/lit/ - Literature

>>22659203
>please only books from a right wing perspective. I don't believe the left wing perspective can honestly talk about these topics.
lmao

"Revolutionary theory is now the enemy of all revolutionary ideology, and it knows it".

Which writers or philosophers would have shot themselves immediately the moment they were transferred from their times to our own?

how can this guy have read Céline Flaubert Bulgakov and so forth and still support an idea whose only other proponent in France was Jean Paul fucking Sartre the ultimate 'communo-bourgeois' faggot

>dude spectacle lmao

>>13114744
Forgot the pic

Praxagora: I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common; there will no longer be either rich or poor; [...] I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [...]
Blepyrus: But who will till the soil?
Praxagora: The slaves.

Separation is the alpha and omega of the spectacle. Religious contemplation in its earliest form was the outcome of the establishment of the social division of labor and the formation of classes. Power draped itself in the outward garb of a mythical order from the beginning. In former times the category of the sacred justified the cosmic and ontological ordering of things that best served the interests of the masters, expounding upon and embellishing what society could not deliver. Thus power as a separate realm has always had a spectacular aspect, but mass allegiance to frozen religious imagery was originally a shared acknowledgment of loss, an imaginary compensation for a poverty of real social activity that was still widely felt to be a universal fact of life. The modern spectacle, by contrast, depicts what society can deliver, but within this depiction what is permitted is rigidly distinguished from what is possible. The spectacle preserves unconsciousness as practical changes in the conditions of existence proceed. The spectacle is self-generated, and it makes up its own rules: it is a specious form of the sacred. And it makes no secret of what it is, namely, hierarchical power evolving on its own, in its separateness, thanks to an increasing productivity based on an ever more refined division of labor, an ever greater comminution of machine governed gestures, and an ever widening market. In the course of this development all community and critical awareness have ceased to be; nor have those forces, which were able by separating to grow enormously in strength, yet found a way to reunite

>when you BTFO Stirner in one sentence

Make Debord a spectator in the crowd of one arena

>>10972102
>also known as "debord guy"

i bet i could fuck this guy up with my bare hands

*disrupts your system of commodification comprised solely of images*

heh...you never had a chance kid

>never worked
>drunk most of the time

Is Guy Debord the absolute madman?

> dingus
> rustles jimmies
> his book is awful

mfw G&M journalists made this fucking thread

Start
With
The
Greeks.

>>9543376
As right as Baudrillard is, I often feel he is a re-hash of this guy's ideas in sci-fi vocab for the 21st century.

> he seeks validation from the integrated spectacle by dressing according to popular trends to fill the empty void that is his life

What to read after Debord? Any worthy successors or contemporary writers? Closest I can think of is Agamben or Baudrillard, maybe Virilio.

“Spectacle, he writes...is the production of a one-way communcation that he characterizes as “a generalized autism.”

>>8862601
whatever brainlet, go and wank to people enacting sex on a screen like the little subject you are

Have you been made to submit to the spectacle anon?

>mfw I'm going to steal all of these posts and use them as lyrics for my post-ironic DSBM band

>>6496606
Pure spectacle.