/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11553936]

not a lot of people talking about Debord on here, odd because most other advanced Marxist theorists have gotten some attention on here I've seen. You all should read him.

[Anonymous No.11553968]

>>11553936

My first paragraph will be a bit cheeky but I have a substantive question later for any who care to discuss it. I read We All Live in a Society, and I picked up on the basic Marxist bits of phrase and the basic Dude I'm Predicting the Internet/the Matrix and more "literal, concrete" stuff of the Spectacle. I even sorta-get the slightly deeper critique about how a capitalist society shapes how people think and approach life.

The thing that I'm missing is something which /lit/ posters have intimated more than once, the larger significance of the work beyond these basics. I seem to remember that one element of this is something about how Debord lamented how the left does the same shit that the right does for deeper reasons, but I may not have that quite right. One user regularly advises people to read the very short Commentary, I have the link but haven't got round to it just yet. Anyway that's my question: what did he mean, /really/?

[Anonymous No.11553975]

but debord is literally the only marxist people talk about on here. mostly because his ideas are for spoiled petit-bourgeois college kids.

[Anonymous No.11554033]

>>11553975

In other words, the people who here discuss Debord are the same as those who attempted to apply Marxism throughout history.

[Anonymous No.11554312]

yeah modern marxists exhibit a lot of knee-jerk resentment towards debord. most modern marxist scholarship is excavatory yet creators and proponents balk like livestock when anybody has the notion to shore up the walls or ceiling by adjusting and planning to deal with what's topside.

[Anonymous No.11554335]

>>11554312

>this post

What the hell did you mean by that? Stop preening and explain exactly what you had in mind.

[Anonymous No.11554363]

>>11553936
Wtf debord gets more attention than other ‘Marxist theorists’ I can think of

[Anonymous No.11554410]

>>11553975
That's because Debord is describing their life. They read it and go "haha so true" and continue on doing the same. Debord is reactionary, and so contemporary leftism must remain in discord with the ultimate nature of his conclusions

[Anonymous No.11554423]

Adorno is king

[Anonymous No.11554462]

>>11554423

How can I possibly take seriously the opinions on aesthetics of a man who:

-looked like Adorno looked,
-had his life beatifully and rightfully damaged by men who wore outfits like these,
-and wrote dreary bleating attempts at classical music?

In every possible sense, Adorno's aesthetics are void both through is person and through the vindication of everything which opposed him. He is a vestigial appendix of the kike academy. I need not even do the old jazz chestnut, because it is unecessary - even black jazz is capable of life and grace which never appeared in Adorno's dumb music itself, as any thinking man can acknowledge. Jazz at least preceded the total nihilism of the black man through rap.

[Anonymous No.11554477]

>>11554462

pic related to put the lie to baldie lazy-eye Adorno's (((Aesthetics))). The further irony is that despite being steeped in the Western Canon, if Adorno himself had been born in the Roman era, he would have been flung off a bridge somewhere.

[Anonymous No.11554487]

>>11554410
>Debord is reactionary
this. the real heirs of the situationist international are the National Bolsheviks, Nick Land and Sam Hyde.

[Anonymous No.11554598]

>>11554487

This is a spicy post because it muddies the waters of political intent. Nick Land and Sam Hyde are associated with the alt-right, yet the figure in the pic who I just heard about today associated with early punks like the Ramones, who notably and quietly included a Republican voter. The composition of the photo is "conventionally fascist", in a sense.

[Anonymous No.11554647]

>>11554598
Only a boomer could associate Land with the alt-right, could commit such a basic error of political cladistics.