/siberia/ - Off-topic

you got filtered

>>706470
>filtered
Oh on the contrary, when you're doing scientific critique, instead of coming to petit-bourgeois romantic conclusions like "culture is mass produced slop under capital" you instead instead a lot of it is slop because those who consume it are retarded and mindless and conversely, the production and distribution of high quality cultural items is also the work of capital, without which it wouldn't even exist either, but that's a lot less regurgitatable and appealing to social media crowds than "capitalism destroys culture" (because communists are so concerned with maintaining culture, am I right?) or my favorite: "video games/anime/whatever other nerd shit you're into has been ruined by capitalism".

>>706473
Filtered, yes. To quote Debord himself,
> The empty debate on the spectacle – that is, on the activities of the world’s owners – is thus organized by the spectacle itself: everything is said about the extensive means at its disposal, to ensure that nothing is said about their extensive deployment. Rather than talk of the spectacle, people often prefer to use the term “media.” And by this they mean to describe a mere instrument, a kind of public service which with impartial “professionalism” would facilitate the new wealth of mass communication through the mass media – a form of communication which has at last attained a unilateral purity, whereby decisions already taken are presented for peaceful admiration. For what is communicated are orders; and with great harmony, those who give them are also those who tell us what they think of them.
> The power of the spectacle, which is so fundamentally unitary, a centralizer by the very weight of things, and entirely despotic in spirit, frequently rails at seeing the constitution under its rule of a politics-spectacle, a justice-spectacle, a medicine-spectacle and all the other similarly surprising examples of “mediatic excess.” Thus the spectacle would be nothing other than the excesses of the mediatic, whose nature, unquestionably good since it facilitates communication, is sometimes driven to extremes. Often enough society’s bosses declare themselves ill served by their media employees: more often they blame the plebian spectators for the common, almost bestial manner in which they indulge in mediatic pleasures. A virtually infinite number of supposed mediatic differences thus serve to dissimulate what is, on the contrary, the result of a spectacular convergence, pursued with remarkable tenacity. Just as the logic of the commodity reigns over capitalists’ competing ambitions, or the logic of war always dominates the frequent modifications in weaponry, so the harsh logic of the spectacle controls the abundant diversity of mediatic extravagances.
People who think the Society of the Spectacle is about "culture" have clearly never got past its first chapter.

after the defeat of 1968, "theorists" gave up on class struggle and retreated to analyzing tertiary contradictions in western society because there was nothing else to do (in their minds)

leftypolers will open a book, read page 1 then give up and complain about how 'retarded' the author is and how much smarter they are

>>706468
debords entire group was like this

their writings are either the most abstract tortured ramblings or they concern themselves entirely with issues of interest only to petit bourgeois groups

>>706473
>"wow this is the stupidest shit ive ever read"
>Glownonymous
every time