Is this worth reading?

wait, what book is that

Sure but don't become one of those commies that goes crying about "MUH SPECTACLE' everywhere.

he isn't a situationist tho

It's literally called 'The Gulf War Did Not take Place' or La Guerre du Golfe n'a pas eu lieu, if you speak frog.

>The Gulf War Did Not take Place

u sure they didn't put some of those essays into simulacra? cuz i didnt read a whole book on that shit, but i remember reading some baudrillard crap about it

>u sure they didn't put some of those essays into simulacra?
What the fuck are you going on about? S&S was published ten years before the Gulf War took place!

Yeah but he said it didn’t take place

idk maybe i read that on the internet or something, either way i didn't find it especially great

Baudrillard? Of course not. That doesn't stop anyone from going MUH HYPERREAL MUH SPECTACLE though.

i picked up a neat postmodern eassayist obscure aesthetic woah prose piece but it wal littered with reference to buadrillaard amoung others os now i have to read all these popel

If you're kinda slow don't bother, it will do more harm than good. If you're kinda not-slow it may be worth it. If you were smart you wouldn't be here.

poo

Is there any essential pre-requisite reading to this book?

kek

lmao

Not really, just be familiar with Marx and certainly some Borges and PKD

I would argue that you're focusing on the wrong thing here. Situating the argument within the gulf war merely acts as a placeholder to ground the wider argument about the preponderance of the image and mass media/consumption. Something that I feel is still somewhat prescient today. I'm not particularly fond of Baudrillard, but OP could find something useful within his writings.

oh my god.

what a hipster

Read the hypperreal version

The real question is: was Baudrillard a crypto-right winger?

within every Leftist is a right-winger waiting to emerge as layers of delusion are peeled off

On this subject, I'm surprised that far-right groups don't provide interpretations of philosophers like Baudrillard, it would really aid them.

I'm on way too much acid for this.

postmodernists are basically leftwing versions of reactionaries from the enlightement era

They actually do, the identitarian critique of capitalism is heavily influenced by Baudrillards ideas about the commodification of identity, which they see as alienating to racial and biocultural identity.

He was conservative in a way, but still against capitalism. He was really on with Bataille's ideas on pre-capitalist "donation" (don't know how to translate in English)

Any recs on indentitarian critiques of capitalism?

>Bataille's ideas on pre-capitalist "donation
is this pomos being autistic about 'charity'

Archeofuturism and why we fight by Guillame Faye both deal with capitalism extensively, but are not soley about capitalism. If you read French de Benoist has several essays whos names I can't think of.

Right-Wingers don't necessarily have to be pro-Capitalist.

Not charity at all, something between equals, like giving and receiving presents but without them being presents. And Bataille is not pomo

I'll look into it, thank you frérot

>pre-capitalist "donation" (don't know how to translate in English)
it's usually translated as expenditure

More right than wrong

Expenditure? Like spendings? That's not what I meant but these trips make me want to trust you

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13534640010015881?journalCode=tpar20

I didn't understand it.

Why is Simulacra and Simulation so expensive still? It's been in print since the fucking 70s and even the second hand ones are about the price of new ones... £15/$22

I'm sick of reading it online but cmon.

it is supported by artificial demand in colleges, and people are still willing to pay the price

open an economics book ffs

Better than the bugs bunny post

I just mean I'd expect a lot more students selling it on the cheap like his other books

neo-reactionary / moldbug? idk

Potlatch more specifically, or gift exchange
from Marcel Mauss
related to expenditure but implying power relations, obligation, debt, terrorism, as opposed to pure symbolic you make everything i waste it b/c i will sacrifice my life and you cling to it, etc. Bataille-Kojeve-Hegel
read s&s, but don't force it, we live it

>power relations, obligation, debt
People miss this often. Between the great houses it even took elements conspicious comsumption and war deterrence. Chiefs would ritually waste (burn on bunfire) "gifts" to each other, with the one with less to waste loosing face. This was an opportunity to show your productive prowess, making your tribe seem stronger over others ("look how much we can do without").

Gift economies are about buying social status, with leaders being those that can "give" away more, putting more obligation to reciprocate on others.

It would be wrong to think of all native americans as having gift giving as their economic backbone, tho. The ones on the east coast used wampums as currency, and european settlers actually adopted these into their economies as well, before the Dutch increased the supply of wampums and hyperinflated the pretty-shell-exchange-based system.

Alain de Benoist
Georges Sorel
And if you're French there's a magazine called Elements about this school of thought

Yes yes yes that's exactly what I meant, I was too drunk and tired to express myself correctly. Btw "Potlach" is an excellent read from l'internationale Lettriste

>is this pomos being autistic about 'charity'
it goes back to "the gift" by marcel mauss

read marcel mauss and bataille before. it will help you a lot in understanding what baudrillard is talking about. i think it is impossible to understand baudrillard without these writers. especially the later works. the work about every day objects (don't know how it is called english) is a great book, but he uses marxist and freudian ideas, which he later abandoned or at least revisited radically.

fucking lol

Sure.

It might be because right wingers don't read anything besides breitbart and the new Lauren Southern book

Ken M, is that you?

...

You should read John Milbank on gift exchange.

With Mauss, Bataille and Derrida a strict distinction was made between a 'pure' gift, and a transaction. The gift however is almost always contaminated with self-interest and becomes transactional.

Milbank identifies as the 'good' of the gift not the object exchanged, but the relation that is created. The Good of the gift is the possibility of continued reciprocity. Therefor Milbanks conception of the gift isn't contaminated by self-interest, but enhanced by it.

So yeah: Pomo's being autistic about Charity is pretty accurate.

He was right about everything. The book actually gets better with time as simulation expands.

>being this up your own asshole

>

ken m lol
put me in the screenie boys