunderstanding of practice that properly constitutes geniusin war.’

Napoléon Bonaparte,Military Maxims

SSiittuuaattiioonniisstt ppoolliittiiccss The Game of War plays at bourgeois warfare to discover the game ofproletarian love. North and South confront each other across the terrainof the board – and find themselves transported back in time to the birthpangs of modernity. Infantry, cavalry and artillery are theirs to command.Taking and losing these pieces in combat is the measure of their strugglefor control over the battlefield. Debord chose his game’s historicalmetaphor with great care. At the cusp of modernity, between the EnglishRevolution and the American Civil War, both sexes faced similar odds inthe lottery of premature mortality. In this epoch before antibiotics andmachine guns transformed the games of love and violence beyondrecognition, woman had as much – or more - chances of dying inchildbirth than a man of dying in a battle. Male or female, there werethose days when you’d have to stake everything to survive until the nextmorning.Wargames are a form of action capable of re-enacting such intense,

23

transient, moments in the grand narrative of human history – and therebyhelping to deepen our understanding of the present. In the legend of thefounding of the Order of the Garter, medieval England’s most prestigiousmilitary order, Edward the Third plays Chess with the Countess ofSalisbury. Queens, bishops, rooks, knights and pawns would decide thisbattle of the sexes. Edward Plantaganet staked a King’s ransom, in theform of a ruby, for the Countess’ virtue. Checkmate – the domination ofone sex over the other. How different is Debord’s game from its illustriouspredecessor! This time around, the two players are loving comrades notrival aristocrats. In the book-of-the-game, Guy Debord and AliceBecker-Ho take on the roles of South and North. This illustrative contestis a marital affair: the tabletop becomes an erogenous zone where theinventor and his wife face each other in libidinous combat. Foreplaybegins with North’s fond caress of South’s western arsenal, which soonsuccumbs to oblivion. Responding to this advance, South runs his cavalryup North’s left flank, and then North invitingly shifts her balanceeastwards. Seizing the initiative, South fondles the tip of North’smountain range before engaging in a penetrative action which comestantalisingly close to entering North’s central arsenal. But, in a suddenforward thrust, North counter-attacks, her forces enveloping South who –with one flank now fully exposed - lingers in a fort before retreating backinto his own territory. Finally, experiencing the ‘little death’ of surrender,South’s army becomes flaccid and resigns – totally exhausted - fromcombat.

The King and the Situationist had one thing in common: they were bothbeaten in a wargame by a woman. Yet, for the Countess of Salisbury, hervictory was as much her undoing as a defeat would have been: the jewelin her possession being taken as proof of the yielding of her honour.Edward’s game of Chess was one of aristocratic domination, and led to thegesture of donning the Countess’ garter: the patriarchal symbol of theinner circle of the English elite to this day. In contrast, Alice’s victory over

24

her husband was a cause for mutual celebration. In their Situationistwargame, competitive play stimulated psychological intimacy betweenthe sexes. Winning or losing were equally pleasurable experiences. Therecan be no masters and slaves amongst comrades. In both stories, thewoman defeats the man in a simulation of military combat. But it is onlyin the account of The Game of War that the vanquished gladly shows hisrespect for the vanquisher. When Guy and Alice moved their piecesacross the board, playing at war was making love by other means.

Their erotic, illustrative contest demonstrates how solidarity is one of thekey principles embedded within the rules of The Game of War. Anisolated unit is vulnerable, easily defeated in combat and always at riskof being outflanked. But a group of pieces that remain close togetherbecome comrades-in-arms, sharing their fighting abilities and supplynetworks with each other. These blocks of troops become invulnerable tofrontal assault, only assailable if and when the lines of communication totheir arsenals are broken. By rewarding solidarity in its play, The Gameof War acts as a tool of anti-militarisation in our revolutionary struggles.This is not to dismiss ‘the proletarian military question’ which has so manytimes determined the fate of our class over the past two hundred years.Rather Debord in The Game of War helps us explore the political role ofviolence without being dominated by feelings of fear and revulsion.Playing The Game of War shows how it is only the operation of physicalforce within the context of a network of communication that leads tovictory. Overthrowing the enemy with the minimum of violence is thespecial military skill which every Situationist must perfect. The progressof the workers’ revolution cannot be measured by the amount of bloodspilled – indeed it is the forces of counter-revolution who are condemnedby their enthusiasm for death and destruction. Breaking the spectacle –the dissolution of the enforcers of alienated daily life – requires moreadvanced forms of political struggle that go beyond fighting on thebarricades or in the streets. It is the bourgeoisie who proclaimed the

25

romantic general – Cromwell, Washington and Bonaparte - as thesaviour of the nation. It is the bureaucracy who worshipped the man inuniform - Trotsky, Mao and Che – as the hero of the masses. Theproletariat isn’t going to make the same mistake. Our revolution won’t bemilitarised – it will be eroticised!

‘I have studied the logic of war. Moreover, I succeeded, along time ago, in presenting the basics of its movements as aboard game: the forces in contention and the contradictorynecessities imposed on the operations of each of the twoparties. I have played The Game of War and, in the oftendifficult conduct of my life, I have utilised lessons from it – Ihave also set myself the rules of the game for this life, and Ihave followed them. On the question of whether I havemade good use of such lessons, I will leave to others todecide.’

Guy Debord,Panegyric

26

CavalrySSuummmmaarryy ooff rruulleess While foot units can only move one space, mounted units can move up totwo squares during a turn. This move can consist of any sequence ofvertical, horizontal or diagonal squares. Mountain ranges block allmovement. Cavalry pieces are further enhanced with the ability to makecharges. This facility gives them a numerical advantage in attacks, butthis extra combat value can only brought to bear in particularcircumstances. Charging cavalry units must either be adjacent to thenominated square, or be in a straight line of up to four cavalry units: theshock effect of horses and men striking right into the heart of the enemy’sposition. This form of attack is unavailable when the defender’s piece islocated in a pass or fort square. Cavalry units can participate in a chargewhen sallying out of a pass, but not from a fort.

MMiilliittaarryy tthheeoorryy Here the South has begun the game by deploying most of its army in themiddle of the board around this fort. Notice how its four cavalry pieces –reinforced by a horse artillery unit - are carefully positioned on the leftflank. Fortunately for the South, the North has mirrored its openingstrategy – and more so. Look how almost all of its pieces are maroonedover here on the eastern side of the board. This western arsenal has beenleft completely undefended and even this one in the centre looksvulnerable. An attack from the South coming up through the middle ofthe board would cut this vital line of communication flowing from thearsenal here to the army over there. It will take several moves beforethese four cavalry units out on the eastern flank can reach the action inthe centre. The first move hasn’t been made – and the North is already

27

losing the game.

The South must now decide how to take advantage of its superiorposition. Clever use of these four cavalry units will win the game. In theperiod of Horse-and-Musket warfare, mounted troops were the elite ofthe army. Highly mobile, they acted as its vanguard – outflanking theopposition’s defences and raiding deep into enemy territory. Intimidatingen masse, the cavalry were an army’s shock troops – the irresistible forcethat swept away all before it. However, these soldiers on horses wereexpensive to recruit, equip, train and supply. A good general had to knowthe exact moment to send these precious units into battle to secure themost advantageous objective. Committed too early against the wrongtarget – as the French cavalry was at Waterloo in 1815 – and the armywill have lost its mobile reserve. Waiting too long for the correct moment– like the Austrians did at Arcola in 1796 – and the army will havealready been beaten. The actions of the cavalry meant the differencebetween victory and defeat on the battlefield.

The South has two choices: an attack on the left or one up through themiddle. The first option means sending this cavalry piece on a raid todestroy the North’s undefended arsenal on the western side of the boardwhile these other three move to reinforce this square of infantry andartillery units in the centre. This is the strategy of Sherman’s famousMarch to the Sea in 1864 when the Union’s cavalry outflanked theConfederacy’s defences to seize Charleston – the bastion of the slaveeconomy. Trapped in a pincher movement, Richmond – the secessionists’capital – was now menaced from the rear with its defence pinned down inthe front holding off Grant’s advancing army. Look at how - with thewestern arsenal having fallen – the opposing player’s surviving arsenal inthe centre is also threatened by a two-pronged attack: an outflankingmanoeuvre around the vertical mountain range and a direct assault fromthe main force around this fort. Sooner or later, the North will be forced to

28

concede the game.

The South’s second option is moving all four of these cavalry pieces –along with the horse artillery - into the centre of the board. While thegroup of infantry around the fort protects its right flank, this mobile forcecan push through the middle towards this weakly defended arsenal.When supported by horse artillery, a charge of four cavalry pieces has acombined combat value which would easily overwhelm the North’s unitsblocking its path here. Copy the tactics of Oliver Cromwell at Naseby in1645 when the shock effect of his Roundhead cuirassiers put CharlesStuart’s troops to flight – and the Parliamentary army marched intoRoyalist arsenal of York.

If the South can take this central arsenal, the North will have lost thegame. Keeping open a precarious line of communication between anarsenal here in the west with an army over here on the far east of theboard is almost impossible. The South could lose all of its cavalry units inits offensive – and still win the game. In 1854, the Charge of LightBrigade destroyed the Light Brigade, but the French and British armieswent on to defeat the Russians – demoralised by this demonstration ofreckless courage - in the battle of Balaclava. Cavalry are there to beused and abused. Sometimes elite troops have to be sacrificed so the armyas a whole can triumph over its enemy. Play The Game of War – and youwill learn how the artistic and intellectual vanguard must be prepared tofight and die in the victorious proletarian uprising against the society ofspectacle.

‘There is a terrible shock effect in a mass of cavalry movingforward. Only pre-eminently brave troops, equallyseasoned in morale and well led, will meet it face to face.Forty-nine times out of fifty, one of the forces will hesitate,get into disorder, flee before the fixed purpose of the other.

29

The resolute assailant does not have to slacken. He mightnot have been able to triumph in this uproar of routed troopswithout becoming disordered himself. But this disorder isthat of victory, of the advance, and a good cavalry unitrallies in advancing, while the vanquished have fear at theirheels.’

Charles Ardant du Picq,Battle Studies

SSiittuuaattiioonniisstt ppoolliittiiccss Proletarians, learn well the lessons of our pre-history! Prowess in the art ofwar comes from adversity. At the beginning of the first millennium, theImperial Legions – the professional and disciplined infantry of theRoman Empire - were masters of the battlefield in Europe. The rulingelite of this slave civilisation - the Equites – may have kept the name of alanded aristocracy who could afford to maintain a horse while onmilitary service, but - in fact – they’d long since transformed themselvesinto a civilian kleptocracy of businessmen and bureaucrats. Theemperor’s mercenary army had given them a veto over radical socialchange without needing to do any fighting themselves. In suchcircumstances, the leap to the next, higher, stage of human civilisationcould only come from the outside, from the despised barbarians, thenomadic tribal societies of the Central Asian steppes. By the thirdcentury, their heavy cavalry units had proved that they possessed theskills and weaponry necessary to beat a professional infantry army inopen combat. The warriors on horseback were now ready to lead thetransition from slavery to serfdom across the Eurasian landmass.

Listen to how Muhammad Ibn Khaldûn tells the rest of the tale in The

30

Mugaddimah. Time after time, a brave band of nomads would sweep intothe cities, punishing the corrupt and cruel rulers of this world. In a never-ending cycle, this new warrior aristocracy would eventually itselfsuccumb to the temptations of the flesh – and, in turn, be deposed by thenext, new aristocracy of tough men on horseback. No wonder IbnKhaldûn thought as he did. He was an orphan of the fall of the ArabCaliphate. His great-grandparents were adults in 1258 when the Mongolhordes of Hulagu Khan had sacked Baghdad – the global melting pot ofmedieval learning and artisanship. But, even a scholar as perceptive asIbn Khaldûn didn’t realise that - within this apparently immutabledialectic of steppe and city - the preconditions of the next stage of socialevolution were already present. The warrior aristocrats despised tradeand manufacturing as the unmanly livelihoods of city dwellers. Mastersof the open countryside, the mounted nomads were slowly relinquishingcontrol of the city streets into the hands of the emerging bourgeoisie –that class of townsmen whose business acumen would eventuallysupplant the warrior aristocrats themselves. In the new dispensation ofmarket competition and wage labour, excellent soldiers on horsebackwere available to any ambitious faction with enough money.

Debord is a good teacher. In The Game of War, the cavalry unitsconstitute a politico-military elite, the most expensive commodity on thesocial battlefield of modernity. It is only with the speed of the cavalry,and the shock value of the combat bonus of the charge, that the game canbe turned from a war of position into a war of manoeuvre, when defencegoes onto the attack, winning victory over the opponent. For Debord, TheGame of War was his Mugaddimah – a meditation on the world-shattering geopolitical upheaval that had shaped the times into whichhe was born. Like Ibn Khaldûn, Debord was an orphan of history, but, inhis case, it was the defeat of the 1917 Russian revolution that haunted hisimagination. Radical intellectuals of Debord’s generation had to askthemselves the key question: did they have the moral strength to resist

31

the temptations of Bolshevism? The working class movement wasstrengthened when they put their learning in the service of therevolution. But, the Russian tragedy was a dreadful warning. TheBolsheviks – the leaders of the oppressed - had all too easily become anew class of oppressors. How could radical intellectuals preventthemselves from turning into a little Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin? The Gameof War is Debord’s answer to the political enigma of Bolshevism. The fourcavalry units symbolise Lenin’s aptly named vanguard party – the newclass of warrior intellectuals who were committed to leading theimpoverished masses into the hi-tech future. But, the task of North andSouth in this game is to learn how to make the best use of these elitetroops on the social battlefield without becoming Bolsheviks themselves.

During the Russian Civil War, as befits a mechanical age, Trotsky’sarmoured train became the iconic weapon for the political and militaryapplication of shock tactics: the soft power of a printing press, radiostation and theatre company combined with the hard power of heavyartillery, elite cavalry and motorised infantry. As Karl Marx had warned,this was ‘the socialism of the barrack blocks.’ The armoured train was theBolsheviks’ model for a militarised form of socialism. It was by organisingin the armed forces – and eventually organising the Red Army itself –that Lenin’s party able to defeat its principal enemy: other socialists.Purging their erstwhile comrades on the left gave the Bolsheviksexclusive ownership of the revolution, which quickly led to the militaryannihilation of the counter-revolution. The Red Army was the livingproof of industrial modernity, a complex hierarchy of organisational,cultural, political and technical skills. Compulsory military servicebecame the key institution in the proletarianisation of the Russianpeasantry. Forced industrialisation favoured the defence industries,ensuring that the warriors of the steppes once again had the bestweaponry on the battlefield. A 13-year-old Debord shared in therejoicing when, in 1945, the Red Army finally defeated the Nazi regime

32

and the red flag was hoisted over Berlin. But it was Stalin who wasoriental despot of this militarised degeneration of socialism into theconcentrated spectacle. The victory of the revolution had been bought ata terrible price: the defeat of the revolution.

In The Game of War, the players learn how to avoid making the samemistake. Like so many others, then as now, Debord had found it verydifficult to resist the romance of Bolshevism. His political education hadbeen a debate over the fate of the 1917 Russian revolution. During thefirst decade of its existence, the Situationist International mimicked thevanguard party in its ideological intensity, with fierce debates over thecorrect political and cultural strategy decided through bitter splits andexpulsions. Like Lenin, Debord was the champion of theoretical purity asthe test of revolutionary virtue. Then, in May 1968, a revolution tookplace for real in France. At several points during this momentous month,Debord estimated that overthrow of French state was ‘only an hour away’.The Bastille of spectacular capitalism was on the brink of falling to theinsurgent proletariat. Once again, Paris would be the fountainhead of therevolutionary transformation of the world. But, as a keen student ofhistory, Debord knew that the French Workers’ Councils faced the threatof imminent invasion by the twin enforcers of global order: the Americanand Russian empires. The Situationist International couldn’t act like theBolsheviks. Victory could no longer won with military methods on thenew spectacular battlefield. Listen to Debord’s wisdom: ‘The Situationistswon’t lead the revolution, they will detonate it!’ Like cavalry units in TheGame of War, the intellectual vanguard must sacrifice themselves toopen the way for the final assault of the proletarian army. The Workers’Councils – the premonition of cybernetic communism in the present – arethe shock troops of our revolution. May ’68 had cured Debord ofBolshevism. Freed of its intellectual hubris, he dissolved the SituationistInternational in the immediate aftermath of the revolution. The lessons ofMay ’68 were instead laid down in The Game of War. Every proletarian

33

must play at being Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin on its game board so that noone is tempted to become a little Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin. Sacrifice thenomad warriors of the vanguard party. Elite troops are expendablepieces in the struggle to build a truly human civilisation!

‘It’s a beautiful moment when an assault against the worldorder is set in motion. The charge begins slowly, picks upspeed, passes the point of no return, and irrevocably collideswith what seemed so unassailable: the bulwark which was sosolid and well defended, but which is also destined to beshaken and thrown into disorder. Along the way, many of usdied or were taken prisoner; many others were wounded andpermanently put out of action; and certain elements even letthemselves slip to the rear out of lack of courage; but Ibelieve I can say that the Situationists as a whole neverswerved from the line of charge until our formation plungedinto the very core of destruction.’

Guy Debord,In Girum Imus Nocte et Consumimur Igni

34

Lines of CommunicationSSuummmmaarryy ooff rruulleessThe lines of communication bring the two players’ pieces to life. Theyform a network of straight lines which radiate horizontally, vertically anddiagonally from the arsenals. Any unit situated on a square located onone of these lines is in communication and can play a full part in thegame. A playing piece remains linked to an arsenal as long it is adjacentto another unit which is itself situated on a line of communication or cantrace an indirect link through one or more friendly pieces to one that is incommunication. This network can be extended by a mounted or footcommunications unit which itself is on a straight line radiating from anarsenal. These generals transmit further lines of communication as if theywere themselves were an arsenal. However a line of communication issevered immediately when an enemy unit occupies one of its componentsquares that forms the link to an arsenal. Any combat unit without adirect or indirect line of communication is immobilised and can’t defenditself. Any unit can move out of communication and thereby suffer all theconsequences of being deprived of supplies. A mounted combat unit mustend its movement on the first square that isn’t in communication with anarsenal. The foot and mounted command units are the only playingpieces which can move and defend themselves when on squares outsidethe communication network.

MMiilliittaarryy tthheeoorryy This is the position of both armies in the middle of a game. The South haslost its eastern arsenal and the North its arsenal in the west. Casualtieshave been heavy, but neither player is ready yet to concede defeat. Thetwo players are faced with same problem: taking the offensive when they

35

have only one source of supply. The communications units are now - morethan ever - the irreplaceable nodes of each army’s supply network. Seehow the South’s pieces are linked to its western arsenal by two generals inthis square and that square. Aspire to be like the masters of the art of warwho dominated the Horse-and-Musket battlefields: Cromwell,Frederick, Washington, Bonaparte and Grant. But be aware that eventhe best general can make mistakes. Remember that Bonaparte lost bothat Leipzig and at Waterloo! Look at how the North’s pieces in this gameare finding it increasingly difficult to make what – when it began – musthave seemed like a clever this outflanking manoeuvre around this spurbeneath the horizontal mountain range. Both of its generals are nowimmobilised as nodes of a fragile line of communication from theremaining arsenal here in the centre through this square on the easternedge of the board around to this square over here, which makes theconnection to this group of units threatening the South’s western arsenal.The North is in a very perilous situation. What would happen if the otherplayer has carefully studied the campaigns of Frederick the Great?During the Seven Years War, this brilliant commander exploited theadvantages of keeping his forces close to the centre of its communicationsnetwork. Moving quickly from front to front, the Prussian army defeatedone enemy after another as they failed to coordinate their attacks. Thehumiliation of the Austrian empire at the battle of Leuthen in 1757should be a warning to every over-confident general.

In this game, the North’s offensive has weakened its position in the centre.The South is now ready for its counter-strike. While these units on itsback row hold up – for a few moves at least - the outflanking movearound the mountain range, these pieces are concentrated for an attackat this strategic point in the middle of the board. Imitate GeorgeWashington who realised that Lord Cornwallis had blundered when theBritish committed too many troops to an offensive in the Carolinas. Heseized this moment of opportunity, securing a decisive victory at

36

Yorktown in 1781 – and the Americans had won their independence. Beinspired by this lesson in military daring. With its communications unitsplaced here and here, the South’s main force can smash through theNorth’s defensive line - which would allow this cavalry unit to move herebreaking its opponent’s vulnerable line of communications between itscentral arsenal and its main forces over here moving around themountain range. Occupying a narrow front is a sign of strength not aweakness. Bonaparte always manoeuvred to concentrate his forces forthe decisive battle which would destroy the enemy’s lines ofcommunication. His stunning victories at Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena andWagram are testimony to the destructive power of this offensive strategy.Military genius can overcome greater numbers and superior weaponry.Play The Game of War – and you will learn how every proletarian cancontribute their intellect and creativity to winning the struggle forhuman liberation.

‘The great art of properly directing military operations isthe movement of the army to seize the lines ofcommunication of the enemy without imperilling one’s own,and this is the most important and most difficult problem instrategy.’

Antoine-Henri de Jomini,The Art of War

SSiittuuaattiioonniisstt ppoolliittiiccss The transformation of capitalism by the cybernetic age has vindicatedthe prophesies of the Situationists. At the height of the spectacle’s power,they foresaw that the monopolisation of cultural production by a smallelite was about to be swept away. The masses wanted make their ownmedia – and there was nothing that could stop them. Let’s rejoice! This

37

Situationist future is now, when do-it-yourself is the watchword of theNet. But surely this can’t be what the Situationists meant by smashing thespectacle? The proliferation of networks, displacing out-datedauthoritarian modes of organisation, has not led to the collapse ofcapitalism. Indeed, it has been the only way by which capitalism hassurvived into the 21st century. Let us examine the teachings ofSituationism more deeply. It is essential that we continue their criticalexamination of how such networks work – and how systems ofexploitation can be regenerated in such circumstances – if our class is toprevent the mutation of dotcom capitalism barring the way to humanliberation. Guy Debord’s The Game of War offers a sociable contributionto this striving for proletarian knowledge. Let’s study its lessons well.

Each player needs to maintain and manipulate a flexible networkcomposed of fixed bases – the arsenals – and mobile communication units– the generals - which activate the various combat units who can onlymove or fight when linked into this cybernetic system. The rules of TheGame of War are a lecture in class warfare. As a game progresses, eachnetwork has to be developed across an asymmetrical terrain to confront arival network operating on a similar basis. While the mobilecommunication units provide a way to construct your own cyberneticsystem, your combat units can block those of the other player. Likewiseyou are vulnerable to having your own network disrupted and broken.Each player is the revolutionary proletariat, learning how to build theparticipatory infrastructure of cybernetic communism. Their opponentrepresents its evil twin, dotcom capitalism, who contests our class’ right todetermine the next stage of modernity. Learn from Debord. The Game ofWar teaches us how to fight and win on the battlefields of theinformation society.

Networks are rooted in their specific topologies, examined in that branchof mathematics which analyses the inter-relation of places. It was

38

formerly known as analysis situ and needs to be regarded as the bedrockof Situationism. Combined with alcohol and hashish, these rationalequations inspired a vision of the city transformed into a proletarianplayground. It was Asger Jorn and Jacqueline de Jong, rather than GuyDebord, who first elaborated the concept of psychogeography, a phraseso potent that it has passed into everyday speech. At the time, after aninitial burst of enthusiasm, Debord acted as a little Lenin, excluding suchquestions from his tightly controlled interpretation of Situationism. Ittook the May ’68 revolution to cure him of these Bolshevik delusions. InThe Game of War, Debord paid a belated acknowledgement to thosewho he’d purged from the Situationist International. The board is apsychogeographic space. It is topology which determines the makingand breaking of the lines of communication – and thereby who will winor lose the game. Jorn and Jong are rehabilitated within the canon ofSituationism.

Not surprisingly, the lessons of The Game of War have already beenadopted by the class enemy, whether in the board rooms of advertisingexecutives or in the operations room of this or that military organisation.The American government has demonstrated how the diffuse spectacleof Fordism and the concentrated spectacle of Stalinism can be combinedtogether into a univocal media system that terrifies malcontents intosubmission with the lurid fantasies of The War on Terror. The IsraeliDefence Force has shown how psychogeography can be used as a deadlytechnique in street-to-street fighting against the Palestinian resistance.But we know that it is the essence of capitalism to take our greatestcontributions to human progress and turn them into weapons against us:this is the crux of social alienation. In playing The Game of War, we do notwant to share in the delusions of Bonaparte and, as Percy Shelley saidwhen the Corsican general declared himself emperor, become a dogreturning to its own vomit. Our aim instead is to teach ourselves theknowledge which will secure the victory of cybernetic communism. Play

39

The Game of War - and learn how to build participatory networks. Thefuture of humanity may depend upon it.

‘The new epoch is profoundly revolutionary, and it knowsthat it is. At all levels of world society, we can no longer andwe will no longer go on as before. The Situationists are hereto combat the spectacle, not to govern it. They do not form adistinct party. The Situationists have no interests separatefrom the proletariat as a whole. They have freely giventhemselves, in a very harsh century, very hard rules of thegame; and they have gladly submitted to them.’

Guy Debord and Gianfranco Sanguinetti,The Veritable Split in the International

40

Final CreditsIInnssppiirraattiioonnAlice Becker-Ho & Guy Debord, A Game of War

Atlas Press: http://www.atlaspress.co.uk

Alice Becker-Ho & Guy Debord, Le Jeu de la GuerreGallimard : http://www.gallimard.fr

CCllaassss WWaarrggaammeess PPllaayyeerrssRichard BarbrookRod DickinsonAlex VenessIlze BlackFabian TompsettMark CopplestoneLucy BlakeStefan LutschingerElena Vorontsova

DDiirreecctteedd && EEddiitteedd bbyy Ilze Black

SSccrriippttRichard Barbrook & Fabian Tompsett

VVooiicceeoovveerrHayley Newman & Alex Veness

41

CCaammeerraa Ilze Black Ignat Gorazd Emanuel AndelAndreas Muk Haider

XXeennooggrraapphhyy Alex Veness

SSoouunndd RReeccoorrddiinngg Joel Cahen Mukul Patel

SSoouunndd SSttuuddiioo www.newtoy.orgwww.difficultfun.org

FFiillmm CClliippss Tony Richardson, The Charge of the Light BrigadeRonald F. Maxwell, GettysburgAntoine de Caunes, Monsieur NDavid Lean, Doctor ZhivagoWarren Beatty, RedsAlastair Fothergill, Michael Mosely & Jill Marshall,

How To Build A Human Andy Wachowski & Larry Wachowski, The MatrixVincenzo Natali, CypherAigars Grauba, Rigas SargiBernardo Bertolucci, The Dreamers

42

Tigran Keosaan, Mans JobIrwin Winkler, Home of the BraveSergei Bodrov, MongolKen Hughes, CromwellMelanie MacDonald & William Roche, No VolveranSergei Bondarchuk, War and PeaceUli Edel, The Baader Meinhof ComplexPeter Davis, Hearts & MindsAndrej Kravchuk, Admiral Edward Zwick, GlorySergei Bondarchuk, WaterlooIan Lilley, The Russian Revolution Stanley Kubrick, Barry LyndonArthur MacCaig, The Irish Ways Kevin MacDonald, State of PlayYuri Ozerov, Fight for MoscowKen Loach, Land and FreedomJeremy Deller, The Battle of OrgreaveLaurence Olivier, Henry VDespiteTV , The Battle of TrafalgarSergei Bondarchuk, They Fought For Their MotherlandSteven Sonderbergh, Che

MMuussiiccSex Pistols, Anarchy in the UKSongs of the American Civil War, The Year of JubiloCountry Joe & The Fish, I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die RagRed Army Band, The InternationaleLTJ Bukem, HorizonsThe Gang of Four, I Love A Man In UniformJerzimy, L'Anarchie Pour Le UK

43

SSppeecciiaall TThhaannkkss Atlas PressRachel BakerDavid PanosPil & Galia KollectivPumphouse Art GalleryCybersalonCybersonicaVictoria and Albert Museum Gryasnaya GalereyaState Hermitage Museum, St. PetersburgMarina KoldobskayaNational Centre for Contemporary Art, St. PetersburgThe FleaPit HTTP GalleryMalcolm HopkinsHousmans BooksAndrew Burgin1968 & All That FestivalMídia Tática Brasil01Zero-OneDave GreenLondon Games Festival FringeTom CampbellLondon/London Development Agency

Resonance FM

Funded with support from the Arts Council of England

44

Communiqué #1 (23/10/07)

CCLLAASSSS WWAARRGGAAMMEESSPPRREESSEENNTTSS

GGUUYY DDEEBBOORRDD''ssTTHHEE GGAAMMEE OOFF WWAARR

01-zero-one, London7pm on 23 October 2007

PPoolliittiiccss iiss aa ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooff wwaarr bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..

The Game of War is a Clausewitz simulator: a Napoleonic-era militarystrategy game where armies must maintain their communicationsstructure to survive - and where victory is achieved by smashing youropponent's supply network rather than by taking their pieces.

"The 1789 French Revolution brought great changes in the art of war.Similarly, the establishment of spectacular domination has radicallyaltered the art of government."

Guy Debord is celebrated as the leader of the Situationist Internationaland as the author of the searing critique of the media-saturated societyof consumer capitalism: The Society of the Spectacle. What is much lesswell known is that after the May '68 Revolution, Debord and his partner- Alice Becker-Ho - quit Paris and went to live in a remote Frenchvillage. Over the next two decades, Debord devoted much of the rest ofhis life to inventing, refi ning and promoting what he came to regard ashis most important project: The Game of War.

45

""WWaarrggaammeess aarree aa ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooff ppoolliittiiccss bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..""

For Debord, The Game of War wasn't just a game - it was a guide to howpeople should live their lives within Fordist society. By playing thisClausewitz simulator, revolutionary activists could learn how to fi ghtand win against the oppressors of spectacular society.

"An untrained militant would only bean object of embarrassment to the vanguard."

Now, in 2007, Debord's fascination with wargames is fi nally beingdiscovered. Coinciding with the publication by Atlas Press of the Englishtranslation of Debord and Becker-Ho's The Game of War book, ClassWargames in London and the Radical Software Group in New York areplaying matches in public and developing their own versions of thegame.

Tonight Class Wargames will play Guy Debord's The Game of War usinga replica of his original 1977 design for the board game.

Class Wargames are: Rod Dickinson (artist), Dr Richard Barbrook (mediatheorist, University of Westminster), Lucy Blake (programer), Ilze Black(curator, Watermans Arts Centre), Fabian Tompsett (Class War) andAlex Veness (artist) .

Let battle commence!

46




An untrained militant would only be an object ofembarrassment to the vanguard.

Class Wargames are playing Guy Debord’s The Game of War using areplica of his original 1977 design for the board game. Guy Debord iscelebrated as the leader of the SSiittuuaattiioonniisstt IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall and author of

the searing critique of the media-saturated society of consumercapitalism: The Society of the Spectacle.What is less well known is that after theMay ’68 Revolution, Debord devotedmuch of the rest of his life to inventing,refining and promoting what he came toregard as his most important project: TheGame of War.

PPoolliittiiccss iiss aa ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooffwwaarr bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..The Game of War is a Clausewitzsimulator: a Napoleonic-era militarystrategy game where armies must

47

OOuurr NNeexxtt EEnnggaaggeemmeenntt::

1968 & All That An international conference and book fair to celebrate thehopes & dreams of May 1968.

Saturday 10 May 2008 10am - 10pm Conway Hall

Red Lion Square London WC1

maintain their communications structure to survive - and where victoryis achieved by smashing your opponent’s supply network rather than bytaking their pieces. For Debord, The Game of War wasn’t just a game - itwas a guide to how people should live their lives within Fordist society.By playing this Clausewitz simulator, revolutionary activists could learnhow to fight and win against the oppressors of spectacular society.

The 1789 French Revolution brought great changes in the art of war.Similarly, the establishment of spectacular domination has radicallyaltered the art of government.

Class Wargames Spring Offensive

WWaarrggaammeess aarree aa ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooffppoolliittiiccss bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..

As winter drew in, we returned to our homes to plan our strategy for theforthcoming year. Despite entering the field late in 2007, CCllaassssWWaarrggaammeess achieved a decisive victory at the LLoonnddoonn GGaammeess FFeessttiivvaallFFrriinnggee in October. Having mapped out the territory, the first goal of ourspring offensive was to advance into the world of Art. The month of

48

TThhee PPllaayyeerrss::

Dr. Richard Barbrook University of Westminster

Rod Dickinson University of the West of England

Alex Veness University of the Arts

Ilze Black Waterman’s Art Gallery

Fabian Tompsett Class War, 1985

Mark Copplestone Copplestone Castings

Lucy Blake e-learning developer

March had hardly drawn to a close whenwe’d successfully infiltrated theIInnssttiittuuttee ooff PPssyycchhooppllaassmmiiccss at the PPuummppHHoouussee GGaalllleerryy in Battersea Park.

Having recruited our avant-gardeartists, we’ve now switched flanks byfielding our pieces at SSaalluuttee ‘‘0088, locatedin London’s Docklands. While theunderlings of finance capital scurriedhither and thither, barricading nearbyCanary Wharf against the implosion ofthe credit bubble, Class Wargames hasseized the high ground at the Excel Centre – the annual resting place ofthe DSEI Arms Fair. We welcome hardened wargamers to our ranks. Weknow that their contribution will prove decisive in the struggles to come.

However our Trained Bands would not be worthy of the name unlesscommitted political agitators rally to our blood-red banner. To completeour mission, CCllaassss WWaarrggaammeess will liberate Red Lion Square by anymeans necessary. Here the social turmoil of the May events is beingbrought to life at the 11996688 aanndd AAllll TThhaatt conference and book fair.

Our Summer Campaign will consolidate these startling gains, bringing together artists, wargamers and political activists through regular club nights at the FFlleeaa PPiitt, on the outskirts of Shoreditch. This venue offers a variety of organic food with a licensed bar. As well as playing Guy Debord’s The Game of War with our recruits, CCllaassss WWaarrggaammeess will experiment with both figurine and board games that laybear the sinews of our class oppression.

Ludic Labour!

49

TThhee GGaammee ooff WWaarrGGuuyy DDeebboorrdd aanndd AAlliiccee BBeecckkeerr--HHoo’’ss bbooookk && ggaammeeiiss aavvaaiillaabbllee ffrroomm::

CCoopppplleessttoonnee CCaassttiinnggss SSttaanndd TTDD0088 aatt SSaalluuttee ’’0088

nneexxtt ttoo OOsspprreeyy BBooookkss oorr AAttllaass PPrreessss

2277 OOlldd GGlloouucceesstteerr SSttrreeeett LLOONNDDOONN WWCC11NN 33XXXX wwwwww..aattllaasspprreessss..ccoo..uukk


Class Wargames Spring Offensive

WWaarrggaammeess aarree aa ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooffppoolliittiiccss bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..

As winter drew in, we returned to our homes to plan our strategy for theforthcoming year. Despite entering the field late in 2007, CCllaassssWWaarrggaammeess achieved a decisive victory at the LLoonnddoonn GGaammeess FFeessttiivvaallFFrriinnggee in October. Having mapped out the territory, the fi rst goal of ourspring offensive was to advance into the world of Art. The month of Marchhad hardly drawn to a close when we’d successfully infiltrated theIInnssttiittuuttee ooff PPssyycchhooppllaassmmiiccss at the Pump House Gallery in Battersea Park

Having recruited our avant-gardeartists, CCllaassss WWaarrggaammeess switched flanksby fielding our pieces at SSaalluuttee ‘‘0088,located in London’s Docklands. Wewelcomed hardened wargamers to ourranks. We know that their contributionwill prove decisive in the struggles tocome.

However our Trained Bands would notbe worthy of the name unless committedpolitical agitators rally to our blood-redbanner. To complete our mission, CCllaassssWWaarrggaammeess will liberate Red Lion

50

SSuummmmeerr CCaammppaaiiggnnThe Flea PitClub nights on the 3rdTuesday of the month from 6:30pm till 11:00 pm:

• 20th May• 17th June• 22nd July• 19th August• 16th September

49 Columbia Road London E2 7RGwww.thefl eapit.coma

Square by any means necessary. Here was where the revolutionary Leftrouted the NF fascists in 1974.Here the social turmoil of the May events isbeing brought to life at the 11996688 aanndd AAllll TThhaatt conference and book fair.Our Summer Campaign will consolidate these startling gains, bringingtogether artists, wargamers and political activists through regular clubnights at the FFlleeaa PPiitt, on the outskirts of Shoreditch. This venue offers avariety of organic food with a licensed bar. As well as playing GuyDebord’s The Game of War and Copplestone Castings’ Back of Beyondwith our recruits, with our recruits, CCllaassss WWaarrggaammeess will experimentwith both fi gurine and board games that lay bear the sinews of our classoppression.

LLuuddiicc LLaabboouurr!!



Karl Marx remarks somewhere that the great events ofrevolutionary history occur twice: the fi rst time as fi ghtingin the streets and fi elds; the second as tabletop encounters.

Class Wargames are playing Guy Debord’s The Game of War using areplica of his original 1977 design for the board game. Guy Debord iscelebrated as the leader of the Situationist International and author ofthe searing critique of the media-saturated society of consumercapitalism: The Society of the Spectacle. What is much less well known is that after the May ’68 Revolution, Debord devoted much of the rest of hislife to inventing, refi ning and promoting what he came to regard as his

51

most important project: The Gameof War.

PPoolliittiiccss iiss aa ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonnooff wwaarr bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..

The Game of War The Game ofWar is a Clausewitz simulator: aNapoleonic- is a Clausewitzsimulator: a Napoleonic eramilitary strategy game wherearmies must maintain theircommunications structure tosurvive - and where victory isachieved by smashing youropponent’s supply network ratherthan by taking their pieces.

For Debord, The Game of Warwasn’t just a game - it was wasn’t just a game - it was a guide to howpeople should live their lives within Fordist society. By playing thisClausewitz simulator, revolutionary activists could learn how to fi ghtand win against the oppressors of spectacular society.

The 1789 French Revolution brought great changes in the art of war.Similarly, the establishment of spectacular domination has radicallyaltered the art of government.

MMeeeett tthhee PPllaayyeerrss!!Situationism in England:

from King Mob Echo to Class WargamesTToowweerr RRoooomm 22 aatt 22..0000ppmm

52

CCoopppplleessttoonnee CCaassttiinnggssBBAACCKK OOFF BBEEYYOONNDDSomewhere in Siberia

Summer 1919Led by Leon Trotsky, red infantry,sailors and partisans areadvancing along the Trans-Siberian railway. Units ofAdmiral Kolchak’s White Russianarmy and the Czech Legiondecide to make a stand at astraggling trackside village.A simple clash of ideologies? Youmight think so, but look moreclosely at the two forces and you’llsee in microcosm all the politicalconfusion that divided Russiaduring its civil war.

www.copplestonecastings.co.uk




“The Workers’ Army, organised and trained by theindustrial drill-sergeant, is the sine qua non of proletarianself-emancipation, and of the toiling masses ceasing to be

the prey of the first managerial intruder.”

Class Wargames is playing Guy Debord’s The Game of War using areplica of his original 1977 design for the board game. Guy Debord iscelebrated as the leader of the Situationist International and author ofthe searing critique of the media-saturated society of consumercapitalism: The Society of the Spectacle. What is less well known is thatafter the French May ’68 Revolution, Debord devoted much of the rest ofhis life to inventing, refining and promoting what he came to regard as hismost important project: The Game of War.

PPoolliittiiccss iiss tthhee ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooff wwaarr bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..

The Game of War is a Clausewitz simulator: a Napoleonic-era militarystrategy game where armies must maintain their communicationsstructure to survive - and where victory is achieved by smashing youropponent’s supply network rather than by taking their pieces.

53

For Debord, The Game of Warwasn’t just a game - it was a guideto how people should live theirlives within Fordist society. Byplaying this Clausewitz simulator,revolutionary activists could learnhow to fight and win against theoppressors of spectacular society.

WWaarrggaammeess aarree aaccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooff ppoolliittiiccss bbyy

ootthheerr mmeeaannss..

Class Wargames Autumn

Offensive

Having rested after the exertionsof the Summer Campaign, ClassWargames is now ready to resumeits assault against the bastions ofbourgeois conformity. Reinforcedby our allies from Cybersalon andCybersonica, we begin ourAutumn Manoeuvres by engagingthe enemy on the culturalbattlefield of the Victoria &Albert Museum. Founded with theprofits of the 1851 Great

54

Plus:CCoopppplleessttoonnee CCaassttiinnggss

KISS, KISS, BANG! BANGA Cold War game of secret agentand super villains armed withweapons of mass destruction. Whoare the heroes and who are thevillains? The players decide.

www.copplestonecastings.co.uk

TTeerrrroorrBBuullll GGaammeessWAR ON TERROR

It’s got suicide bombers, politicalkidnaps and intercontinental war.

It’s got filthy propaganda,rampant paranoia and secret

treaties and the Axis of Evil is aspinner in the middle of the board.

www.waronterrortheboardgame.com

AAlleexx VVeenneessssXENON-EYE

This scanner camera’s nightmarish,grotesque images are indebted tothe Cold War: military innovationin this period enabled these weirdimages to represent contemporarylife in a society still in the process ofadjusting to the post Cold Warcondition.

Exhibition, this institution is the trophy rooms of the former Britishempire. It was here that the miseries of satanic mills and slave plantationswere transformed into a cornucopia of artistic treasures celebratingcapitalism and imperialism. As the descendents of those who suffered,Class Wargames takes pleasure in subverting this foul ideologicalpurpose. The shrine of the bourgeoisie must be transformed into aproletarian playground!On this hallowed night of mischief making, Class Wargames has seizedcontrol of a key position inside the museum: the Dorothy and MichaelHintze Sculpture Galleries. This impressive collection of mythologicalfigures and portrait busts is a reminder of how the rulers of the world’sfirst capitalist superpower disguised themselves as Ancient Greeks orRomans. As the adjacent Cold War Modern exhibition shows, theirAmerican and Russian successors also warped time but in a differentmanner: dressing up their imperial rule in futuristic imagery. Intrigued bythese congruities, Class Wargames is playing three different gamesexploring different aspects of these former empires of modernity:Copplestone Castings’ Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang; TerrorBull Games’ War on

Terror; and Guy Debord’s TheGame of War.

Class Wargames is well awarethat the Cold War was nothingmore than the confrontationbetween rival systems of capitalistcontrol: the diffuse spectacle of theWest versus the concentratedspectacle of the East. In a late-20th century version of the GreatGame, the two superpowersmanoeuvred their military andpolitical pieces in a struggle for

55

Forthcoming Engagements:

27th NovemberState HermitageMuseumSt. Petersburg, Russia.

13th - 14th DecemberHTTP GalleryManor House, London.

hegemony over the global board. Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang is a modernparody of the spy stories which glamorised this sordid imperial conflict.War on Terror gives a contemporary twist to the parlour games whichrationalised this irrational desire for world domination. The Game of Waris an abstraction of the binary logic which underpinned the symmetricalbattle of the Cold War. Playing these games is experiencing the clash ofempires in microcosm.

Class Wargames is committed to subverting the ideological mechanismswhich are used to keep us in line. The Cold War was a global game wherethe ruling elites of West and East wanted to be the only players. At thebeginning of the 21st century, those once excluded are now taking theirplace at the board. The workers of the world are learning how to win theold bourgeois game – and writing the rules of a new proletarian game. Asthe temples of finance capitalism follow the citadels of Stalinism into thedust, Class Wargames is an anticipation of the sensual civilisation of playand creativity to come…

Ludic Labour!

56



Rod Dickinson Artist





Lucy Blake software developer




“Every worker who participates in a wargame benefitsgreatly from thattraumatic experience, not necessarily

because of the answers given bythe game, but because ofthe questions the game raises, the ideas itsuggests, the

problems it highlights.”

Class Wargames is playing Guy Debord’s The Game of War using areplica of his original 1977 design for the board game.Guy Debord iscelebrated as the leader of the Situationist Internationaland author ofthe searing critique of the media-saturated society ofconsumercapitalism: The Society of the Spectacle. What is much less wellknown isthat after the French May ’68 Revolution, Debord devoted muchof the restof his life to inventing, refining and promoting what he came toregard as hismost important project: The Game of War.

PPoolliittiiccss iiss aa ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooff wwaarr bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..The Game of War is a Clausewitz simulator: a Napoleonic-eramilitarystrategy game where armies must maintain theircommunications structureto survive - and where victory is achieved bysmashing your opponent’ssupply network rather than by taking theirpieces.For Debord, The Game of War wasn’t just a game - it was a guide to how

57

people should live their lives within Fordist society. By playing thisClausewitz simulator, revolutionary activists could learn how to fightand win against theoppressors of spectacular society.

WWaarrggaammeess aarree aa ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooff ppoolliittiiccss bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..

AANNDDCCoopppplleessttoonnee CCaassttiinnggss

RREEDDSS vv.. RREEDDSS:: AA RRUUSSSSIIAANN CCIIVVIILL WWAARR GGAAMMEEThe SettingEarly September 1918 – somewhere to the east of Kazan. After its rapidadvance during the summer, the People’s Army of the SocialistRevolutionarydominated Komuch (Committee of Members of theConstituent Assembly) is now on the defensive. The middle-agedintellectuals who make up its leadership have little aptitude for militarymatters, most of its soldiers are reluctant conscripts commanded bymonarchist officers and its Czech Legion allies are increasingly unwilling

to fight. Things are not lookinggood.Meanwhile the Bolshevik forceshave been reinforced and thenrevitalised by the presence ofLeon Trotsky himself. Under hisdirection, the Moscowgovernment’s disciplined andmotivated army is now poised toadvance onSamara, Komuch’scapital.TThhee GGaammeeKomuch units have been asked tohold a small village to cover theretreat of the main army. Czech

58

Alex VenessXENON-EYE: A RADICALCAMERA FOR RADICAL

TIMESXenon-Eye is an innovative large-format digital camera: a heavilymodified flatbed scanner fused witha traditional bellows camera thatcreates radical, grotesqueimages for which the subject has toperform and interact for anythingbetween 10 seconds and 10minutesto produce a uniquexenographic image.

legionaries will support them – but will not take offensive action and willwithdraw if threatened with destruction.Bolshevik commanders know that a rapid advance will break the will ofthe People’s Army. Hesitation will not be tolerated!

hhttttpp::////wwwwww..ccoopppplleessttoonneeccaassttiinnggss..ccoo..uukk

Class Wargames Autumn Offensive

When the courier brought the summons from CCyybbeerrffeesstt ’’0088 in St.Petersburg, Class Wargames had no hesitation in answering the call toarms. One year of tough campaigning on the cultural battlefields ofLondon has given us the skills and courage required to mount our firstoverseas expedition. Emboldened by a stunning victory at the Victoria &Albert Museum on 31st October, our artistic warriors enthusiasticallyvolunteered for active service on the Petrograd Front. Braving theRussian winter and Tsarist bureaucracy, we’ve travelled from the far sideof Europe to serve as foot soldiers in the Cyberfest ‘08 army. United in acommon struggle, London and Leningrad are fighting side-by-side

59








Lucy Blake Software Developer

against aesthetic conservatism and hierarchical ideologies. StalinistSocial Realism and Neo-Liberal Post-Modernism are the detritus offailed imperial projects. In their place, on this frosty evening at theHermitage Museum, Class Wargames celebrates the political potency ofparticipatory art. Competition on a board is a prophecy of cooperation ineveryday life. As hardened veterans of cultural combat, we take pride inputting on this performance of two subversive games for our Russiancomrades: Copplestone Castings’ Reds v. Reds; and Guy Debord’s TheGame of War.

Class Wargames is committed to the ludic exorcism of political violence.For thousands of years, the aristocratic few used brutal force to rule overthe plebian many. The oppressed had neither the weaponry nor expertiseto overthrow their oppressors. But, with the advent of modernity, themilitary balance of power quickly began to shift in favour of the masses.The people learnt how to beat their masters on the battlefield. Yet, all toooften, winning the revolution meant destroying the revolution. Fighting acivil war required discipline, obedience and centralisation. Living in

England, Class Wargames is veryaware of the confusion caused bythe militarisation of the strugglefor human emancipation. Wehave spent too many hours in pubsdebating the disappointed hopesof the 1917 Russian Revolution.Bizarrely, long after the implosionof the Soviet Union, much of theEnglish Left still defines itspolitical identity through thesquabbling factions of a foreigncountry: Stalinists, Trotskyists,Mensheviks and Anarchists.

60

Next Engagement:HTTP Gallery13-14th DecemberManor House, London

TThhee GGaammee ooff WWaarrGuy Debord and Alice Becker-Ho’s book & game is availablefrom:Gallimard (in French)

http://www.gallimard.frAtlas Press (in English)

http://www.atlaspress.co.uk

Countering this ideological sterility, Class Wargames is transforming the1917 Russian Revolution into a game. Instead of passively consumingfantasy accounts of this period, we achieve understanding by re-enacting its history in miniature. Tonight in Red Petrograd, Bolsheviksand Socialist Revolutionaries will once again decide the fate of therevolution on the outskirts of Kazan – and this time the result could bedifferent.

Class Wargames has come to St. Petersburg not only to pass on ourexperiences in cultural combat, but also to learn new skills from ourRussian allies. By combining our forces for Cyberfest ’08, we’ve made adecisive breakthrough at the Hermitage Museum which opens the wayfor a general advance across the Leningrad Front. Fresh from this victory,we must plan our next campaigns of ludic subversion. The Game of Waris an abstraction of the binary logic which underpins the symmetricalconflicts of classes and nations under modernity. By re-enacting ourrevolutionary history in microcosm, we are externalising the horrors ofpolitical violenceas toy soldiers on a tabletop or pieces on a board.Playing at war is an inoculation against military murder. Together, at thisdecisive moment in St. Petersburg, we are overcoming the old bourgeoisgame so we can invent the new proletarian game…


61




“It’s a beautiful moment when an assault against the world order of spectacular capitalism is set in motion. The charge begins slowly, picks up speed, passes the point of no return, and irrevocably collides with what seemed so unassailable:

the bulwark which was so solid and well defended, butwhich is also destined to be shaken and thrown into

disorder. Along the way, many of us died or were takenprisoner; many others were wounded and permanently putout of action; and certain elements even let themselves slip

to the rear out of lack of courage; but I believe I can saythat the Situationists as a whole never swerved from theline of charge until our formation plunged into the very

core of destruction.”

Class Wargames is playing Guy Debord’s The Game of War using areplica of his original 1977 design for the board game. Guy Debord iscelebrated as the leader of the Situationist International and author ofthe searing critique of the media-saturated society of consumercapitalism: The Society of the Spectacle. What is less well known is thatafter the French May ’68 Revolution, Debord devoted much of the rest ofhis life to inventing, refining and promoting what he came to regard as his

62

most important project: TheGame of War.

PPoolliittiiccss iiss tthhee ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonnooff wwaarr bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..

The Game of War is a Clausewitzsimulator: a Napoleoniceramilitary strategy game wherearmies must maintain theircommunications structure tosurvive - and where victory isachieved by smashing youropponent’s supply networkrather than by taking theirpieces. For Debord, The Game ofWar wasn’t just a game - it was aguide to how people should livetheir lives within Fordist society.By playing this Clausewitzsimulator, revolutionary activistscould learn how to fight and winagainst the oppressors ofspectacular society.


ootthheerr mmeeaannss

63

CCllaassss WWaarrggaammeess CClluubb NNiigghhtt

Tuesday 7.00-10.30pm4th August 18th August 8th September

The FleaPit49 Columbia RoadLondon E2 7RGhttp://www.thefleapit.com

CCllaassss WWaarrggaammeess RRaaddiioo SShhooww Wednesdays 5.00-5.30pm Resonance 104.4 FMhttp://resonancefm.com

CCllaassss WWaarrggaammeess FFeessttiivvaallSaturday 1.00-6.00pm26th SeptemberParticipatory demonstration(Marcel Duchamp meets Blue Peter)Sunday 1.00-8.00pm27th SeptemberWorld premiere of Class Wargames video

HTTP Gallery71 Ashfield RoadLondon N4 1NY

http://www.http.uk.net/

Class Wargames Summer Offensive

In the legend of the founding of the Order of the Garter, medievalEngland’s most prestigious military order, Edward the Third plays Chesswith the Countess of Salisbury. Queens, bishops, rooks, knights andpawns would decide this battle of the sexes. Edward Plantaganet stakeda King’s ransom, in the form of a ruby, for the Countess’ virtue. Checkmate– the domination of one sex over another. How different is Debord’s gamefrom its illustrious predecessor! This time around, the two players areloving comrades not rival aristocrats. In their book of The Game of War,Guy Debord and Alice Becker-Ho take on the roles of South and North.This illustrative contest is a marital affair: the tabletop becomes anerogenous zone where the inventor and his wife face each other inlibidinous combat. Foreplay begins with North’s fond caress of South’swestern arsenal, which soon succumbs to oblivion. Responding to thisadvance, South runs his cavalry up North’s left flank, and then Northinvitingly shifts her balance eastwards. Seizing the initiative, Southfondles the tip of North’s mountain range before engaging in apenetrative action which comes tantalisingly close to entering North’scentral arsenal. But, in a sudden forward thrust, North counter-attacks,her forces enveloping South who – with one flank now fully exposed -lingers in a fort before retreating back into his own territory. Finally,experiencing the ‘little death’ of surrender, South’s army becomes flaccidand resigns – totally exhausted - from combat.

The King and the Situationist had one thing in common: they were both beaten in a wargame by a woman. Yet, for the Countess of Salisbury, her victory was as much her undoing as a defeat would have been: the jewel in her possession being taken as proof of the yielding of her honour.

64

Edward’s game of Chess was one of aristocratic domination, and led tothe gesture of donning the Countess’ garter: the patriarchal symbol of theinner circle of the English elite to this day. In contrast, Alice’s victory overher husband was a cause for mutual celebration. In their Situationistwargame, competitive play stimulated psychological intimacy between the sexes. Winning or losing were equally pleasurable experiences. Inboth stories, the woman defeats the man in a simulation of militarycombat. But it is only in the account of The Game of War that thevanquished gladly shows his respect for the vanquisher. When Guy andAlice moved their pieces across the board, playing at war was makinglove by other means.

Their erotic, illustrative contest demonstrates how solidarity is one of thekey principles embedded within the rules of The Game of War. Anisolated unit is vulnerable, easily defeated in combat and always at riskof being outflanked. But a group of pieces that remain close togetherbecome comrades-in-arms, sharing their fighting abilities and supplynetworks with each other. By rewarding solidarity in its play, The Gameof War acts as a tool of anti-militarisation in our revolutionary activities.It is the bourgeoisie who proclaimed the heroic general – Cromwell,Washington and Bonaparte - as the saviour of the nation. It is thebureaucracy who worshipped the man in uniform - Trotsky, Mao andChe – as the hero of the masses. The proletariat isn’t going to make thesame mistake. Our revolution won’t be militarised – it will be eroticised!

Ludic Labour!

65




“Reworking appropriated material not only leads to the discovery ofnew forms of creativity; in addition, clashing head-on with all social and

legal conventions, it cannot fail to be a powerful weapon in the serviceof a real class struggle. The cheapness of its products is the heavy

artillery which breaks through all the Chinese walls blockingunderstanding. It is the real means of proletarian artistic education, the

first step towards media communism.”

Class Wargames is playing Guy Debord’s The Game of War using areplica of his original 1977 design for the board game. Guy Debord iscelebrated as the chief strategist of the SSiittuuaattiioonniisstt IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall andauthor of the searing critique of the media-saturated society of consumercapitalism: The Society of the Spectacle. What is less well known is thatafter the French May ’68 Revolution, Debord devoted much of the rest ofhis life to inventing, refining and promoting what he came to regard as hismost important project: The Game of War.

PPoolliittiiccss iiss tthhee ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooff wwaarr bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..

The Game of War is a Clausewitz simulator: a Napoleonicera militarystrategy game where armies must maintain their communications

66

structure to survive - and wherevictory is achieved by smashingyour opponent’s supply networkrather than by taking theirpieces. For Debord, The Game ofWar wasn’t just a game - it was aguide to how people should livetheir lives within Fordist society.By playing this Clausewitzsimulator, revolutionary activistscould learn how to fight and winagainst the oppressors ofspectacular society.


ootthheerr mmeeaannss..


Comrades! Raise your glasses of champagne to mark Class Wargames’decisive victory on the cultural front: the launch of our film on Guy

67

FFoorrtthhccoommiinngg EEnnggaaggeemmeennttss::Saturday 10th October

Crash/Crush FestivalBed eLZESpui 24-26, The Hague,Netherlands

http://www.tag004.nlSaturday 14th November

Baltic Centre for Contemporary ArtGateshead Quays,South Shore Road, Gateshead,England

http://www.balticmill.comSaturday 14th November

Lens PoliticaToppila/Kuvataideakatemia,Kaikukatu, Helsinki,Finland

http://www.lenspolitica.net

Debord’s The Game of War. For the first time, the Situationist politics of this military simulation are carefully explained in sound and vision.After watching this movie, opponents of spectacular capitalism willunderstand the importance of studying The Game of War. By playfullycompeting against each other over its board, they are learning thestrategic and tactical skills required for success in the deadly struggleagainst the global bourgeoisie. In our film of Debord’s game, ClassWargames has divided these teachings from the battlefield into fivesections: terrain, combat, cavalry, arsenals and lines of communication.Analyse their insights with great care, fellow workers. As the crisis ofneo-liberalism intensifies, you will need this military knowledge tothwart the wicked schemes of bankers and bureaucrats. Remember wellthe lessons of socialist history: clever tactics and smart strategy are ourmost powerful weapons.

In the early-1970s, Debord created his film adaptation of The Society ofthe Spectacle by splicing together clips taken from other people’s moviesand then adding his own soundtrack. When social relations betweenindividuals are mediated through images, this avantgarde technique ofdétournement acts as the proletarian antidote to capitalistmonopolisation of historical memory. Quoting from the products of

68







Stefan LutschingerState University of StPetersburg



commercial cinema involves much more than recruiting glamourousmovie stars and expensive special effects for audiovisual subversion. AsDebord emphasised, these borrowed film excerpts are transformed in theediting process into a revolutionary critique of the spectacularmisrepresentation of the human adventure. Torn out of its originalcontext and carefully placed in a new juxtaposition, the cinematicpropaganda of the class enemy can be turned against itself. The imageryof bourgeois ideology must be metamorphosed into the elucidation ofSituationist theory. Expropriating the media expropriators is thepremonition of cybernetic communism in the present.

When Debord was working on the film adaptation of The Society of theSpectacle in the early-1970s, making a movie out of movie clips was verydifficult. Buying celluloid stock, hiring editing suites and organisingcinema screenings had required serious money from a generous sponsor.Fortunately, over the past three-and-ahalf decades, digital technologyhas caught up with this Situationist technique. Class Wargames onlyneeded a small grant from the Arts Council to fund a film constructed ona Mac laptop with Final Cut out of video from our performances andexcerpts from our DVD collection. Best of all, we are now able todistribute our cinematic creation to a worldwide audience for free overthe Net. Détournement is no longer the privilege of a minority of avant-garde artists. Media communism is now embedded in everyday life.Become a 21st century Debord - a director of remixed movies. Sweepaway the anachronistic barriers of intellectual property. Switch on thecomputer, start up the video editing software, plug in an external drivefilled with rendered DVDs and begin making your own film. Everyone isa practical Situationist.

Ludic Labour!

69



HH.. GG.. WWEELLLL''ssLLIITTTTLLEE WWAARRSS

“‘How much better is this amiable miniature than the Real Thing! Hereis a homeopathic remedy for the imaginative strategist. Here is the

premeditation, the thrill, the strain of accumulating victory or disaster –and no smashed buildings or devastated countrysides, no petty cruelties,

none of that awful universal boredom and embitterment, that tiresomedelay or stoppageof every gracious, bold, sweet, and charming thing,

that are the reality of belligerence’

Class Wargames is playing H.G. Wells’ Little Wars using a replica of thetoy armies and terrain featured in his 1913 book of the game.

H.G. Wells is well known as a visionary science fiction author and as thechampion of the technocratic World State. What is less familiar is that hewas also the founding father of the hobbyist subculture of figurinewargaming. Helped by his fellow Fabian Society Member GrahamWallas, Wells was responsible for creating the first set of rules thatallowed adults to fight simulated battles with model soldiers overminiature scenery.

LLiittttllee WWaarrss iiss tthhee aalltteerrnnaattiivvee ttoo tthhee GGrreeaatt WWaarr..

70

Devised on the eve of the FirstWorld War, Little Wars is asimulation of the inter-imperialistconflicts of the Victorian heydayof the British Empire. Both sidesseek victory by trying toconcentrate their forces andfirepower against the weakestpoint of their opponent’s position.

For Wells, Little Wars wasn’t just a game - it was his inspired attempt toprevent the impending catastrophe which was about to engulf early-20th century Europe. By playing each other in this mock combat,socialist activists could demonstrate that that there were less damaging - and more enjoyable - outlets for our competitive instincts than thebutchery of the new industrialised battlefield dominated by rifledweaponry, machine guns and heavy artillery.

GGrreeaatt WWaarr iiss tthhee mmoosstt eexxppeennssiivvee ggaammee iinn tthhee uunniivveerrssee

Class Wargames Autumn Offensive

WWaarrggaammeess aarree aa ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooff ppoolliittiiccss bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..

Proletarians, take pride in being a wargamer! H.G. Wells invented thishobby to thwart the greatest crime of the 20th century: the conscriptionof the workers of the world into the brutal struggle between the

71

Forthcoming Engagements:Wednesday 13th October

Institute of Contemporary Art,The Mall,London SW1Y 5AH

http://www.ica.org.uk

imperialist powers for global domination. During his holidays atSandgate in the early-1900s, this science fiction author and socialvisionary created a ludic remedy for this wicked stratagem of the classenemy. He dreamt of luring the politicians and generals who weredriving Europe towards a disastrous civil war into his children’splayroom. Having expelled its rightful occupants, Wells would invitethem to settle their differences in a more civilised manner. Who neededflesh-and-blood soldiers when the Britains company manufacturedplenty of lead soldiers for everyone? All that was needed were forsomeone to formulate rules for this Welt Politik game. In the early-19thcentury, Georg von Reisswitz had devised a sophisticated trainingexercise for the Prussian General Staff: Kriegsspiel. Credited withwinning the 1866-70 wars of German unification, playing this wargamesoon became an essential part of every officer’s military education in theVictorian era. Simulating combat was preparation for the real thing.

H.G. Wells had a brilliant idea. Why not reverse the equation? The PrimeMinisters, Presidents, Kings, Tsars and Kaisers of the world would begathered in his Kent seaside hideaway. He would make a simplifiedversion of Kriegsspiel for them which could be played with toy armies.Little Wars was his antidote to the looming Great War. When Wells’very important guests fired their Britains 4.7” naval model guns, theseshells didn’t murder or mutilate living and breathing human beings. In a miniature battle, the only casualties were lead soldiers. By formulating the rules of Little Wars, H.G. Wells had made a decisive contribution to the Cause of Labour. Capitalism is all too often a life-and-death contest. Little Wars transforms this competitive urge into the ritual of a gamewhere its players can experience all of the glamour and excitement of themilitary life without ever having to face the grim reality of a battlefield. Moving toy soldiers across a playroom floor was Wells’ manifesto ofpolitical rebellion. Little Wars is the civilised socialist alternative to the barbarity of imperialist war.

72

Nearly a century after H.G. Wells’ pioneering experiment, figurinewargaming has grown into a thriving hobbyist subculture. If you knowwhere to look, you can now assemble the toy soldiers, model scenery andrule books to re-fight the key contests in the long struggle for humanemancipation: the English Civil War, the American War ofIndependence, the French Revolutionary Wars, the Latin AmericanWars of Liberation, the American Civil War, the Irish War ofIndependence, the Spanish Civil War, the Anti-Fascist World War, theChinese Revolutionary War and the Vietnamese National LiberationWars. Every socialist has a profound debt of gratitude to H.G Wells. It isby playing simulations of these conflicts that we can learn how toovercome the forces of reaction which still afflict the modern world.Thanks to Little Wars, our class is now equipped with a superb tool fortraining revolutionary militants: figurine wargaming. It is on theseminiature battlefields that the coming victory of the insurgentproletariat will be prepared...

Ludic Labour!

73













AANNDDRRIICCHHAARRDD BBOORRGG’’SS

CCOOMMMMAANNDD && CCOOLLOORRSS

“The vital question before us is how to cut the chains of misery that stillbind the hands of Toussaint’s descendants and those worldwide trappedin poverty. Toussaint’s fierceopposition to slavery, his leadership skills,his freedominspired writings and the constitution he drafted bequeath

to us all a strategy for opposing injustice. This example tells us thatdiscipline is part of the equation.”

During the Invisible Forces exhibition at the Furtherfield Gallery ClassWargames is playing two ludic simulations of the French and HaitianRevolutions.: Guy debord’s The Game of War and Richard Borg’sCommand & Colors Napoleonics. By moving pieces across their boards,today’s rebels against global neo-liberalism can learn the key strategicand tactical principles which secured the triumphs of the past.

PPoolliittiiccss aarree aa ccoonnttiinnuuaattiioonn ooff wwaarr bbyy ootthheerr mmeeaannss..

74

For Debord, The Game of Warwasn’t just a game - it was a guideto how people should live theirlives within Fordist society. Byplaying this Clausewitz simulator,revolutionary activists could learnhow to fight and win againsttheoppressors of spectacular society.Inspired by this example, ClassWargames has created a Haitianvariant of Richard Borg’sCommand & Colors Napoleonicswhich disseminates the insights ofToussaint’s victorious strategy tothe insurgent leftists of the 21stcentury.

Just as importantly, the players ofthese two games are able to acquirean immunity to the temptationwhich has betrayed revolutionarystruggles throughout the modernepoch: the leaders of the oppressedthemselves turning into a new classof oppressors. When everyone canplay at Bonaparte, then no one canbecome the new Bonaparte.

Wargames are acontinuation of politics by

other means.

75

FFoorrtthhccoommiinngg EEnnggaaggeemmeennttss::

Invisible ForcesSaturday 16th June – 11th August

2012.Open Thursday-Friday 2.00-6.00pm, Saturday 11.00am-6.00pm

LLaauunncchh PPaarrttyySaturday 16th June1.00pm-5.00pm

PPiiccnniicc && SSuubbvveerrssiioonnSaturday 23rd June1.00pm-5.00pmTalk: Kimathi DonkorXenography: Alex Veness

Game: Guy Debord’sThe Game of War

PPiiccnniicc && SSuubbvveerrssiioonnSaturday 30th June1.00pm-5.00pmTalk: Richard Barbrook & Fabian Tompsett

Game: 1791 Revolution version of Richard Borg’s Command & Colors Napoleonics

Furtherfield GalleryMcKenzie Pavilion,Finsbury Park,London, N4 2NQ


Pick up the pieces, citizens. Lay out your armies on the board! ClassWargames is honoured to celebrate the inclusion of Kimathi Donkor’sToussaint L’Ouverture at Bedourete in the Furtherfield Invisible Forcesexhibition. In these times of popular uprisings against neoliberalglobalisation, we take pleasure in remembering our past victories. In 1791,the enslaved masses of Haiti rose in rebellion against their oppressors.Transferring the discipline painfully learnt in the plantations to thebattlefield, they created a revolutionary army that defeated the bestsoldiers of the European colonial powers. For a brief moment, theinsurgent slaves of Haiti and the artisan agitators of France wouldembody the most subversive desires of modernity: liberty, equality andsolidarity. Not surprisingly, conservative historians and artists havealways ignored this great revolutionary achievement. Donkor’s paintingis a sumptuous counter-attack against this establishment orthodoxy.Look at Toussaint L’Ouverture at Bedourete - and study well itsteachings about the emancipation of humanity. Now as then, North andSouth can only win by uniting their forces and striking hard against theircommon enemy: the liberal bourgeoisie.

On 5th March, 1802, François-Dominique Toussaint L’Ouverture- the commander-in-chief of theHaitian revolutionary army -achieved a great victory over theFrench troops defending FortBedourete. What happened onthat day would have worldhistorical significance. Having

76

Summer CampaignInvisible ForcesSaturday 16th June – Saturday 11th August 2012

Furtherfield GalleryMcKenzie Pavilion,Finsbury Park,London, N4 2NQ

seized power in 1799 through a military coup, Napoléon Bonaparte set towork on systematically reversing the democratic gains of the 1789French Revolution. As his autocratic rule was consolidated at home,Bonaparte’s attention turned to regaining control over what had oncebeen France’s most profitable colony: Haiti. Like the Paris mob beforethem, its rebellious inhabitants were surely incapable of resisting hishardened veterans. Sooner or later, this military dictator would achievehis ultimate goal: the restoration of slavery in Haiti. ToussaintL’Ouverture at Bedourete commemorates the thwarting of this nefariousscheme. Much to the amazement of their Bonapartist enemy, the Haitiansoldiers were more than a match for the French regulars in open combat.Even more deadly was their strategy of guerrilla warfare against theoccupying army. Partisans wore down the French forces in hit-and-runattacks - and then waited until these tired and weary troops succumbedto the deadly diseases of the tropics. Over the next two centuries, thistriumph of the Haitian revolutionaries would inspire anti-colonialstruggles across the world. The lessons of history are there to be learnt -and it is our turn to put them into practice.


77










Elena VorontsovaRadio Journalist

An untrained militant would only be an objectof embarrassment to the vanguard.

Inspired by this line of reasoning, Class Wargames isdedicated to:

* putting on participatory performances of Guy Debord’sThe Game of War;

* investigating gaming as a metaphor for social relationsunder repressive neo-liberalism;

* celebrating the craft skills of gamers as artistic expression;* creating a social space where radicals can meet & play

with each other;* re-enacting the proletarian struggles of the past in ludic

form;* training the militants of the cybernetic communist

revolution to come.


hhttttpp::////wwwwww..ccllaasssswwaarrggaammeess..nneett

78

79

Also available from Unpopular Books

All enquiries and cheques should be addressed c/o:Salamander Services,Island House,Roserton Street,London E14 3JD

£5 incl.

postage UK

Barbrook R. and Tompsett F. (2012) Class Wargames Presents GuyDebord's The Game of War, Poplar: Unpopular Books

IISSBBNN 997788--11--887711559933--9911--44

hhttttpp::////wwwwww..ccllaasssswwaarrggaammeess..nneett

80

Class Wargames Presents Guy Debord's The Game … · Preface "I'm not a philosopher, I'm a...

Documents

Transcript of Class Wargames Presents Guy Debord's The Game … · Preface "I'm not a philosopher, I'm a...