Was the Frankfurt School right about the culture industry?

So you agree people in power are trying to or at least comfortable with the normalization of things such as transgederism, which also entails the destruction of traditional values
You basically agree with /pol/

I don't get how people can actually believe this stuff. I don't get how critical theory isn't just left-wing Alex Jones paranoia. Do the bourgeoisie actually sit down and consciously plan to do this? Maybe the story would be a bit more believable if this is somehow a non-deliberate process built into the social/psychological order.

it's literally the same narrative /pol/tards peddle, but inversed: a group of powerful actors deliberately conspiring to modify societal values in their favor

>people in power are trying to or at least comfortable with the normalization of things such as transgederism
First when you say 'people in power' I think of shadowy individuals in a smoky room. This is not the ruling class. The bourgeoisie are suburbanites, soccer moms and salary men.
>which also entails the destruction of traditional values
There is no such thing as traditional values. There are cultural values held by two different groups within the ruling class and both have different opinions on revolutionaries. The 'left' view is that these people should be absorbed and the 'right' view is these people are already adsorbed but must be reconditioned, they are 'confused'.

> Do the bourgeoisie actually sit down and consciously plan to do this?
No this is just how humans behave. The bourgeoisie have power and they fear losing it. It's actually very simple.
>Maybe the story would be a bit more believable if this is somehow a non-deliberate process built into the social/psychological order.
That's what it is.

MEMERSON TOLD ME POSTMODERNEOMARXISM IS EVIL.

I don't see how 0.5% of the society being angry about something and revolting is more dangerous than 0.5% of the society being irritated and convincing at least 50% of society to act and think like they do through force and propaganda.

>The bourgeoisie are suburbanites, soccer moms and salary men.
Come on, are you actually implying these people have as much power and social capital as the 1%ers? the people who own media?

>There is no such thing as traditional values.
Again, why be so dishonest? Are you implying there aren't values that have experienced more historical staying power than others? Are you implying people don't believe or follow a tradition?

> There are cultural values held by two different groups within the ruling class and both have different opinions on revolutionaries. The 'left' view is that these people should be absorbed and the 'right' view is these people are already adsorbed but must be reconditioned, they are 'confused'.
So at least some of these powerful actors are trying to normalize "revolutionary" potential, which implies deliberate reshaping of cultural norms in detriment of older norms. You agree with /pol/

Um, guise, um, you really might want to include a book as a fig leaf, ok? The mods can be fickle and I don't want you to get hurt.

OP the answer is no. After decades of this stuff the US is more Calvinist than ever. I suppose you could argue that it's a bougie Core Value and they've successfully extended the franchise but I think they just advertise social minorities more.
>look! faggots and niggers really are just like us! that means we're right!

>me on, are you actually implying these people have as much power and social capital as the 1%ers? the people who own media?
Yes. They are the ones that vote. They are the ones who keep the media alive. The consumer is the driver of culture.
>Again, why be so dishonest? Are you implying there aren't values that have experienced more historical staying power than others? Are you implying people don't believe or follow a tradition?
It's relative. If women were physically stronger than men we would be a matriarchy. Just because there are older traditions doesn't make them set in stone.

Things that are different have revolutionary potential. It's better to squash the potential early.

They were born into a very fortunate position, and have an obvious interest in maintaining it, so they'll think and act in whatever way that helps guarantee the status quo isn't challenged.

In a subtle way, it's in the process of being neutralized. Pic related is an example. Now that drag is acceptable, to the point that even a kid could do it, its subversive potential is erased. Now, instead of a very sexual, unabashedly obscene reaction to an oppressive society which represses sexuality, difference and free expression, it's just harmless dress up. The revolutionary power drag, and any such subculture, had was to embrace ''degeneracy'', to say: yes, we are fucking weirdos and perverts and marginalized people with no family in precarious situations, we exist! But now, it has lost that meaning, and is *tolerated*, which means: indifference, that people ''accept'' it and live with it even if they might not like it, because it ''isn't their business''. It's better to be shocked, even revolted, at expressions from marginalized groups than to be indifferent, because in the former at least the discomfort is mutual, while in tolerance the minority has to live with repression and the privileged can continue to live compliant and contributing to the capitalistic hierarchic they're inserted in with a clear consciousness because, hey, they're tolerant! So it's not their fault, surely...

>Yes. They are the ones that vote. They are the ones who keep the media alive. The consumer is the driver of culture.
You said yourself that "Every revolutionary idea becomes incorporated into the dominant culture in a dumbed down fashion so as to neutralize it". So, when some liberal teenager shares the transgender flag on his facebook or a liberal soccer mom celebrates homossexual marriage they are, in fact, trying to suppress revolutionary potential? What seems more plausible to me is we are in a perpetual state of cultural warfare, where people with the largest sums of social capital have the greatest reach to broadcast their ideals and potential to effect the zeitgeist. I think media and the consumer feed off each other.

>It's relative. If women were physically stronger than men we would be a matriarchy.
We don't, though. And the founding fathers also weren't atheist, hence American traditional values have been Christian, not atheistic. Disclaimer: I'm not saying traditional values are set in stone or are immutable; what I'm saying is, at any given time, there are societal values that are more widespread, influential or accepted than others.

You say the cultural industry attempts to quench revolutionary potential by neutralizing or incorporating a castrated version of said ideals into the dominant culture. How can you incorporate said ideals without destroying traditional values and substituting them for new ones? 1940s America didn't accept homossexual marriage and transgender bathrooms; in order for 2010s America to accept homossexual marriage and transgender bathrooms something had/has got to change. Some older values (not all of them) have to go away

This is very similar to the /pol/ narrative: a ruling subset of people wants to change our values in order to stay in power and further their interests

The heads of leftists brim so completely with self-righteousness to leave no room for the consideration of their own opponents views. If all these Jews ever said were some obvious comments about the similarity between what a person believes and what a person in fact does (i.e. a person's culture), then they would have been forgotten. But that's not all they did and said, and the dismantling of the West was precisely what they had in mind, since they were MARXISTS JEWS, and that's what Marxist Jews do (see: Russia and the Eastern Bloc).

>By 1937 the Frankfurt School was in the United States, where it was unwise to use the word 'Marxist' or even ‘materialist’.
>Next, Critical Theory is emancipatory. It aims at a society that is rational and free and which meets the needs of all. It is to that end that Critical Theory is critical. It means to reveal how contemporary capitalist society, in its economy and its culture and in their interplay, deceives and dominates.
iep.utm.edu/con-meta/#SSH4bi

Agreed.

What makes capitalism unjust? It isn't trade, which is perfectly healthy and even inevitable. It is Usury, it is loaning on interest, it is predatory lending. And who are the masters of Usury: the Jews! Who run the parasitic banks? Again, the Jews. Who controls the money supply via the Central Banks. You guessed it! The Jews again.

Bullshit. What makes capitalism unjust is the simple fact that larger economies are inherenly more efficent. This mean that when a corporation reach critical mass can pretty much corner the market and use its leverage (jobs) to influence policy making.
It wasn't the Invisible Hand that dismantled Standard Oil but the US Government

> liberal teenager shares the transgender flag on his facebook or a liberal soccer mom celebrates homossexual marriage they are

Yes become trans identity in just flag from Facebook,social expression begin control by bourgeoisie.

Yes soccer mom believe in marriage like way to put head around homosexual.

Bourgeoisie control forms and expression, looser academia couldn't change forms, every time bourgeoisie begins way more smart, social change is just a illusion.

Friendly reminder that a social hierarchy is not only inevitable but also desirable and that the ruling class has every right to defend itself against the barbarian and envious vengeance of the peasants who blame DA MAN for their inadequacy

...

I agree, and my initial post was a little too simplistic. An economy should serve the interests of everyone involved, not just those of a predatory cabal that sees itself as superior by birthright.

>t. dissatisfied millennial working a shitty job he considers well below his means and fantasizes about leading le ebin marxist revolution

Friendly reminder that this position is only ever defended by those who belong to the ruling class. and that NONE of them got there through their own merit.

Mad

You can do better than that, surely? You're too clichéd.

Perhaps you can't.

>Friendly reminder that this position is only ever defended by those who belong to the ruling class
woah a person is defending their own interests? how crazy

>nd that NONE of them got there through their own merit.
now you're just baiting

>using the word clichèd
>passive-aggresive condescending tone
Are you a stereotypical radical chic or just a chick?
Yeah, so what? I just applied marxist dialectic to explain how you being butthurt about cultural dominance of the elite is laughable. But your bait is so obvious you're probably a /pol/ack false flagging as a marxist

Dis guys right. What the elite is sistematically doing for a very long time is turning revolutionary concepts into memes. A meme is something that hasn't any changing value, is just a piece of information that self-reproducts itself into society. Every revolutionary idea becomes gradually a meme. Some day they'll turn the whole concept of "revolution" into a meme. We're very close to that point

>woah a person is defending their own interests? how crazy
That's the point, you absolute mongrel. It is only your interest, it isn't my interest or the interest of the much larger population of the working class, who is only coerced into submission by capitalism's self-sustaining mechanisms of alienation and marginalization. Liberal capitalism isn't each individual guided by self-interest; it's the many unknowingly serving the interests of the few, or, better put, of the system itself.

>role playing this badly

except the working class is one of the most staunch defensors of free-market, private property and hierarchy: they don't want le revolution, they want to become the next big capitalist

>inb4 muh false consciousness

>Some day they'll turn the whole concept of "revolution" into a meme. We're very close to that point
Hasn't it already become a meme? Anyone expressing their frustration at modernity is told "lol just clean your room kid". To actually believe any group can disrupt the status quo is thought of as insane or unnatural, accepting the misery of modernity is part of "growing up".

Look at people who like Nietszche. He encouraged rebellion and revolt against the modern world, that struggle was essential to liberation but liberation was achievable. Instead the accepted view in culture is that he meant you would always be in chains and you should just accept that. It's completely backwards and stripped of all revolutionary potential.

You have to go back.

>and that NONE of them got there through their own merit.

Elon Musk didn't get there by his own merit. He's a horrible white male oppressor who should be stripped down and all his wealth taken.

>Oh, but the electric car company he's built that's ensured a speedy change from gas to electric that will improve climate change can stay, just put a brown guy in charge tehee. :)
>Oh but the space company that he's built that's doing better than NASA and will get us closer to leaving our doomed planet can stay, just put a black guy in charge tehee. :)
>Oh and cancel all these other projects he's working on, they are tainted by his whiteness!

Leftists need to be killed.

>except the working class is one of the most staunch defensors of free-market, private property and hierarchy

What country are you from?

>Anyone expressing their frustration at modernity is told "lol just clean your room kid". To actually believe any group can disrupt the status quo is thought of as insane or unnatural, accepting the misery of modernity is part of "growing up".

That why you just have to *do* things, dont try to convince people of shit since they've already given up

Was an apocalyptic misanthropic cult right about how to improve things? They're in the same low mental level as those who use malthusian ethics. They think we must become faceless bricks. We don't.

A good example of this in literature would be the ending of Brave New World. John's act of rebellion is self-flagellation which is first seen with confusion then he becomes another object of amusement. His refusal to be part of their society is incorporated into the society and he is neutralized.

Trump is a crypto-kike

>They think we must become faceless bricks.
That's the opposite of what they believe. They advocate for human liberation from capital which is perpetuated by cultural hegemony.

the US

>"lol just clean your room kid".
It's more like: if you think you're life is shit, then fix your life. It's that simple.

>Oh, but the electric car company he's built that's ensured a speedy change from gas to electric that will improve climate change can stay, just put a brown guy in charge tehee. :)
Workers built his company and designed his cars using stimulus money from the federal government.
>Oh but the space company that he's built that's doing better than NASA and will get us closer to leaving our doomed planet can stay, just put a black guy in charge tehee. :)
NASA has been gutted and is unable to attract talent so they must outsource to companies like SpaceX which piggybacks off of NASA's aerospace breakthroughs to cut development costs.

... did you read my post?
>who is only coerced into submission by capitalism's self-sustaining mechanisms of alienation and marginalization

Of course the working class is not communist, if they were, you'll soon realize how your supposed superiority is nothing but arbitrarily acquired privilege maintained by the intricate workings of the system.

Modernity is what is fucking up my life and yours. Have you read Nietszche or Freud? Your argument is to focus only on the small things to make life bearable, wewant to address the root causes so that huans can thrive.

>It's more like: if you think you're life is shit, then fix your life. It's that simple

Wow. I never saw why he was so popular until now. Amazing stuff!

The American public are socialistic, even if they don't know it.

>pnhp.org/news/2015/january/majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds
>salon.com/2013/11/20/poll_voters_want_social_security_expanded_not_cut/
>m.dailykos.com/stories/2014/09/05/1327455/-New-polling-suggests-a-vote-on-Social-Security-expansion-could-help-Democrats-hold-the-Senate
>thedailybeast.com/new-poll-shows-voters-in-red-states-want-to-expand-medicaid

>The American public are socialistic, even if they don't know it.
Sure they are, buddy. That's why a tame socialist like Bernie was considered too radical by Dems and BTFO by neoliberal Hillary

>ignoring polls on policy
>ignoring the fact the DNC undermined Sanders
>Ignoring my "even if they don't know it"

Wew, lad. Why update and refine your worldview when you can just keep ignoring everything that threatens it, huh?

Poor people like socialism so poor people are discouraged from voting. Middle class are reactionary and live in fear of losing power so they fight to keep it. Of course a candidate like Hillary, someone who advocated means testing and ensuring only "the best" of the poor got benefits, would win the primary and would lose to a candidate who promised tax cuts and to get rid of minorities that could overturn the status quo.

Those are just small polls on several individual issues; there's literally no reason for me to believe americans are socialists in the closet

Your bit about poor people sounds conspiratorial to me. If americans were interested in socialism then we would've had at least a single great socialist politician at least running for president. Americans believe in freedom, private property and the free-market. Social-democracy, something to the left of what we have nowadays, still isn't socialism.

>Modernity is what is fucking up my life and yours
>Wow. I never saw why he was so popular until now. Amazing stuff!
There's more to it than that, of course. Another element is that suffering is inevitable, and to be rid of it completely would not only be impossible, but most likely undesirable.

But it certainly suggests they're not for free markets... Social security, in healthcare, environment, education. All that government interference, not exactly what the laissez faire crowd had in mind is it?

>Your bit about poor people sounds conspiratorial to me. If americans were interested in socialism then we would've had at least a single great socialist politician at least running for president.
There have been socialists running for president and governor. Every time they are met by cultural backlash from a the ruling class which has established cultural hegemony as outlined by the cultural Marxists.

>Americans believe in freedom, private property and the free-market. Social-democracy, something to the left of what we have nowadays, still isn't socialism.
Socialism is freedom. It is the reunion of the human essence with his existence by removing the intermediate currency value from transactions thus leading to solely productive enterprise. Most people only care about owning private property because that is what has cultural value, it is essential to survival within this society. The free market is bullshit virtue signaling. People care about power.

>Another element is that suffering is inevitable, and to be rid of it completely would not only be impossible, but most likely undesirable.
It's only worthwhile if the suffering is taken on while performing productive activities which are limited by the capitalistic mode of production and the society that it surrounds itself in. To say that reducing suffering is undesirable is more insane means-tested garbage to ensure the status quo.

>Workers built his company and designed his cars using stimulus money from the federal government.

Except you fail to understand that he himself is the catalyst in triggering any development and breakthroughs, through his business ventures, in the first place.

Elon Musk is the most important man to every single company he leads. There is not a single person under him that is more important and more essential to anything said companies do.

Homosexual here explain

-The personal benefit I should have for showing allegiance to any revolutionary group?
-The personal reason I should consider modern society my enemy?
-Why me sucking dick could ever be suversive?

>It's only worthwhile if the suffering is taken on while performing productive activities which are limited by the capitalistic mode of production and the society that it surrounds itself in.
The rank materialism of your ideology is most likely the root of your problems. If the only metric of success at your disposal is entirely in terms of accumulated or relative wealth, then it's no wonder you're so depressed.

>To say that reducing suffering is undesirable is more insane means-tested garbage to ensure the status quo.
I didn't say it was undesirable. I said that it was IMPOSSIBLE. Let that sink in, because it is absolutely true.

>I didn't say it was undesirable. I said that it was IMPOSSIBLE.
You said both. It is impossible to eliminate suffering but like I said, it is better to suffer during productive labor rather than unproductive.

Productivity is being involved in the planning, execution, and distribution of a product. Unproductive labor is drudgery and alienating, productive labor is creative and inspiring.

Bullshit. He's the money man. He has a cult of personality around him because he taps into nostalgia, his idea of utopia is to enable the wealthy to live apart from the proletariat and feel no guilt or material discomfort from exploiting the poor.

It is the system of capitalism that allows him to exploit the value produced by his employees and by transubstantiation turn it into his own labor.

That's the thing, homosexuals are in as this poster explained with transsexuals. Your loyalty has been bought and you can continue to be exploited.

Only constant in the projects of Elon Musk, is Elon Musk. Sorry kiddo.

There are no feelings in that post that resonate with me. I don't even understand what he is complaining about, it sounds like a personal problem he is projecting onto society. He/she sounds borderline mental.

It does not answer what benefit the revolutionaries have or harm the current system gives me. The only 'meaning' I have ever gotten from homosexuality has come from either myself or the current system, I have found leftist rhetoric to cause nothing but harm and alienation for homosexuals.

>Now that drag is acceptable, to the point that even a kid could do it, its subversive potential is erased
What is supposed to happen then?What kind of ideas remain being subversive for all eternitiy?
> But now, it has lost that meaning, and is *tolerated*, which means: indifference, that people ''accept'' it and live with it even if they might not like it, because it ''isn't their business''
whats wrong with this really?Would it be better to keep remaining sick of trannies and regarding them as fucked in the head?

>I think it's funny when people who quote Nietzsche are anti-Marxists because he was one of the first to preach rebellion against the soul quenching nature of modernity.

user. Marxism can exist only in modernity, only. Nietzsche wanted to return to pre-ancient values, you fucking manipulating /leftypol/ idiot.

>whats wrong with this really?
It's apathy with a mask of inclusion. The people making gay support posts on their facebook en masse have no business doing that and no unmediated relation to anybody living in those conditions. It absolutely debases the whole issue because it's appropriated by everyone, as they've turned their suffering and alienation into a commodity; what results is that these people can "talk for gays" and even dictate who is and is not oppressed, even though they wouldn't actually give a hair for these individuals, and in the end use the "oppressed" (an amorphous mass and not the actual people) to further any agenda they want. Sound familiar?

What a reductionist take.

But they are fucked in the head. Why lie and pretend they aren't? How is collective lying and collective acceptance of lying about being a man or woman when you aren't helpful to anybody or anything?

I think they are fucked in the head, what i meant was that if trannies want to be accepted so badly why wouldnt they settle for indifference even if this means 'subversive potential' (whatever that is) is lost. The alternative would be active opposition to trannyism and i dont see why they would prefer that.

YES

>It's apathy with a mask of inclusion.

You're not the center of the fuckin world m8. It's apathy because most people honestly don't give a fuck about your bedroom predilections. They have their own lives and shit to do. I agree that goybook slacktivism is symbol over substance crap but at least they are supportive in general now. It's a vast change from what it used to be. You gays really do find any reason that you can to have a bitch.

Thanks for providing an example of how it looks like in action, user; that was an outstanding performance.

user if this is one of the bigger hassles that you have to contend with in daily life then you are a literal normie and too stupid to see how good you already have it.

Pardon my language but I just don't give a care.

As a gay man I think this doesn't describe reality at all. You sound like you are hallucinating. You are also utterly hypocritically, hating these imaginary enemies for trying to "talk for gay" when you yourself are also doing that.

The fact that you actually take social media as being representative of anything at all is proof you are either insane or stupid.

user, why do you assume (assumed twice) that this is something that has to do with me personally? What makes you think I want you to care about anything?

>hating these imaginary enemies for trying to "talk for gay" when you yourself are also doing that.
Not really, I'm not. And it's not about gays in particular.

>The fact that you actually take social media as being representative of anything at all is proof you are either insane or stupid.
Why? And why do you have such a strong reaction regarding it?

>user, why do you assume (assumed twice) that this is something that has to do with me personally?

Because you talk like a fag and your shits all retarded.

Please answer, I actually do want to know.

The snowflake snark. The resulting passive aggression when someone dared to bring you down to earth a bit. All of it, really. Your whole bearing is holier than thou tumblr shit.

>Why? And why do you have such a strong reaction regarding it?
Social media is where powerless people go to vent their frustration or where herd-minded people go to affirm that their opinions on trivial things are in line with what everyone else approves of.

Powerless and herd-minded by people defination do not affect anything. So what they think is irrelevant. social media isn't even a depiction of what they think but what they WANT you to think that they beleive (so it's even more stupid to take them seriously).

They pose with a picture of some rainbow flag as a signal and that's it. It's just meaningless signalling.

The person you are responding to is not the one that posed the initial complaint. I am

Do you not see the contradiction that is calling someone "holier than thou" right after saying they were "brought down to earth"?

And "snark"? I'm the one being called unimportant for having some sort of affiliation, despite not even talking about myself.

>social media isn't even a depiction of what they think but what they WANT you to think that they beleive (so it's even more stupid to take them seriously).
Exactly. It's a play.

>Exactly. It's a play.

Yeah it's not reality. If you live in California you're probably going to be accepted as a gay man no matter what you do while if you live in Texas it's going to be different. The social media doesn't reflect anything.

And the entertainment media by and large does not produce stuff for homosexuals. The gay men depicted are there for shock value or pity-value for straight people that want to be shocked or pity. The reason for this is entirly to do with economcis. Gay men are like 2-4% of the population so their dollar value counts for less. Thank God for fujoshi though, their taste in homo is at least entertaining.

The Right
It has eaten itself
Right
RIGHT
Easy on the self-cannibalisation

That guy is probably jewish. I'm not /pol/ but know enough to know that is what they do, and usually in that exact wording, to divide and conquer whites.

Looks like we got ourself a goy over here!

teleports behind you
>charges you interest

unseeths my circumcised penis
>plants sumblimal messages in movies to brainwash women into not dating you

fucks you in the ass!
>destroys your culture from within

cums in your gentile butt
>discovers half of science, manages the movies industry, writes all the best literature, and some of the most influential philosophy

hey nothing personal goy!

I think this explains why everyone hates your people and ends up trying to kill you

His first and last only seem like ones to hate if you're a brainlet, and they're the only true ones

Also the 3rd and 4th are contradictions.

The 4th one says that the Jews actually create culture, the opposite of 'destroying it'

The leaves only the 2nd one which would only sting if you were a kissless virgin

You know how I know you've never read anything to come out of the Frankfurt School?

The problem is not in any mythical ruling class but in humanity itself. Humanity always degrades new and revolutionary concepts into mere stale "memes" and conformity because it is human nature for things to always turn from their original course and lose the original power of resolution (see some salient passages in Hamlet). EVERYTHING becomes neutralized at some point. Then something revolutionary comes up again and people think it's new, even though it's happened before in history, and this again peters out and gets absorbed by the stifling conformity of humanity, etc. But even though the cycle repeats, it gets worse and worse every time steadily, gradually. Like a barrel rolling down a ramp: the barrel repeats the same cycle, same archetype, but is also falling.

>The leaves only the 2nd one which would only sting if you were a kissless virgin
explains /pol/ though

>The fact that you actually take social media as being representative of anything at all is proof you are either insane or stupid.
Everything that is real happens and will happen on the Internet. Get with the times gramps.

It's not the same. No one ever said it was deliberate or conspiratorial.