Society of the Spectacle

[Anonymous No.15479974]

Am I the brainlet? I have only just started it, but everything so far has been metaphor in an attempt to be profound. Zero explanations, no elaboration. Is it worth continuing?

[Anonymous No.15479989]

read enlightenment as mass deception instead

[Anonymous No.15479995]

>So long as the realm of necessity remains a social dream, dreaming will remain a social necessity. The spectacle is the bad dream of modern society in chains, expressing nothing more than its wish for sleep. The spectacle is the guardian of that sleep.

What does this even mean? Is it even saying anything? It stands alone in a sea of empty statements just like itself. Am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.15479997]

>>15479974

Reading books like these are only useful if you want the social credit of impressing other academic types. If you don't know any academic types, then you're reading it to try impress the morons on this board - several of whom are about to appear in this thread, I'm sure - which is obviously ridiculous; your reading shouldn't be effected by us 4chan phony intellectuals. If you're actually interested in learning about, say, media and its psychological effects, you're better off reading a contemporary psychology/science book. This stuff is virtually useless in reality except for, again, its sign value among certain communities, but, again, that doesn't really matter in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous No.15480000]

check 'em

[Anonymous No.15480005]

>>15480000
Based.

[Anonymous No.15480021]

>>15479995
Read it slowly and use your imagination to try and see what it might mean w/r/t society around you

[Anonymous No.15480022]

>>15480000
Very based. Now this is spectacle woah

[Anonymous No.15480032]

>>15479997
So you're telling me I got memed on yet again by the pseuds of this board to read something not worth my time?

[Anonymous No.15480037]

>>15480032

Yes. It happens to the best of us, and to be honest you obviously can get good recommendations from this board sometimes, and you shouldn't feel bad for being intellectually curious. Just be aware there's a lot of bullshitting and posturing on this board.

[Anonymous No.15480788]

All the French philosophers are like this and it's awful.

[Anonymous No.15481401]

Just read the wikipedia article on it, that way you can appear to have read it. Embrace the spectacle.

[Anonymous No.15481490]

>>15479997
>reading books
>useful
get the fuck out of here, disgusting utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.15481499]

>>15479997
This.
Clearly the only reason for reading a book is to impress other people. Do like this anon and don't ever read.

[Anonymous No.15481540]

>>15480021
This, it's straightforward. Don't lose your shit because an author gets a point across with a modicum of rhetoric.

>>15479997
>>15480032
>>15480037
>>15480788
>>15481401
>>15481490
These are all bad posts and you do not belong.

>>15479974
You might be a brainlet, it's not a hard text to read, but that might mean you need to break things down and be more patient. Take for example:
>So long as the realm of necessity remains a social dream, dreaming will remain a social necessity.
Realm of necessity
Social dream
Dreaming
Social necessity

These are the key phrases, you must know what dreaming is, and have some idea of what a social necessity should be, social dream might be problematic for you but it probably isn't so the phrase you're having an issue with is realm of necessity. What do you think that might mean?
It just means around the subject of necessity, where necessity become a subject of importance, where you lack freedom because you have needs Can you rewrite the sentence so it expresses the same meaning but is worded totally differently?

[Anonymous No.15481553]

>>15479995
>So long as the realm of necessity remains a social dream, dreaming will remain a social necessity. The spectacle is the bad dream of modern society in chains, expressing nothing more than its wish for sleep. The spectacle is the guardian of that sleep
As long as our 'needs' are something that we dream of fulfilling socially, dreaming will remain a need of sociality. The spectacle is this dream playing itself out, over and over again, preventing it from being accomplished. In another section, Debord talks about social standing having moved from being a thing, to having a thing, to looking like you are the thing. This ties directly into it. Additionally, prior to this statement Debord talks about how the society of the spectacle has moved from the fulfillment of needs, to the fulfillment of augmented needs; these augmented needs are what he's referring to in your quote
>>15481540
This guy makes decent points as well

[Anonymous No.15481566]

>>15481540
>Can you rewrite the sentence so it expresses the same meaning but is worded totally differently?

Clearly you can't.

[Anonymous No.15481568]

>>15480000

[Anonymous No.15481580]

>>15481566
the other anon did

[Anonymous No.15481583]

https://youtu.be/g34XVscFkIs just watch the movie instead

[Anonymous No.15481595]

>>15480000
Checked

[Anonymous No.15481619]

>>15480021
One would think the author could just tell you.

[Anonymous No.15481644]

>...in this particular field, in order to write, you have to read, and in order to read, you have to know how to live: this is what the proletariat will have to learn at a stoke in the course of the revolutionary struggle. The pro-situ finds it impossible however to turn a critical gaze on real life since his whole attitude is precisely aimed at illusorily escaping from his pathetic existence by endeavoring to hide it from himself and above all by vainly attempting to mislead everybody else on this score.
Live a little, anon.

[Anonymous No.15481647]

>>15481619
He does tell you, you're just too dumb to understand it. It's a complex concept, simplifying it destroys it.

[Anonymous No.15481662]

>>15481647
Everyone here is anonymous, so to create this facade that you are enlightened is pointless as it doesn’t help you.

[Anonymous No.15481686]

>>15481662
I'm not the guy who said to read slowly and use your imagination. Unlike either of you, I'm able to read and understand books.

[Anonymous No.15481695]

>>15479974
ironic since that exact attitude is a product of the Spectacle. throughout history, prose has always been a factor in philosophical writing. what you're reading is debord's way of doing it. it's also genuinely not a hard text at all.

[Anonymous No.15481733]

>>15481695
>it's also genuinely not a hard text at all
That's always the mindblowing part about these threads, how do you get filtered by Debord?

[Anonymous No.15481919]

>>15479974
start from chapters 3 and 4 (or 4 and 5? idk its explained in the preface). those will explain you better what hes talking about

[Anonymous No.15482184]

>>15479997
hylics need to get the fuck off this board

[Anonymous No.15482189]

>>15479997
expert slide

[Anonymous No.15482231]

>>15480000
holy based

[Anonymous No.15482277]

>>15481733
>>15481540

Don't fucking bully me, I already know I am a brainlet. I just wanted help.

[Anonymous No.15482283]

>>15481540
>>15481553

Thank you lads, ill give it another shot.

[Anonymous No.15482523]

>>15482283
Good man.

[Anonymous No.15483108]

>>15480000

[Anonymous No.15483235]

>>15479974
Read it in french, at least you'll know why you don't understand it. I got less than half of what he's saying and I stopped reading halfway but there's some funny insights hidden in the book, like predicting that islam would replace communism once communism fails (a bold statement at the time). Some sentences really hit ("Every new lie of advertising is also an avowal of the previous lie." for example is still true today during the Corona Crisis, with politics changing their minds everyday). I really want to give it a second and more serious try.
Or just watch the movie La Dialectique Peut Elle Casser des Briques? and you'll realize the frogs are about looking witty. Leave to the germans to spend ten years in a room writing about the souls of animals in ten volumes, a french just goes to the zoo then write whatever on his stop at the next Café.

[Anonymous No.15483243]

Forgot the pic.

[Anonymous No.15483292]

>>15479974
It's cryptofascist rubbish, read The Revolution of Everyday Life by Raoul Vaneigem instead. It's a much more accessible explanation of the situationist philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15483302]

>>15482283
Check out plastic pills on youtube

[Anonymous No.15483369]

>>15479995
Reminds me of the Inherent Vice quote, "As long as American life was something to be escaped from, the cartel could always be sure of a bottomless pool of new customers."

[Anonymous No.15484103]

>>15480000
Yup, he's based

[Anonymous No.15484629]

Read some Lukács first

[Anonymous No.15485485]

>>15483235
>watch the movie La Dialectique Peut Elle Casser des Briques
Definitely do this, it was very funny

[Anonymous No.15485998]

>>15483292
Debord was a socialist lol

[Anonymous No.15486048]

>>15485998
it is delightfully funny how normies cast socialists works as fascistic

[Anonymous No.15486078]

If for some autistic reason, I don't like Debord, what else can I read that will help me understand the same concepts?

[Anonymous No.15486305]

>>15479974
i got filtered by most of the book but "all that was once directly lived has become mere representation" was the key takeaway that spoke to me anyway

[Anonymous No.15486344]

>>15483235
>for example is still true today during the Corona Crisis, with politics changing their minds everyday
it's a bit more than that, it's about how the media presents its ultimate truth as the latest truth, and it does this continually every single day
the same way hygiene and care products rebrand the exact same formulations in a new package and sell it as the new invention that will treat you completely, replacing the previous product they said would treat you completely as well
the spectacle bombards you with information to keep you busy from remembering the previous information it bombarded you with - in essence it calls you out for ever remembering the past, it wants you in a constant state of present so it can feed you everything better as the ultimate truth of the day

[Anonymous No.15486351]

>>15486078
baudrillard and fredric jameson, check out the blind pill chart as well

[Anonymous No.15486377]

x is y-ness but now y is x-ness
am I a french philosopher yet

[Anonymous No.15486389]

>>15486305
This idea fucks with me so much, especially as someone who made the huge mistake of consuming way too much media in the form of Movies and TV shows growing up. For so much of my life I've wondered if I was actually acting things out as my own person, or as a person at all, if my own actions have been that of an organic human being or as merely an imitation of what I'd seen in movies/TV. Every interaction, friendship, every time I've spoken, I've often either consciously or most likely unconsciously been imitating or comparing myself not even to real people in history who've done the same, but fictional representations of this thing, an imitation of an imitation (of an imitation etc. etc.) and at this point I can't help but wonder if it's too late. If I'll ever get to experience things as an actual human experiencing something the way I organically should or if my mind is too poisoned by living vicariously through actors on a screen. Monkey see monkey do, and that's the way things have been long before movies/tv, but at least then they were imitating real life and not some copy of a copy. I also wonder if other people are the same, they doubtless are. How many people have grown up on shows like Friends and HIMYM and think that's how friends are supposed to interact? How many people have seen shitty romances that are almost completely divorced from reality then when the time comes for romance they expect the simulation they've been taught growing up? How many people have grown up on porn?
Is anyone living a genuine human experience anymore? Are any of us doing things the way we should as human beings or are we so poisoned by media that everything's just a big farce? How many people are "just like him/her" from that movie or show?
Every time I think I already know how fucked everything is the shit keeps piling on. Everything is so fucked.

[Anonymous No.15486580]

>>15486389
But following that train of thought, who have lived a genuine human life? Cavemen? But even back then they already started painting representations of themselves hunting animals on the walls. Do you think they were self-conscious about whether they were holding the spear right, or striking the right pose? Maybe, every now and then, but probably not so much. I think this whole phenomena is a fundamental part of human life and thus - ironically enough - of genuine human experience. Nowadays we definitely experience it way too excessively, but you shouldn't think about it as something inherently bad, or inhuman.

[Anonymous No.15486620]

>>15486580
That's why I mentioned monkey see monkey do. Every living creature probably deals with this to a degree but I feel as though it's ramped up to a whole new level in the modern world.
It's become my new "zero point" or my new "true north". My whole life is plagued by this simulated fictional reality that has been imitated, and imitated again so many times that it's become too separate from reality to give accurate bearings. I've spent so much time looking at a screen living in fictional realities that reality itself looks less real. The real world looks more fake than the world on my screen. Maybe this just means I need to get out more, but I don't know if it's too late. Or maybe the world's just such a shitshow it's unrecognizable, or maybe I'm just getting older and finally seeing some of it for what it really is.
Maybe it's not as bad as I think, but it seems as though it's way too prevalent, or maybe I'm just too self conscious about it, I don't know.

[Anonymous No.15486662]

>>15486389
>monkey see monkey do
that is more of a mimetic behaviour that is with us since forever but we became aware of it once consciousness emerged(only few ) and its not something debord was reffering to in my opinion. i think he was more into capitalist/post capitalist schemes of commodity fetishisation and its consequences.

[Anonymous No.15486690]

>>15486662
Yeah, I addressed that in the next post. It probably isn't what he was referring to, that's just what I took the quote to mean out of context, and I was also thinking about something similar before I came into the thread.

[Anonymous No.15486743]

>>15486389
>>15486620
>>15486690
But you might actually have a point there.
Fetishism is, loosely defined, a process of reification: humans attribute a living entity to things which are actually inanimate (the fetishes, the idols). As you can probably guess, this process has existed throughout human history since the beginning. Only that today is has taken the form of "commodity fetishism" where commodities and real abstractions proper of capitalism such as capital, money, etc. are personified by actual and concrete human beings. There is a line of interpretation of commodity fetishism which has this idea of communism as being the only real emancipation of humanity, when we will finally be free of any fetish or idol and we will make our own destiny, so you're not so wrong in identifying that form of, alienation if you want to, in the whole of human history.

[Anonymous No.15486758]

>>15486743
Also, I've downloaded OkCupid and Tinder and been using it for some time now. It amazed me how shitty it is and I think it's precisely due to this commodification of life. You go to the market (the app) with your commodity (yourself) and you'll do your best to sell it (that means, you'll fake your personality and your being as much as possible just to get the most matches, that is, to sell yourself as much as you can). Competition enforces this process. If you don't mount a good spectacle, people will always choose any of the other commodities in the market. Hence all the neurosis of people with what crap do they put in their bios, in the pics, etc.

[Anonymous No.15486859]

>>15479974
Look the french writers are high and use metaphors to try to get you to think. It is not for everyone. Your ordered mind would probably benefit more from 'The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere' by Habermas.

[Anonymous No.15486869]

>>15486743
I just recently ordered Simulacra and Simulation and was watching/reading some stuff about it before it arrived. It's what made me think about this. Apparently he talks about the same thing, although I'm not convinced about communism being the answer, I definitely do see capitalism as a corrupting force, not necessarily in itself, but in the hands of those who abuse it and those who don't see these things for what they are. Supreme, or beats, for example. Standard ass clothes, and extremely mediocre, even shitty, headphones, yet they are priced at a premium because the brand logo has become 'fetishized'. Just like how certain 'personality traits' or, most of the time, to put it more accurately, forced artificial behaviours have become fetishized and are acted out or put in tinder bios.
I've always felt the same and have never used tinder, nor will I ever use it. I'm not even ugly or terrible socially, but everything about dating seems so forced to me it's alien. I'm completely disaffected by this world, and the worst part is I seem to be infected by it to a degree too. Every time I think I've 'escaped the simulation' I realize part of me is still in it. It's terrifying.
I even see the binary thinking and fetishized behaviours advertised for on 4chan all the time. The Chad vs. Virgin meme is simulation and capitalism driven and creates a binary system out of things that aren't binary, even separating us into normies and "whatever the alternative is" on /r9k/ it's robots. Coke vs Pepsi, Republican vs. Democrat, Capitalism vs. Communism. I even started to think I'd 'escaped the simulation' like in Matrix terms when I realized a lot of these things but I recently found out that that binary thinking is part of the simulation and the whole nature of the simulation Baudrillard was talking about is the fact that it's almost indistinguishable from reality and inescapable.
Shit's been fucking with me for a long time and it never stops. The more I learn the worse it is.

[Anonymous No.15486914]

>>15486869
baudrillard is super interesting. he is hated by basically everyone, inckuding situationist for shitting on their methods (recouperation and detourment)

[Anonymous No.15486937]

>>15486869
>Standard ass clothes, and extremely mediocre, even shitty, headphones, yet they are priced at a premium because the brand logo has become 'fetishized
Don't wanna sound like a douche here, but I think it's interesting to keep in mind that, in the marxist tradition, fetishism doesn't mean loving commodities or consooming too much. It is a concept, I think, far more interesting. It attempts to describe the "real inversion" in the world, where humans do not make the world but capital and its will do. We, humans, just personify abstract relations: the capitalists, the wage-labourer, the landlord, etc. We're just vehicles for the will of this abstract concepts, which, just using the term as a metaphore, are the demiurge (the metaphore has its limits because capital is not a living entity with agency, it's just an abstract category that pursues self-valorisation, and it is only possible because we humans personify it). I think the whole issue with fetishism is a bit more sinister than the simple love of commodities and endless consooming.
>but everything about dating seems so forced to me it's alien. I'm completely disaffected by this world, and the worst part is I seem to be infected by it to a degree too. Every time I think I've 'escaped the simulation' I realize part of me is still in it. It's terrifying.
Fuck men are you me? You literally describe what I feel every day. It must be due to the similar readings. But I feel it everyday. I fear it is too late and my subjectivity has already been radically shaped by Capital. As much as I know it's making me sick and neurotic I can't be anything else. Following the tinder example: knowing how it works sickens me, but for some, I kinda do it anyway: I just go there like a fucking sociopath thinking how can I maximize the matches that I get, how can I "personality-maxx" (a horrible thing in itself) and "looks-maxx" my being. Then sometimes I feel incredibly oppressed by all of this but there's nothing I can do anymore.
>Shit's been fucking with me for a long time and it never stops. The more I learn the worse it is.
Yeah, all of this stuff unironically makes you psychotic lol. I should have never payed so much attention to commodity fetishism and all this crap. But it explains the world so well.

[Anonymous No.15486958]

>>15486937
based, that anon had a very superficial interpretation of what he read

[Anonymous No.15486979]

>>15480788
Not really, try reading Ellul for example, he's both deep and clear as day

[Anonymous No.15486986]

>>15486979
This is why I advocate reading Lasch and Ellul over Debord. Neither were as interested in affecting a sophisticated and mystical personality as Debord, nor were they trying to survive in the toxic, obscurantism-encouraging academic culture of mid-20th century French academia. Thus, their work is infinitely more descriptive, practical, and rewarding compared to Debord's.

[Anonymous No.15487032]

>>15486914
I can't wait to read S&S. A year or two ago I read the start of it in pdf form but I can never finish a book with a pdf. The concept is extremely fascinating and is a conclusion I was partly taught in strange way/came to myself in a strange way.
>>15486937
No, I completely agree with that and I'm aware of this fetishism, and how de-humanizing it is. I just wanted to mention supreme and beats because it boggles my mind so much that people will pay a premium for mediocre quality just because it has a brand name.
Funnily enough what started me out on this train of thought was autistically analysing the lyrics of rock music. Turns out they're actually trying to tell you something through all the nonsense. Strawberry Fields Forever for example has some great lines like "living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see" among others. Reading came after when I wanted to make more sense of it all. I basically drove myself to psychosis and pieced myself back together with philosophy. I've never been too into the maxxing trend, but I did used to try to seem cool or try to figure out what people wanted me to be like a lot, still do to a degree, I'm just more aware of it and try to control it.
At this point I figure if you're already at the point of psychosis why not take it to its conclusion? I want to see how far the rabbit hole goes.
>>15486958
Rude. I'm aware of how destructive turning people into vehicles rather than humans is.

[Anonymous No.15487038]

>>15480000

[Anonymous No.15487043]

>>15480000
anon was cool today

[Anonymous No.15487098]

>>15487032
>I basically drove myself to psychosis and pieced myself back together with philosophy
This has been pretty much my case. I've had a psychotic episode a year ago and been taking some medications since then. Also been reading a lot about this stuff and it makes everything more clear and transparent. It also helps me dealing with my psychosis so I think it's also okay in that way.
>At this point I figure if you're already at the point of psychosis why not take it to its conclusion? I want to see how far the rabbit hole goes.
We're close anon, pretty close, to know the secret scripture behind everything.

[Anonymous No.15487102]

A nice intro to Debord's work would be this short film made in the late 50s. It laid ground for much of his later reflections, in quite a punchy package.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0uYSnj5lXY

Btw if there are any marxist scholars in here, at around 12mn20s you can find this quote "Man unifies the world but man has extended himself everywhere. Men can see nothing around them that is not their own image, everything speaks to them of themselves. Their very landscape is animated." which is often attributed to Marx. I found it referenced in Merleau-Ponty's Adventures of the Dialectics in 55 althought worded slightly differently. Can't find for the life of me where did Marx write that.

[Anonymous No.15487154]

>>15487098
Oh, fuck, we really are similar. I had a psychotic episode 5 years ago and have never been the same since. Was completely despondent for 2 or 3 years, thought a lot about suicide or getting help but I couldn't shake the feeling that I was right so I held off. Ended up finding philosophy and good psychs like Jung, and that helped me immensely.
>to know the secret scripture behind everything.
You might appreciate this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkcJEvMcnEg
We just found our friends, they're in our head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg
Our little group. We find it hard, it's hard to find.

[Anonymous No.15487181]

Debord, Deleuze, and all the other French post-modernists essentially hijacked the mystical writing of the French middle ages and turned it into a method for social commentary.

It doesn't make sense because it is not supposed to make sense. It is mysticism at its core. Debord never defines what exactly a "spectacle" is in any concrete, positive manner, and often has to writing apophatically in aphorisms to get the meaning across. However, unlike the mystical writing that is supposed to have its basis in revelation, Debord and all the French post modernists that came after him are quite content with using vague terms with no meaning and no original structure. They are, quite ironically, simulacra.

[Anonymous No.15487203]

>Is it worth continuing?
The chapters on time and space are really underrated. I never realized modernity/capitalism changed our perceptions of them that much before.
The chapter "Proletariat as a subject and representation" is also a good history of socialist movements.

[Anonymous No.15487212]

>>15479995

The logic/science of an affirming social existence is a "social dream" in that it lacks so little existing form to be merely a speculation no matter how true it may in fact be. And the repression of this truth and/or its application to society is anathemic to the status quo interest in stifling revolution / radical social change.

The spectacle is akin to either a nightmare or a shoddy imagining that is a natural product of a demented body and mind. And this bad dream/illusion expresses nothing more than either an avoidance or a yearning to die.

The existence of the spectacle is both a vanguard of the "slumber" (that avoidance and/or death drive) and just as much the vanguard of the standing social order as the state of former produces the spectacle then it guards itself.

There is a dynamic between the spectacle both being a passive condition of *being* the dream while also being the veneer which dresses an appearance to guard its ugly interior nature.

Does this help, brainlet OP???

[Anonymous No.15487234]

>>15487212

sorry I'm running on fumes atm, 30+ hours with no sleep.

>There is a dynamic between the spectacle both being a passive condition of *being* the dream while also being the veneer which dresses an appearance to guard its ugly interior nature.

The spectacle has the ability to both passively exist as *being* something that is merely a byproduct of society, but is also elevated into an active force that shields society from revolution and perpetuates existing norms

[Anonymous No.15487240]

>>15487154
>Was completely despondent for 2 or 3 years, thought a lot about suicide or getting help but I couldn't shake the feeling that I was right so I held off
Luckily I got better pretty quickly, though I did had some suicide attempts (before and after the psychosis). Loneliness was rough but books have helped. Yes, trying to make some sense of everything in a coherent, consistent and logical way has always of some help.
>You might appreciate this.
Oh I used to love grunge in my early teens haha, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Soundgarden, etc. Have a lot of memories of me playing Counter Strike 1.6 and Half Life with some grunge music, probably being angry at life and my parents like almost every teenager. Those were the days. Now I mostly listen to stuff like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrzVLU74itM
I love its inhumanity, its abstractness and coldness.

[Anonymous No.15487326]

>>15480000
Based

[Anonymous No.15487338]

>>15487240
That initial hit tends to be hard and fast but goes away pretty quickly, the afterglow is perpetual, though. But oh well, it's not all bad. Fuckin hell. Don't know what to say about that. I've partly accepted the loneliness, feels a little better to just accept it, but it never really goes away. The worst is not knowing if you're just a crazy person.
The reason I linked Nirvana and those songs in particular were the lyrics. I like to find hidden meanings, that's one of a few things that led me down this road.

[Anonymous No.15487563]

>>15479974
You’re a fucking spectacle.

[Anonymous No.15487582]

>>15479974
Yeah, some philosophy books are like that. They're more influential for creating many ideas that other people changed and argued. Thus, they're more "influential" than "good." You should definitely keep reading it but just change your perspective in reading it. Instead of trying to appraise his arguments and see if he's right, appraise his ideas and see if those are right based on your interpretation.

[Anonymous No.15487583]

>>15487181
how can you define something in a "concrete, positive manner" that doesn't exist as such? you can't point and say "there it is, that's the spectacle" and be done with it. nor is this nonsensical, just try defining money in a concrete positive manner and yet we organize our entire lives around it

[Anonymous No.15487627]

>>15487583
Money is a way of exchanging goods that stands in for something of purported equal value. Even if you contest this definition, you know very well that there is a difference between money and some vague concept of a "spectacle" that Debord does not try to even fully elucidate, leading the reader to infer throughout the book. It is just a vacuous neologism.

[Anonymous No.15488142]

I have watched some short films by this Debord guy recently, and read some of his stuff, and I can agree with many things I gathered from them, but I would like to ask anons more well-read on him: what kind of system did he propose to replace the reigning one (if any)? Was it simply communism? He is a harsh critic of consumerism but doesn't seem to propose any alternative apart from his anti-art kind of works in which he presents these ideas.

[Anonymous No.15488437]

>>15488142
>what kind of system did he propose to replace the reigning one (if any)?
Council communism with artsy characteristics.

[Anonymous No.15488795]

>>15488437
Artsy characteristics as in architecture? I remember some mention of this in one of his films. But how would that not become part of the spectacle?

[Anonymous No.15489592]

bump because I would like an answer for my last question and also this thread to live a bit longer

[Anonymous No.15489709]

>>15488795
iirc he asserts that a successfully implemented ideological revolution just becomes part of society
the councils created at 'the end' of the revolution must then must self evaluate and have their choices vindicated by their results
whether or not it becomes part of the spectacle i'm not 100% sure on

[Anonymous No.15489878]

Seems like I need to read it again because I didn't finish it nor did I understand it.

[Anonymous No.15489913]

>>15479995
actually based. It took me a while, but based if it means what I understood it to mean.

[Anonymous No.15490204]

It literally doesn't make sense

[Anonymous No.15490222]

>>15490204
t. bourgyman

[Anonymous No.15490242]

Its a lot easier to understand him if youve read Lautréamont

[Anonymous No.15490271]

It's a brainlet take desu. There is a definitive media book but it's genuinely too highbrow and the ideas are too profound for widespread discussion.
I mean if you don't offer some pat political catchphrase the internet starts to look like hell rather than some obstacle to utopia.

[Anonymous No.15490323]

>>15487098
>Debord committed suicide by shooting himself in the head (or possibly heart) on 30 November 1994. This was not the first time he attempted to end his life.

How is there so little information about his death and previous suicide attempts

[Anonymous No.15490341]

>>15487627
that's just describing what money does. i'm asking you to tell me what money is in a concrete positive manner

[Anonymous No.15490356]

He's complaining about consumerism.

[Anonymous No.15490674]

>>15490271
What is the definitive media book?

[Anonymous No.15490683]

>>15490323
the lack of information is an ironic punctuation mark on his legacy.

[Anonymous No.15490686]

>>15483369

Based