/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17607587]

Is the Spectacle inherently bad? Or is it just depressed intellectuals blaming their suffering on the Capital? Sure, it is the source of a lot of suffering, but most people most of the time don't seem to suffer, quite the contrary. Is there any amount of philosophizing that can sufficiently discredit other people's happiness as fake?

[Anonymous No.17607602]

>>17607587
It's mostly projection. It's no coincidence thinkers like Debord and Fisher killed themselves.

[Anonymous No.17607646]

>>17607587
by the 60s thats as updated they can get. problem is people read these texts today and pretend they are in the 60s. even marxism itself has long been its own spectacle or whatever you call that area of critical strain as it could be different sets relative to different people

[Anonymous No.17607892]

>>17607587
marx didn't originate the concept of 'spectacle'

[Anonymous No.17607900]

>>17607587
"Spectacle" is an archaic term, those in the know speak of a 'meme reality'

[Anonymous No.17607966]

The Spectacle is the opiate of the masses. It distracts them from their pain and its source. Therefore it perpetuates suffering while masquerading as a cure.

[Anonymous No.17609045]

>>17607892
but Debord was a marxist

[Anonymous No.17609429]

>>17607587
>but most people most of the time don't seem to suffer, quite the contrary
because they are driven insane and don't even realize they do suffer.
Just take the fashion industry and the peak of eating disorders among young girls. Every anorexic girl will tell you she's perfectly happy and ok, even when you can clearly see she's a skin covered skeleton that is still alive by some biological singularity. Getting them aware that they are severely sick is like 80% of the psychological work you have to do in order to have a remote chance to save them.

[Anonymous No.17609708]

>>17609429
Are you implying that unhealthy body standards are exclusive to capitalist societies? Because that's clearly not true, you can look at all the ancient cultures still untouched by capitalism and see the mutilations they do to themselves and their children. It seems like as soon as humans started to use tools to alter their environment, they also started to use it to alter their own bodies. What is happening, is that we are moving away from religious reasons to this towards secular ones.

[Anonymous No.17609707]

>>17609045
then the image should obviously say "average debord fan"

[Anonymous No.17609723]

>>17607602
is this why i'm depressed?

[Anonymous No.17609754]

>>17609707
Nah I was kinda trying to depict Debord himself

[Anonymous No.17609793]

>>17609429
Bro are you still living in the 2000s? Nowadays it's more likely that models get accused of promoting obesity.

[Anonymous No.17609815]

>>17609793
This. The new zeitgeist is making everything ugly, I don't know why commies are complaining since beauty is bourgeois, racist and bad.

[Anonymous No.17609925]

>>17609708
>Are you implying that unhealthy body standards are exclusive to capitalist societies?
No. I do imply that advanced capitalistic societies have unhealthy MENTAL standards, ad hoc engineered to make it self sustainable. Distancing from religion is a way to pull people into the diffused psy op that is the spectacle, since they lose points of reference.
>>17609815
>>17609793
But STILL fashion models are doll faced young girls on the edge of clinical anorexia, and a lot of girls dream of become fashion models. Rich men take the beautiful women.
Uglyness is made desirable for the masses. But desiring uglyness is unnatural and will bring its own share if mental illnesses with it.
Mental illness is the natural product of the spectacle. Non functioning mentally ill are a waste, therefore discarded, high functioning mentally ill are the most desired outcome

[Anonymous No.17610054]

>>17609925
But religions are also self sustaining mental systems engineered by humans. You need some form of "psy op" to keep together communities this large, like the ten commandments and stuff like that. What mainly distances people from religion is scientism, that's the new fad, I mean it's not that new either, but it can be really convincing when tech is advancing all around us and we don't really hear the voice of any god.

[Anonymous No.17610087]

>>17610054
The difference is that the spectacle is enginereed to sustain capitalism.
You can see religions as spectacle if you are an orthodox marxist (it's part of their brand of spectacle, the "concentated" spectacle according to Debord), aka a filthy materialist, but that's not my cup of tea.

[Anonymous No.17610638]

>>17607646
the world today is that of the late 60's with the volume turned wayyyyy up

[Anonymous No.17610692]

>>17607587
the spectacle is ultimately bad because it robs people of their autonomy. were rule by technocratic professional-administrators desirable there'd be no need to trick/coerce people into accepting it

[Anonymous No.17610747]

>>17607587
https://vimeo.com/manage/218908974/general

[Anonymous No.17610768]

>>17610638
I was thinking something similar lately. Liberals have to keep reviving long dead enemies like slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and fascism so they can LARP like it's the 60s again and they are fighting for Civil Rights so they can feel like a good person while completely ignoring the very real and alive enemies we have today.

[Anonymous No.17610779]

>>17609925
>ad hoc engineered to make it self sustainable
That is every lasting culture.

[Anonymous No.17610785]

>>17607587
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxVVm75k_8Q
>The Whiteheadian adventure does not aim at awakening, leaving the cave. It is itself a dream, a storytelling: to learn "inside" the Platonic cave, together with those who live and argue within it. Not in the hope that the false appearances will gradually yield their secrets, but in the hope that these "appearances," if they are appreciated in their affirmative importance, might be articulated into fabulous contrasts. The singularity of the Whiteheadian dream of learning inside the cave is that the person infected by it, who is lured by Whiteheadian propositions, is not mandated to become a missionary and propagate the infection. To be sure, this book tries to do so, but in a way to which only a very benign and limited infection may correspond, not a galloping process. Instead, this dream obliges the person it infects to address the dreams of others, for only dreamers can accept the modification of their dream. Only dreams and stories, because they are the enjoyment of living values, can receive the interstices without the panic effect of people who believe themselves to be in danger of losing hold.
>The ultimate of adventure, the only thing that really matters, is the question of what those who define themselves as "capable of ideas" are capable of. This is the question that always returns.

[Anonymous No.17610787]

>>17610087
Yeah and with that we got back to my original question: why is capitalism, and the spectacle sustaining it inherently bad? Was feudalism and religion better? According to Marx it wasn't. I'm a bit confused what you are arguing for here, communism, religion or something else? Anything but capitalism?
>>17610692
Show me a civilized society where the ruling class didn't need to "trick" the masses one way or another. Societies need some form of collective delusion not to tumble into chaos.

[Anonymous No.17610803]

>>17610768
on a more basic level the foundations of the current economy were laid during the 60's, particularly the retreat from politics per se into market technocracy. the confrontation with the soviet union was really over after kruschev, although bureaucrats in both the USA and the USSR kept going through the motions for another two decades

[Anonymous No.17610808]

>>17610692
Not everyone is capable of autonomy to the same degree. You can't force people into being autonomous because restricting them from things that influence them is itself an influence on them.

Technocrats can be pretty transparent in their aims: selling more stuff, getting more votes, publishing more papers, etc.

[Anonymous No.17610816]

>>17610787
the venetian republic

[Anonymous No.17610828]

>>17610808
it's interesting that you can only conceive of countering technocracy with more technocracy

[Anonymous No.17610882]

>>17610787
Quite simply it's because it prevents people from completing their power processes and forces them to engage in surrogate activities.

[Anonymous No.17610903]

>>17610882
force is only the last resort, the spectacle craves your love and devotion and will try its utmost to seduce you

[Anonymous No.17610929]

>>17610903
https://vimeo.com/218908974

[Anonymous No.17610967]

>>17610882
Most people aren't destined for greatness, that's how greatness is possible by definition. Whether you waste your life away on the fields, in the cyberspace, or in some communistic utopia's social space is a secondary question.

[Anonymous No.17610983]

>>17610967
Such as yourself, you're always going to be a mediocre nobody.
>b..bb...but at least I upvoted the Greats on mindbook!

[Anonymous No.17610995]

Not all art is spectacle. Picasso said that that painting is not "decorative" and that the true artist is a threat to the status quo.

[Anonymous No.17611023]

>>17610967
Such as yourself, you're always going to be a mediocre nobody.
>b..bb...but at least I upvoted the Greats on mindbook!

[Anonymous No.17611037]

>>17607587
>Or is it just depressed intellectuals blaming their suffering on the Capital?
my suffering is divine injustice, your happiness is fake and irrelevant

[Anonymous No.17611078]

>>17610983
I actually strive for greatness, but yeah chances are high I won't get into the history books, so what? No need to get so insecure about this topic anon, that's the fate of most of us, and in the long, all of us. Are you the one I have been talking to so far or are you the schizoposter posting links?

[Anonymous No.17611239]

>>17610995
The only art that threatens the status quo is fascist art.

[Anonymous No.17611487]

>>17607587
is "Society of the Spectacle" worth reading and digesting if you're already read Lasch, Baudrillard, and Fisher? I skimmed SotS, and it seems like a verbose, pseudo-mystical meme that spends *way* too much time talking about the failures of Joseph Stalin. Kind of retarded desu. Dunno why it gets any attention, since it seems like of vague bullshit that you can interpret anything from instead of a meaningful framework from which to understand reality (or clown world).

Also, what are some other books on hyperreality, in the vein of Lasch, Baudrillard, Fisher, etc.?

[Anonymous No.17612565]

>>17610768
>Liberals have to keep reviving long dead enemies like slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and fascism so they can LARP like it's the 60s again and they are fighting for Civil Rights so they can feel like a good person
I was thinking about this recently. I am a member of a skilled labor union and I am pretty active in attending meetings, volunteering, etc (at least, I was, before the chinese cringe aids shut all public activity down). There are a couple of active members as well who are the typical vice reading shitlibs that are obviously ladder climbing schemers and their behavior during the Dirty Black Summer last year was really revealing. They spent basically all day posting BLM shit on facebook and attending rallies in our shitty little city. They so obviously were trying to ape the civil rights movement of the 60s, or at least the mythical impression of it they were trained to believe in during their time in public school. I realized that the only heroes people in America are allowed to idolize and look up to today are black civil rights leaders. MLK the American saint and Black History Month and the civil rights movement are parts of the foundational myths that are promoted by the most significant influencers of public opinion. Think about it, are George Washington and Andrew Jackson the first thing people think of when they imagine American heroes? No. The concept of what America is has been radically altered in the past 100 years and so new myths have been used to replace the old myths.

[Anonymous No.17614447]

>>17607966

Yes.

[Anonymous No.17614861]

>>17611239
Those fields of wheat have got söy-loving liberals running scared.
All liberalism is a symptom of celiac’s disease, this is what Marx teaches us.
Gluten-free propaganda will be sown recklessly in all late-stage capitalist societies.

[Anonymous No.17614886]

>>17607587
Most people function well enough as Pavlovian dogs but the smarter ones get a dissonance in the form of depression.

[Anonymous No.17614891]

>not a spectacle enjoyer
>also not a marxist

[Anonymous No.17615053]

>>17610054
>>17610779
>>17610787
Your blind generalisation is excruciating.
What the fuck can I say to you if you don't perceive that something really, really wrong is ongoing and you just keep pulling out this "it's always been like that" argument?
>Nazi extermiation camps
hurrr but it happened in the past
>A machine gun mows down thousands of men charging in the open fielf
yaawn it happened in the past
>Nuclear bombs dropped on cities
hummm nothing new really
>Race to thermonuclear weaponry that could end humanity in the span of few hours
what's the big deal nothing new
>Childrens dying by exhasting labor in English factories in early industrial age
nothing new
>Capitalism basically becoming an unathomly world destroying entity
yawwn nothing new
>Literally living in a clown world, normies are mentally ill and insane as well they are just able to work their job and that's all it's demanded to humanity
nothing new

srsly fuck you, your attitude, and all the ppl who thinks this way

[Anonymous No.17615361]

>>17615053
Based and pseudslaying pilled

[Anonymous No.17615367]

>>17615053
You really sperged out there man, that wasn't just me you replied to. So the holocaust happened because of the capital, good to know. Again I ask what are you arguing for, you seem to be mostly anti-tech, are you some kind of anarcho primitivist? Should humanity just become "woke" at once and go full luddite?

[Anonymous No.17615401]

>>17615367
>So the holocaust happened because of the capital
srsly the fuck is wrong with you

[Anonymous No.17615428]

>>17615401
Well I assumed your bullet points were atrocities caused by capitalism because supposedly that's what we are talking about here.

[Anonymous No.17615473]

AHEM
COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD COMMIE MAN BAD

[Anonymous No.17615503]

>>17610828
Countering? I'd prefer less rule to more rule, but between rule by experts and rule by majority I'd prefer the former. The value in democratic institutions to me is precicelly to restrict this rule of experts not to bolster the rule of the mob.

[Anonymous No.17615539]

>>17615053
It's not blind generalization. The scientific method expands from particular data points to universal or general rules. Models with predictive power for all cultures are obviously more scientific than models tailored to fit your cultural object of critique in particular.

Systems that self-perpetuate tend to dominate and in time outnumber systems that don't. This rule holds for all kinds of systems wether it's species, cultures, belief structures, companies, governments, etc. Every lasting culture conditions it's members so as to propagate this culture, wether that is by breeding, adoption, proselytization or whatever. It all comes back to Darwin.

[Anonymous No.17615748]

>>17615539
Different anon here, consider how overly reductive that kind of logic is. Darwin wouldn't call a whale and a horse the same animal because they are both mammals. Systems can have similar features, but effect people in different ways. Saying that a new system resembles an earlier system is not an valid argument against apparent ill effects either, and that is that guy's point

[Anonymous No.17616600]

>>17615748
>Darwin wouldn't call a whale and a horse the same animal because they are both mammals.
We're not talking nomenclature.

That a culture engineers memes to make itself self sustainable is one of the anon's points and it's the one I addressed.

As for "apparent ill effects", for each culture there many such effects because what is good for some specific goal, individual, group, subculture, is not necessarily supportive of the culture. So cultures tend to repress behaviors and even induce culturally-specific malaises like Pibloktoq and Amok. Mental illness isn't specific to "the spectacle" the anon refers to, though it's certainly conditioned by it. Lots of the things we consider boons of modern society are themselves sources of constant anxiety. We all spend more time thinking about sickness because sickness is more survivable now - people either recovered quickly or died quickly, before. We all spend more time thinking we aren't doing well enough - when people couldn't improve their lot as much they couldn't feel they were falling short as much. We all spend more time worrying about things we cannot change - because we have information networks wider than ever before and we are part of communities so great that most people in them don't know us. More longevity, more prospectives, more information - all these things are sources of anxiety, but rarelly do people complain they are living too long, having too many opportunities or knowing too much.

[Anonymous No.17617384]

>>17610638
it just shows who still owns the outlets, the same people

[Anonymous No.17617558]

>>17615053
youre speaking in GENERALITIES
is that a word?
of course its a word!
what does it mean?
It means you're being too general!
Allow me refute a tangential point in your argument..
splitting hairs? arguing semantics?
I'm not changing the subject, you are!

[Anonymous No.17617585]

>>17609045
sort of

[Anonymous No.17617619]

>>17617558
of course i know the opposite of general is specific!
why are you accussing me arguing semantics?
all i want is for your argument to be more specific!
of course i know that you can ascribe qualities to groups of people based on a majority!
But in this SPECIFIC instance, (in which the minority is in no way relevant) i think you are speaking too broadly!
I'm not playing the (race/poverty/identity) card!
You're a (racist/sexist/elitist)!

[Anonymous No.17617626]

>>17609708
>not having a plate appended to your face to facilitate and easy and convenient dining experience.
Ngmi

[Anonymous No.17617659]

>>17617619
Well of course the revolution has a plan!
But first we have to seize power!
Whats the plan? To be more compassionate!
How? By allocating more resources to the (poor/disenfranchised/working class)
What do you mean how am I going to do that?
By taking it away from the capitalists of course!
How specifically? Well we haven't thought that far ahead!
Resource allocation? Trade Barriers? Interfering with a workers right to negotiate their own terms of employment?
Now your just being silly!

[Anonymous No.17617662]

>>17607587
>Why yes I am clear pilled and recognizing the spectacle, try to milk as much as I can out of it before collapse.

[Anonymous No.17617694]

>>17617659
Basic Income?
That will never work!
We need to seize the means of production!
What do you mean autocracies can't handle the logistics of supply and demand?
I'm talking about HELPING people anon, not giving them money!

[Anonymous No.17617708]

>>17617558
Whenever I hear my friend say, "You're speaking in generalities" i know the conversation is over.

[Anonymous No.17617750]

>>17616600
cringe and bluepilled
>>17617558
>>17617619
>>17617659
>>17617694
take your meds anon

[Anonymous No.17617752]

>>17609925
do zoomer girls even care about fashion models anymore as opposed to whoever is popular on instagram or whatever

[Anonymous No.17617811]

>>17617752
Instagram models are the ones promoting obesity

[Anonymous No.17617845]

>>17617752
well that's a gateway to even more mental illnesses going along with producing pornography, prostituting, or dying in some stupid viral challenge.
All zoomer fashion models have the entire array of social medias anyway, so they are still a huge influence.

[Anonymous No.17617848]

>>17617811
I don't have an instagram but I doubt that. I bet the most envied ones are girls with conventional bodies, big tits, wide hips, narrow waist, etc. It's pretty much as universal as the male body being attractive with wide shoulders, small waist, lean and muscular

[Anonymous No.17617891]

>>17617752
over the holiday one of the presents some 10 year oldish girls i saw is 'how to be a tiktok star'. kids are groomed by corps even before they hit their teens.

[Anonymous No.17617899]

>>17617662
Based

[Anonymous No.17617932]

>>17617848
Ever wonder why tattoos are so popular these days? Why is it that so many influencers have them?