/lit/ - Literature

capital is sentient

>>16592504
Do bongs really?

Without capitalism there would be no Funkopops, just saying.

>>16592504
Mankind is capital's meat poppet.

>My students are bored in class
>AHHHH HECKIN CAPITALISMO

>>16592508
Capital, in its ultimate self-definition, is nothing beside the abstract accelerative social factor. Its positive cybernetic schema exhausts it. Runaway consumes its identity. Every other determination is shucked-off as an accident, at some stage of its intensification process. Anything able to consistently feed socio-historical acceleration will necessarily, or by essence, be capital.

The current wave of technological automation – driven by advanced robotics, encrypted neural networks and furtive distributed data channels, machine learning, and big data networks and lobbying – is expelling labour from the production process faster than it can be reintegrated, disrupting the balance between labour and capital, and threatening a phase shift in global capitalism. The Dehumanisation of the Human: The rapid development and increasing accessibility of technologies that modify human biology, psychology, and sociality – spearheaded by the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science – threatens to dissolve the cognitive, reproductive, and evolutionary unity of our common form of life. We can look to the Media as the first of the Logos to suffer this fate. What we have now is not even just natural scarcity, but altered scarcity that is the result of totality of capital individually striving to produce conditions in which each cell (or the atom) gets the biggest yield.

The idea of free will and our assumed identities and self-understandings, including politics or social standing, are simulations that can and will be ultimately be sloughed off as we enter a post-industrial society. Automization of production will end any chance of post-scarcity before it begins.

>>16592537
you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything

It seemed to me that most of the problems he brings up are related more to technology than capitalism.

Also, every time someone refers to ‘capital’ as some sentient being, I can’t help but roll my eyes. I thought Marxists loved to jerk themselves off about how scientific they are. The air of woo-woo mysticism that comes out every time they mention Capital or late stage capitalism’ is laughable.

>>16592570
Sounds more like Kaczynski than Marx lmao

>>16592592
When your living intellectual icon can't stop jerking it to Lacan, I guess woo-woo mysticism is to be expected

>>16592601
no just your typical luddite marxist

>>16592657
Perhaps you are the luddite if you genuinely can't understand what that passage is trying to say

>>16592592
I mean the argument in part is that certain technologies emerge as a result of capitalism's needs and conditions, right? I think Fisher would say the two are intertwined.

>>16592675
>capital uses technology to screw you
wow thats some galaxy brain revelations there mate. It's not like you shithead marxists have been saying the exact same thing for 150 years now

>>16592508
>>16592537
Sounds like theology kekw

>>16592504
the entire point of this book is that it is hopeless. if he was to include everything that's fucked up he would need at least 1000 volumes and it wouldn't fit.
>uhhhhh m-m-man up that's just h-h-how the world is big boy
Yes! abandon empathy, sympathy, emotion, sense, rationality, thinking, leisure, happiness, fulfillment and everything human. that's very empowering

>>16592504
Yeah. Generally Marxists fail to realize that social woes can be attributed to anything other than “muh Kapital”. An increase in mental illness over time, with mental illness proven to be significantly genetic: well it’s gotta be late stage capitalism. Sectarian woes? Capitalism. And so on

>>16592677
But he repeatedly tries to flex like problems that have existed in both capitalist and non-capitalist industrial societies (e.g. bloated bureaucracy) are specifically phenomena of capitalism

I get that he's theoretically trying to dismantle various arguments for why capitalism is preferable to socialism more than to explicitly defend socialism, but he also repeatedly plays the "rEaL sOcIaLiSm NeVer BeEn TrIeD" card when facing obvious contradictions, sometimes just doesn't even bother to ask whether a problem he attributes to capitalism existed in non-capitalist societies (e.g. mass mental illness, which if rates of alcoholism and suicide in socialist East Europe are anything to go by is definitely not unique to capitalism), and generally just doesn't ever for one moment float the thesis that something other than the broadly defined specter of "capitalism" might be at play here because it's simply treated as a foregone conclusion that Marxist critiques are all both correct and complete, with the entire book then becoming an exercise in fitting various phenomena into a predetermined theoretical framework rather than examining them independently.

It's also just super chaotically written and argued, flitting from one tangentially related topic to the next and piling on borrowed jargon without any coherent argumentative structure. I can't imagine how anyone who didn't already agree with all of Fisher's starting premises could read this book and come away persuaded of anything. Everything that isn't just straight paraphrasing other writers with actually structured theories is a series of applause lines where Fisher identifies something bad about modern society and then goes, "...and that's because of capitalism!!"

And fwiw I would more or less say I'm a tentative left-libertarian SocDem inclined to agree with a lot of Fisher's theses in principle, I just think he does a shit job of making his case.

>>16592601
Kaczynski doesn't write in such an insufferable obscurantist manner, though.

>>16592842
What's obscurantist about it?

>>16592504
>Was Fisher a hack, or is all postmodern theory like this?
Yes.

>>16592879

>>16592694
He's pretty specifically arguing that Marxism's focus on capital is too narrow because it's just an accelerating factor in the march of industrialization which is the real problem.

So, more Kaczynski than Marx.

Guess I shouldn't be surprised that conservatards bitching about "muh Marxist boogeyman" in the vaguest possible terms lack reading comprehension tho

>>16592885

>>16592812
I thought he was explaining why the sense of hopelessness is false. That there are human relations based outside of transaction?

>>16592879
>>16592885
>>16592891
depressing desu

>>16592504
Haven't read Fisher but this sounds exactly like how Graeber writes. I remember a section where he was trying to claim that Star Trek never focuses on critiquing the Federation because it was so futuristic that its government was perfect, dontcha know. Complete bullshit of course, DS9 exists.

>>16592864
Nothing, it's a tad pretentious but still more coherent than Mark Fisher

>>16592504
fisher is dumb but OP is even dumber, just fucking read Capital there is no excuse

Capital is trending in a distinctly anti-citizen direction. Just look at the average weeks it take to cover household expenses. This is largely due to automation and the globalization of the labor market coupled with anti-competitive practices by large corporations (Amazon selling diapers at a loss to drive diapersdotcom under and then buying them out). This drives down wages, prevents new businesses from emerging, and sabotages social mobility and ability to earn money for the majority of citizens. This will likely end in revolution or unemployment riots at the very least. Read Oren Cass' article for the manhattan-institute if further interested

>>16592886
point me to where he "argues" that

I liked "Babbling Corpse: Vaporwave And The Commodification Of Ghosts" from Zero Books but even it had a bit too much "this is how and why things are, just trust me ok?"

>>16592879
>>16592885
>>16592891
>postmodern theory

not a single theorist in any of these, what the fuck? try reading adorno or jameson you hack

>>16592898
Fisher's solution to the soul-degrading contradictions of late capitalism was literally to try and get everyone to do more LSD. Also, dude killed himself.

>>16592913
Not my fault everyone recommends Fisher as the "accessible" intro point to modern Marxism, one of the greatest philosophical works of the 21st century, etc.

>>16592940
Are you referring to "Acid Communism"?

>>16592931
but that's not what zero books would have you believe anon

>>16592914
I'm interested in data-driven empirical analysis of capitalism like Cass and in theoretical analysis of culture and ideology under capitalism like Zizek, Fisher just feels like a noncommittal halfway point between the two that doesn't really pass muster in either direction because there's no consistent method or structure to his arguments.

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16592570
>you must be a true marxist. Only a true marxist can churn out paragraphs without actually saying anything
this is /lit/ now

>>16593002
Have you read Yang's "The War on Normal People"? I highly recommend it, it's a good mix of his personal experiences and friendships in different tech sectors and also examinations of broader data trends. He specifically talks about how individual towns or cities can be impacted, like when steel mills shut down in Youngstown or what happens when central malls close in a given city.

Personally, I think this pandemic has been quite an accelerating factor for a lot of these concerning trends, and in the next decade or so, when automated vehicles become to norm, I think we will witness a true tipping point in terms of public consciousness of the failures of the current capitalist model. It's true these kinds of predictions have always been made and famously were incorrect, but this scale of technological advancement leading to an explosion of income and wealth for the top while the majority stagnant is simply an unsustainable model

>>16593027
what is your pure redit post trying to convey?

>>16592537
>>16592508
>>16593027
Are you okay accfag/nick?

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593105
>redit
this is /lit/ now

>>16593217
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6K4j5UHZn0&t=247s&ab_channel=RenaissancePeopleNYC
literally you rn

>>16593217
Wtf

>>16592914
>expenditure cost increases almost all due to increases in costs of healthcare, housing and education

Meanwhile:
>free trade in medicine is illegal
>supply of doctors restricted by medical cartels
>housing stock artificially restricted in the US, and even more so in the UK - just compare to Japan where several times more houses are built and CoL is going DOWN in TOKYO
>student loans are heavily subsidized by the US Government, colleges have a monopoly on granting credentials so they know the government will subsidize loans of any size. Other means of assessing competence run the risk of you being hit with a Disparate Impact suit
Heckin' corporations, man...

>>16593292
this

>>16592508
Fpwp go back

If not capitalism then what

>>16593292
The healthcare industry in the US is purposely the way it is to maximize profits for pharmaceutical and insurance companies, friend. Any legislation that rises to change this state of affairs gets scraped because of the influence of those industry leaders

>>16592504
>offers zero empirical evidence for thesis, only random anecdotes and dated pop culture refs
wow, so exactly like Spengler whom chuds respect for some reason

>>16593400
>capitalism is international, uncontrollable and antihuman (EXCEPT non-American pharmaceutical firms).

>>16592508
Someone who uses words in such retarded ways as this clearly should have been killed before going near books.

>>16592508
sentience is capital

>>16592504
>> "Capitalism causes [social problem]!" // offers zero empirical evidence for thesis, only random anecdotes and dated pop culture refs
He does not because he thinks we all know the symptomatization deleuze and guattari did in antioedipus:
>everything is social = the human phenomena is a bunch of relation with his own medium. In Fisher's period = capitalism

>Was Fisher a hack, or is all postmodern theory like this?
Fisher is not a postmodern, he is part of the generation that tried to get out of the mudpool postmodernism generated. As every one of his contemporaries, he failed because the left is braindead by capital itself (the left he wanted to wake is just a bunch of bourgeois anglos with no real problems beyond trying not to abuse minorities unconsciously)

Thats why his books are so cringy, he always refused to be what he actually was: a bourgeois anglo. Liberalism, or sociodemocratic capitalism, was the most efficient weapon the west had against revolution and comunism. Even Land, braindead as he was at that time, was capable to see that.

>>16593638
You have to speak English to post on this board

>>16592913
>>16592940
Interesting as he sort of put Kurt cobain on a pedestal. That part was actually kind of interesting though

>>16592537
shut up Nick

Ehh you don’t really need empirical evidence for that just look around

>>16594387
>just look around
I see problems caused by liberalism and anarchism, not so much capitalism.

>>16594712
>anarchism
lol where

>>16594726
Wherever there's drugs and immigrants in the same place.

>>16594387
>>16594712
when will the right and left put aside their differences(they can keep) and band together to eradicate the b*nks

>>16592537
Post the batman hyperstition quote

How are you supposed to give empirical evidence for something societal that isn't anecdotes?

>>16594734
mazin

>>16592531
he literally explains it tho. he says that institutions are becoming systems that compete against the models that have been assigned to them (percent passed, etc.) instead of their original purpose. and while this could easily exist in other societies (soviets did this a lot) it is also an effect of investment, shareholders, money, a perfectly efficient looking system on the books and the most middling depressing careless internals.

>>16594819
If your hypothesis is that a measurable social phenomenon (e.g. mass mental illness) is the direct consequence of a particular economic system that you’re trying to critique in material terms, you can (and should) definitely seek empirical data to support that hypothesis, at least if you’re trying to do social science and not just unfalsifiable armchair wankery. And if you’re not trying to do social science, maybe you have no business making truth claims about quantifiable phenomena.

>>16595047
No joke, I feel like THE WIRE did this critique of bureaucracy-poisoned late capitalist institutions better and more coherently than Mark Fisher, and beat him to the punch by several years too

>>16593097
I think it's a bit cutting off the scope of criticism to merely blame technological advancement that puts human life in potential peril on capitalism, per se.

Ellul, for example, rightly points out that technology to a Marxist is a god; it's not like technological advancement wouldn't be propped up under that system -- just as an aside.

Wage/income stagnation is partly technological, but it's also partly technological system -- what you see promoted with mass-immigration, H1 Visas, globalization, outsourcing, etc. Capitalism DOES play a part, of course, but it's not the whole picture.

>>16595214
yeah. i mean he acknowledges that kafka did it better than anyone ever like however many years before. i think he kept the section in because of his knowledge of being a teacher and brought it back into slice of life stuff. the flexibility stuff he talks about was interesting to me being someone whos hasnt had no job like that.

everyone in here is filtered, keep on reading spengler, niggers

>>16595047
Also there literally is a bit where he says “Capitalism causes ADHD!” (and he phrases it in a much more pretentious way, I forget exactly how) and his entire support for that claim is “My students don’t pay attention in class, too busy with the Xbox and the hippity-hop” before he just goes into sucking off Deleuze.

Like, that’s a (basically) material truth claim, and it SEEMS plausible, but I feel like if you’re trying to argue that claim in an intellectually serious context you should maybe try a little bit harder than just sounding like a cranky grandpa

>>16595200
>empirical data
like what?

>>16595444
but i feel that way too like a cranky grandpa sometimes i give my dad a book or movie and remember that some people literally just cant. not in their current state. i can half agree with blaming things on capitalism that arent inherent to capitalism but things that have been birthed through capitalism (xbox, whatever) being not completely coherent, but what do we have as a control? how can we be positive that technological innovation would be the same in any societal structure? what about china. they just ban video games past a certain hour per week. i think thats good. its not really capitalism persay but our type of capital where regulation (not just epa type stuff but take china ban as example) comes after, if at all to industry. and in this libertarian, anarchic markets, you get products that are simply bad for humans, but make money, and that is whats being selected for.

>>16595513
>in this libertarian, anarchic markets,
I understand what you're trying to say but the markets we have are absolutely not libertarian. You should notice that lolbertarians are constantly enraged that nobody listens to them and want to dramatically reform a bunch of stuff. I mean just the entire monetary system to begin with is the furthest thing from the Austrian ideal.

These communists should have tried working a little harder and came up with their own businesses instead of crying about being poor and killing millions of people.

>>16595513
what do you guys think. is governmental (also cultural values can produce similar effect of governmental regulation, maybe. not sure.) hard-limiting/regulation/banning good in some cases? what if the government went in and banned using the computer too damn much. but they never would as profit is king. some rightists like doing limiting/strengthening stuff like that (strong adherence to nofap, exercise, etc.) and i think its good (this is the cultural values method). but could the government do the same thing, would it work
>>16595545
i dont know too much about economics but dont you think the markets serve capital, not humans? and the government constricts it just enough to not look bad, but what real regulation is going on in tech? is it not at least libertarian in its spirit

>>16595551
brilliant, i never thought about it that way....

Economics is as laughable a "science" as psychology.

>>16595553
>the markets serve capital, not humans?
They serve a pretty specific group of rich assholes, which is not how libertarian markets are supposed to work. The regulations the government does are sometimes the sort of bandage you're talking about, eg. welfare, but that's also vote-buying. Other times it's just outright theft, money siphoning to the banks and to giant corps.

>>16595576
yes. but what would change if the non-libertarian (as you say) markets were "freed" (now libetarian)? i dont foresee it being any different, and possibly worse, after the markets coagulate. i just think we need some sort of check on technological innovation that will be harmful to us. we do it with drugs, but we know thats just a racket for them, im not sure. i just think these markets are simply anti-human. suicide is higher than ever and rising and i think lots of the posits in the book are legitimate reasons.

>>16595618
It would definitely be different. I'm sure it wouldn't be exactly to the liking of socialists, but the working and middle classes would not be getting fucked quite so hard by the elite. The markets we have now are literally set up to benefit the rich, so a 'fair'(I realize the term is a bit specious but bear with me) market would by definition not be as bad.

Obviously being lolberts they want to cut back services for the workers a shitload as well, which is another dimension. I'm not even trying to advocate for libertarianism here, Im just pointing out that their ideas are actually much less comically villainous than the system we really have in reality.

>>16595632
i see. funny remembering back to the ron paul days where libertarianism was a cool alternative for the forum/chan peeps, and lots of the anti-woke socialist type crowd came from these roots

Seems like fisher was saying "capital" is an inhuman mechanism that fosters toxic culture and behaviors

>>16592504
Why did he off himself? Did he leave behind a note?

>>16592504
If you can't see what problems capitalism has caused, you must not have left your house for the past 6 months.

>>16595469
bugman beanercounter people that don't think anyone knew anything about anything before the advent of mass statistics should all be lined up and shot.
IT'S OKAY TO TRUST YOUR EYES. I swear you'd have to show these people a peer-reviewed study to prove that my dick is in their butt. Also, they never ever apply this level of skepticism to their own idiotic preconceptions.

>>16592504
I love how socialists shadow box with this phantom of a concept such as "capitalism", when literally every first world country with few exceptions are borderline socialist already if not fully. Socialism used to be in contrast with the early 1900s "capitalism", the closest living representative of Capitalism there ever was, but when they essentially won with the government's further encroachment of private property and rights (note: this is a function of time, not because socialists actually did anything besides exist; governments, like tumors, tend to grow) they aren't satisfied with the conclusion their ideology has lead to. They reinvent the wheel, put more emphasis on cultural and racial aspects of socialism rather than the economic, and label the product of a 100 years of their fuckery as "capitalism".

Because a system where people exchange what are essentially worthless labor slips for products made by government-subsided companies and about 20 percent of earned salary goes to government agencies to be redistributed into shitty second-rate public services and into obese, negro single mothers' hands is the most capitalistic thing I ever heard of.

>>16596185
>reeee stop criticizing private power

>>16593002
I've never heard of Cass, can I get a full name for google?

>>16596232
Oren Cass. Look up his article "reevaluating-prosperity-of-american-family" for the Manhattan Institute

>>16592504
My favourite parts reading Fisher are when he gets dangerously close to an actual radical conclusion but immediatly scares himself away from it because that conclusion would be far right. He was smart, but a weak and timid man.

>>16592601
Ted was still a lefty retard in essence, just the new strand. Anything that comes of his shit will be defeated, just as every other leftist movement has been and will forever. All the same. All losers.

>>16596632
Do you have an example of when this occurred?

>Empirical proof
>>16592537
>encrypted neural networks

>>16596700
Pretty sure it was in Capitalist Realism, I've read quite a lot of Fisher but haven't looked through his work in a while so I could be wrong. I just remember it standing out to me as an incredible moment of intellectual cowardice.

>>16592592
>I thought Marxists loved to jerk themselves off about how scientific they are.
They do but they also don't understand what the scientific process involves. Even Dugin realises this and credits this mysticism as a core tenant of NazBol.

>>16592812
Moron, did you even read to the end?

>>16595575
Brainlet spotted

>>16592504
Well said anon, yes all postmodern theory is like this.
>>16592592
This. I see soccies claim all the time that every negative feature of technology's social effect is a feature of Capitalism itself. So transparent.

>>16592570
Buzzwords and pilpul are the speciality of Marxoids

>>16592504
I read pic related recently. It says that all money is based on slaves. All of the sources were Marxist scholars, and at the end he said Black Lives Matter. My biggest issue with it however, was though it criticized capitalism, it didn’t even attempt to propose an alternative system.

>>16596681
What does being a lefty even mean?

>>16592537
>I use big words to sound smart. You could have said all that in one sentence

>>16597746
>>16592570
If there's one thing that filters retards is the lack of self-awareness that the usage of language can open new horizons in thinking

t. apolitical/non-"leftist"

>>16596769
>won't even bother with a citation
>just keep calling it bad

>>16597770
Just get to the point already. If you do that, eventually you’ll get good at it, so when you write long paragraphs, every sentence will actually be useful. Start small buddy. :)

>>16597785
The point is there. Your mind is simply too used to absolutes and general ideas

>>16597804
You could have just said “automation bad” and I would have understood your point

>>16597839
That's true

>>16592504

I have been trying to get more into Marxist ideas, and I read this, and I don't understand why it's so big. At best, you can turn a blind eye to the clear methodological flaws, and then just enjoy the kooky impishness of his outlandish theories. But you can't defend the actual ideas. It's just full of these bizarre, unsubstantiated, provocative claims. Things like how Kurt Cobain killed himself because he realised he was feeding into MTV's problem (no mention of his failed marriage, heroin addiction, and stomach problems) or how the movie Heat somehow reflects 90s capitalist markets (even it's a remake of LA Takedown from decades earlier) or how he can tell students are depressed just by looking at his own students, who slouch and sometimes wear headphones (oh, yes, because students never slouched and goofed off before 2008). His other work seems full of this kind of stuff, like his Hauntology nonsense. The idea that art has only recently started co-opting the aesthetic of previous generations is nuts, just completely nuts. At best, his stuff is - I don't know - fun or clever, and it gives the same intellectual roller coaster ride of listening to a well thought out conspiracy theory about 9/11 or something, but that's it. If you tried to explain his ideas, in simple and clear language, to someone who isn't already loyal to the material, you wouldn't be able to substantiate the claims, and they'd think you're crazy.

>>16593027

It's been like this since Jordan Peterson got big, unironically. His fans utterly eviscerated this board

>>16597876
Marxism is perfectly summed up in mein kampf. It has just enough truth in it to keep it afloat

>>16592537
Log off and take care of your kids Nick

>>16597886
"Adolph Hitler, der fuhrer des deutschen jungen, am das erst."

>>16597876
>you can turn a blind eye to the clear methodological flaws, and then just enjoy the kooky impishness of his outlandish theories
why else do you read besides enjoyment? who cares about 'defending ideas' lol

>The idea that art has only recently started co-opting the aesthetic of previous generations is nuts, just completely nuts
he doesn't say that, and if you go back to deleuze, he doesn't say that either.

the book sucks but not because its nonsense; it sucks because it's fitting decades of theory in a handful of pages. read the people he cites if you want 'actual ideas'

>>16598574
It's a pretty good book to give a parent or a friend though

>>16598599
If 80% of the book is just restating the conclusions of other philosophers without explaining how they reached those conclusions, and the remaining 20% is dubious original analysis, and there’s no real structure to any of it, how is that a good book? It’s all preaching to the converted.

>>16598665
because it's easy to read, uses pop culture references, and name-drops other theorists. i dont think the average person really cares about proper argumentation, they just want interesting ideas and clearer understanding
"that paragraph talking about zizek was really cool, ill look into him"
"yeah my job does feel kafkaesque. going to read deleuze's book on kafka next"

>>16598574
>why else do you read besides enjoyment? who cares about 'defending ideas' lol

I read a book like this for informed cultural analysis. I don't give a shit about being entertained if it doesn't add up. Maybe you do for some reason. It means nothing to me.

>read the people he cites if you want 'actual ideas'

There are no formal citations in this book.

>>16593445
>non-American pharma can influence US laws at all, nevermind as easily as American pharma

>>16592570
Now the whole thread knows you got filtered by basic theory.

>>16595513
>its not really capitalism persay but our type of capital
>its not really how things exist in reality its how I imagine them in my head!

>>16592899
>>16592891
>>16592885
>>16592879

CAPITALISM HAS EXHAUSTED THE INDIVIDUATION IMPULSE IN SOCIETY NOT EVEN THE ANTICAPITALISTS ARE SAFE
BOOK COMPANIES WILL ONLY PUBLISH BOOKS CONFORMING TO PROVEN PROFIT GENERATING THOUGHT PATTERNS

>>16600327
The ultimate irony. The absurdists were right all along

>>16600327
>CAPITALISM HAS EXHAUSTED THE INDIVIDUATION IMPULSE IN SOCIETY
No, that's just you projecting.

>>16593234

wouldn't be surprised if dark web hit men existed solely for parents to take care of their autistic children once and for all

I mean, look at that house. That's literally my worst nightmare

>>16592891
>commodifying marxism
The absolute state

>>16600327
no, you fucking brainlet
it will publish books designed to conform your brain to profit generating thought patterns

>>16592504
well you're not really giving any evidence either. Hard to refute an argument when it's not really an argument but rather a strawman. Can you point me to specific examples?
>>16592537
the fact that people mock for you putting in effort once again shows that anons on this board do not fucking read. If these are considered "big words" on /lit/ then I've lost all hope on this stupid board.
>>16592819
He repeatedly says that he does not deny any of the scientific evidence for mental illness. He simply suggests that systemic circumstances in post-modern depression is often either downplayed or even completely ignored. You'd know this if you actually read the book, but I know that this is too much to ask for on this board.
You sound like one of those radical rationalists who say "who needs philosophy when we have science?".
>>16596185
>literally every first world country with few exceptions are borderline socialist already if not fully.
By far my favorite take itt. The absolute political-big mac consoomerism it takes to genuinely believes this... please read a book anon. I beg you

obligatory