/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11654263]

more like gay the bored, am i right?

[Anonymous No.11654274]

>>11654263
Hehe we're against leftism :) Guy Debord? More like gay the fag shit cuck

[Anonymous No.11654287]

*detours your life with a knife to the bladder*
pssh, nothing personnel

[Anonymous No.11654297]

>>11654287
detour this
*grabs dick*

[Anonymous No.11654506]

Am I a brainlet for struggling to get through some of Guy's thesises?

[Anonymous No.11654610]

>>11654506
me too t b h f a m.
i've spent more time on wikipedia than inside the actual book when reading it, and i'm only on the third chapter :( owow my head hurts ouchie :(

[Anonymous No.11654789]

WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aqGYYBwKbQ

[Anonymous No.11655107]

>>11654506
>thesises
You may be a brainlet for thinking this is how the plural is formed.

[Anonymous No.11655118]

>>11655107
it's thesii right?

[Anonymous No.11655145]

>>11655118
theses

[Anonymous No.11655157]

>In common with other situationist texts, therefore, The Society of the Spectacle painted a picture of a society which believes itself capable of providing everything, satisfying all desire, relieving every burden, and fulfilling every dream. But this is also a world which insists that every moment of life must be mediated by the commodity form, a situation which makes it impossible to provide anything for oneself or act without the mediation of commodities. A spectacle can only be watched and enjoyed at a distance, from where it appears glamorous and desirable; participation may be possible, but its form and extent will be predetermined by the context in which it appears. The promises of self-fulfilment and expression, pleasure and independence which adorn every billboard are realisable only through consumption, and the only possible relation to the social world and one’s own life is that of the observer, the contemplative and passive spectator. The commodity form places everything in the context of a world organised solely for the perpetuation of the economic system; a tautological world in which the appearance of real life is maintained in order to conceal the reality of its absence. Bombarded by images and commodities which effectively represent their lives to them, people experience reality as second-hand. Everything has been seen and done before; quests for fulfilment are always frustrated, and just as workers find no satisfaction in the products of their labour, so ‘no one has the enthusiasm on returning from a venture that they had on setting out on it. My dears,’ said Debord in one of his films, ‘adventure is dead.’

[Anonymous No.11656416]

>>11654263
Fake news is a concerning extension of Society of the Spectacle

[Anonymous No.11656439]

>>11654789
there has never been real discourse in the left since this; it is the real problem which we now must overcome

[Anonymous No.11656441]

>/lit/
More like gay the board

[Anonymous No.11657393]

>>11654789
je cringe

[Anonymous No.11657403]

>>11654263
i have practically no experience with Marx but this guy is pretty fuckin rad and I enjoyed the book.

[Anonymous No.11657408]

>>11654263
More like society of the testicle

[Anonymous No.11657433]

>>11656416
let's not forget about "reality TV"

[Anonymous No.11658386]

can i get an example of what would be real/authentic according this Guy?

[Anonymous No.11658393]

>>11654789
Thats a yikes from me dawg

[Anonymous No.11658396]

>>11657433
what a fucking dumb post....is it 2007

[Anonymous No.11658435]

>>11658386

In my reading, this is -- as of yet -- impossible. Debord writes in his early publications (late 50s) that the laws of capital have already subsumed pretty much every aspect and discourse of life and, as such, nothing "authentic" can be imagined in that sense. It is through détournement through which one can 'arrest' one of these cultural artefacts and make it 'confess', or lay bare, its ideological premises so as it open up a new discourse of critique. Apply this to every facet of life and, according to him, you would be able to perhaps eventually attain something 'more real' than we could have at this moment in time.

[Anonymous No.11658529]

>>11658435
but the spectacle started in the 1920's right, are there any examples of authenticity/realness from before that?

[Anonymous No.11658558]

authenticity was never rael... marxists thik noumena only disabld in the last hundred years uhh...

[Anonymous No.11659748]

>>11658435
>nope you cant have real experiences anymore cause capitalism

christ, why do people bother with marxism? what a bummer...

[Anonymous No.11660950]

>>11654263
More like Guide for the Bore!

[Anonymous No.11661071]

quick question
did debord really kill or orchestrate the killing of his long-time financier lebovici?

[Anonymous No.11661085]

>>11658529
no. the spectacular has always been there in the economic field, but the spectacle is supposed to identify solely the late stage of capitalism, the most highly advanced and developed stage, in which spectacular relations (by definition) have reached peak limit.

[Anonymous No.11661146]

>>11658529

>the spectacle started in the 1920's right

Not exactly. Capitalism, as it comes to subsume more and more areas of life (and production of that life) does this only gradually. Though it is, historically, useful to talk about certain epochs or periods it would be rather counter-productive to pin-point it to one specific date.

>are there any examples of authenticity/realness from before that?

Well again, and this is only my reading of it, Debord seems to base himself heavily on writings of the Frankfurt School -- in particular that of Adorno and Horkheimer. Taking their stance means that you would probably find the last 'authentic' art forms in the Romantic period; a period before the laws of capital had permeated art/culture. This, however, is only a conjecture of my own.

>>11659748

>christ, why do people bother with marxism

Because, apart from entertaining cringe compilations, it is actually quite a valuable tool to analyse our current mode of production and the manifestations which it brings forth. You don't have to dogmatically agree with everything Debord, Adorno or even Marx for that matter, has to say in order to find a grain of truth in it.

[Anonymous No.11661374]

bump

[Anonymous No.11661718]

>>11657403
A fundamental understanding of Marxist theory is kinda essential to reading Society of The Spectacle, its much more relevant and significant once you do

[party rawcocker No.11661739]

>>11658396
Hahahaha 2000 & LATE, lul

[Anonymous No.11661752]

>>11654789
who was in the wrong here? unironically. i dont understand what this was about

[Anonymous No.11661760]

>>11661718
best to read hegel, marx, and lukacs first. and to read the pre-situationist manifestos and literature (lettrist international)

[Anonymous No.11661770]

>>11661752
the young person is anatole atlas, still alive and writing, and he is confronting the legendary figure of jacques lacan in person, sort of destroying the air of his untouchability and his presentation as an image and celebrity, bringing back to earth his real figure in the middle of his speech. he is basically accusing lacan of carrying on in his actions the hierarchical power structures of a repressive institution in his role as a celebrity and public speaker at universities, etc.

[Anonymous No.11661778]

Is Peterson the next Lacan?

[Anonymous No.11661804]

>>11655157
this

[Anonymous No.11661821]

>>11654789
Young Situationist absolutely DESTROYS stupid Lacan with DETOURNMENT and WATER

[Anonymous No.11661847]

>>11656416
did dugin hack the spectacle and in this way brute force authenticity?

[Anonymous No.11661878]

>>11654789
It's like a contest to see who is more full of shit.

[Anonymous No.11661885]

>>11661770
and when lacan talks about the totality (6:40), this is in reference to lefrebvre and the situationist's concept of the totality

[Anonymous No.11661964]

>>11661146
With broad enough predictions, you can find a "grain of truth" through pretty much any methodology of historical analysis.

[Anonymous No.11662023]

>>11661964
Marxism, in a broad sense anyways, is not necessarily a set of predictions, but a framework you use to make interpretations.

[Anonymous No.11662091]

>>11661778
>muh lobster hierarchies and post modernism

Please tell me you're joking, Peterson is nothing but a hack who le reddit incel types obsess over

[Anonymous No.11662106]

>>11661718
i had a basic understanding of the concept of commodity going into it but you're right. anyway, the interest is kindled, its a short read so i'll probably revisit when i'm more educated on the matter.

[Anonymous No.11662153]

>>11661778
n-no, his loony meaningless diagrams are nothing like lacan's loony meaningless diagrams!

[Anonymous No.11662159]

More like The bore A dork knob amirite

[Anonymous No.11662287]

>>11658435
technically there CAN be alternatives to the spectacle under capitalism - it's just that all of them will inevitably be reappropriated by the spectacle with no exceptions. But for that one fleeting moment prior? that is authentic

[Anonymous No.11662502]

>>11655157
based

[Anonymous No.11662730]

>>11662023
Sorry, I'm drunk. I meant premises.

[Anonymous No.11662853]

>>11654506
based and redpilled

>>11655145
cringe and reddit

[Anonymous No.11663173]

Americans really are stupid.

[Anonymous No.11663218]

How can this be considered leftist? Radical traditionalism or anprim look like the only way to escape the spectacle. There is zero chance a technology backed communism could do that. Unless Debord thinks it's only capital the problem and not broadly technology.

[Anonymous No.11663232]

>>11659748

That is true, though. Every single thing done can be linked back to capitalism. Your personality and the things you like? Created by consumerism by marketers. There is no individuality. There is only different consumerist fragments.

[Anonymous No.11663631]

>>11663218
It was published in translation by an American leftist publisher and written as part of a Marxist movement, but it's kind of funky and can be applied to multiple sorts of ideologies that are just reactions to the same social breakdown many people have been seeing. I read Society of Spectacle and I can feel it radicalizing me (in combination with Decline of the West and and some of Ernst Juenger's essays) and it makes me feel scared. Being a homo, it's not exactly in my best interest to support ideologies on this side of things. It's not in my best interest to support support the ideologies on the other side of things, either though, but I can't be a nihilist because I'm religious. I wish I never read this book. Debord unscrewed my head and screwed it on the wrong way.

[Anonymous No.11663634]

>>11654506
Yeah, Debord is making fun of you

These comments are sure to be welcomed by fifty or sixty people; a large
number given the times in which we live and the gravity of the matters
under discussion. But then, of course, in some circles I am considered
to be an authority. It must also be borne in mind that a good half of this
interested elite will consist of people who devote themselves to maintaining
the spectacular system of domination, and the other half of people who
persist in doing quite the opposite. Having, then, to take account of readers
who are both attentive and diversely influential, I obviously cannot speak
with complete freedom. Above all, I must take care not to give too much
information to just anybody.

[Anonymous No.11663639]

>>11654610
based

[Anonymous No.11663654]

>>11663634
Well, I understood that, at least.

[Anonymous No.11663656]

>>11663654
Comments is more straightforward than SotS in general.

[Anonymous No.11663657]

>>11663631
> I wish I never read this book. Debord unscrewed my head and screwed it on the wrong way.

That's kinda the goal, to make you actually look at the way things are, not to sound all "we live in a society" esque but the whole point of Debord's work was a critique and analysis of the spectacle under a capitalist system, if you're not uncomfortable and even a bit frustrated with how things are by the time you're finished, you've missed the point

[Anonymous No.11663695]

>>11663657
I'm an anti-Marxist/anti-communist/whatever and have major disagreements with nihilism. How can I reconcile these beliefs with the fact that I agree with Society of the Spectacle on multiple levels, but without becoming a traditionalist, crypto-fascist, or anarcho-primitivist. I don't want to be one of those things, but I'm too political to be apolitical.

[Anonymous No.11663978]

>>11661885
>lefrebvre
I've always wondered what the fuck is up with that 'b' there in his name. "Lefevre" seems much more logical.

[Anonymous No.11664022]

>>11663232
>capitalism is the origin of the earth
Marxism eternally BTFO by the naive reading of its consequence:
http://mandalietmandaliet.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-museum-and-stroll-and.html

[Anonymous No.11664033]

>>11654789
christ, what a shitshow.
This is what happens when the losers of a tribe get kicked out and gather amongst themselves, nonsensical madness and malevolence for the successful, they become villains.

[Anonymous No.11664045]

This nigga was really overthinking shit lol

[Anonymous No.11664197]

>>11664033
But what if the successful are not actually successful? What if their power is merely consequence and its own undoing? Isn't resentment correct in such a situation?
Also, at what point does the right-wing defense of the current become leftism? Does it ever recognise what it has lost to progress?

[Anonymous No.11664204]

>>11654506
We are not here to answer cuntish questions.

[Anonymous No.11664225]

>>11664197
>But what if the successful are not actually successful?
Going trough life, facing it's challenges, winning, bringing order into your chaotic existence, that's success, my father grew up on an orphanage, today he has a house, a family, a little farm, he successfully put order into his world, it took him at least 2 decades to do so, he faced daily challenges and he suffered, but now he is happy, he is content.
Those who ignore these challenges, out of fear that they might be to hard, that they might not be good enough, that their friends will make fun of them, that their ego is better than this, they start secluding themselves in fantasies, suddenly they find a clique, a similar one, because doctors generally don't hang out with gangbangers, economists don't hang out with antifa, and so on, and once accepted into this new clique, they conform, and it reaches the stage me and you just saw, a sad projection of proverbial nonsense all because they could not bear a truth, because they refused to do some introspection.
It's sad to look at.

[Anonymous No.11664281]

>>11664225
No offense to your father intended, but the same question applies: what if success is not really success? The Jordan Peterson economic model of success is not so dissimilar to the marxist, as in the end form success is determined by the succession of materialism by materialism. Such a philosophy of philistinic necessity ignores the naive question, what if the doctors really are gangbangers?
A seemingly foolish question to anyone who accepts capitalism, and yet here the doctors have been prescribing hard drugs to children for 30 years. Now we sit at the edge of economic collapse while a whole generation is shaking in alleys and cuck sheds - communion wafers absolving all pain, and yet the potency of the drug is enough to wipe out whole nations.
Materialism places strict limits on success: so long as you try to accumulate material you are a success. It grounds success within the very ethos of failure. How can anyone lose?

[Anonymous No.11664314]

>>11664225
What a stuffy conception of success you have. Talk about conformity.

[Anonymous No.11664606]

>>11664314
Oh yeah, "conformity", are you 11 and going trough your I'm different from everyone phase? What is conformity, and why does it exist?

>>11664281
>what if the doctors really are gangbangers?
That's a good point and I read the rest of your post but I think you are overcomplicating things, to someone who is born in the conditions my father was born into, success what exactly what he materialised, there's really no reason to try and find any deeper meaning.
I have an outcome in mind, to reach it I have to first face my inner-self, to face hard truths, to learn to accept them, to then begin developing a framework I can utilise to catalyse my goals, it's really that simple, to dwell on the metaphysics beyond this point more than I already did is a waste of time.
Yes the doctors have done so and so, but they also saved my life, a successful person did that.

[Anonymous No.11664675]

>>11663695
Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism, or Neoplatonism.

[Anonymous No.11664728]

>>11661146
>Because, apart from entertaining cringe compilations, it is actually quite a valuable tool to analyse our current mode of production and the manifestations which it brings forth. You don't have to dogmatically agree with everything Debord, Adorno or even Marx for that matter, has to say in order to find a grain of truth in it.

[Anonymous No.11666179]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11667082]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11667465]

>>11664728
stirner is literally just meme-tier philosophy for edgy kids who've just stumbled upon but ok liberal

[Anonymous No.11667588]

>>11654506
nah, he makes a lot of implicit references to Marx

[Anonymous No.11667595]

>>11664728
>Stirner
>The guy who's only remembered for being owned by Marx

[Anonymous No.11667608]

>>11654263
>Huh consumerism is devouring your lives, it controls you now fight back
There I just saved you an afternoon of reading

[Anonymous No.11667683]

>>11664675
this