What happened

Technological limitations.

yes it does.

...

It's the international style that is just popular now, it is about functionalism over decorations or any ornamental additions.

How's your day going /pol/?

Adorno was a huge no fun allowed faggot and he hated modernity and globalism in all its forms because they broke traditions. He was damn near reactionary. Read a fucking book instead of /pol/ infographics some time.

(((Globalisation)))

Yes.

i don't get why people complain so much about contemporary buildings being "globalist" and the same in every country
as if classical architecture, gothic and baroque weren't copied all over the world

>Office buildings being roughly the same shape is a jewish conspiracy;
Yup, this board is way gone.

Skyscrapers were constructed due to their practical uses. Had they not been constructed the result would be disastrous urban sprawl and severe inefficiencies in land use, resulting in the over-consumption of green-field sites in developing/ developed countries leaving less room for agriculture and industry. No doubt they appear culture-less and to many hideous, though they serve a practical purpose and are a far better alternative to sprawl at a time where the global population is rapidly increasing. Furthermore the capacity to build tall instead of wide allows firms to reduce the costs of such in countries that tax the cross-sectional area of the buildings. It has nothing to do with politics/ religion as much as it does economic efficiency, even if the former case would be more entertaining.

Like the chrysler building? Like the art deco skyscrapers?

What part of my post are you referring to? That being said art-deco is brilliant and its a shame that it was completely passed over in preference of modernist architecture, though it is understandable from an economic standpoint.

Practical uses. Those skyscrapers of old were built during times of hardship and yet they're very ornate and valuable works of art. Same with Moscow metro.

this

>intellectuals
I love how extremists always hate people in academia; it's almost as if intelligent people pretty much universally disagree with them.

Also, why the fuck would the KGB be trying to push for progressivism? When the KGB was formed in 1954, when the Soviet Union was extremely conservative! The only point in time when the social policy was radical in the USSR was from 1917 to 1924 when Lenin died. Even then, during this period practically no effort was being made in enforcing and encouraging radical social policy for two reasons:

1) The Party was focusing on consolidating their power during and after the Civil War
2) The radical social policy was a huge fucking faliure almost immediately.

The only thing "progressive" in Russian culture during after Lenin's death was that women were more equal than they would be in Western countries.

This infographic is just ridiculous; the creator has just drawn up imaginary links with no evidence, under the assumption that all Jews are part of some League of Doom. Please remind me why the Jewish people are like a Marvel Villains trying to destroy western civilisation.

>Also, why the fuck would the KGB be trying to push for progressivism?
To weaken America from within. The progressivism was intended for Americans, not Soviets.

Best skyscraper

>This meme

Member when "cultural Marxism" was an esoteric term used only by those in academia?

"Cultural Marxism" was a term used by those in left wing academia to describe how the culture industry in capitalist societies has a negative effect on society. They argue that the superficiality of things like Pop culture distract people from developing positive, wholesome and authentic human values.

Sounds familiar? If it does, that's because this point is echoed by the alt-right and conservatives FREQUENTLY, despite the fact that for most of history this has been a left-wing idea.

>marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm
>books.google.com.au/books?id=RmSzCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Theory of Communicative Action&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=authentic&f=false

>Encouraging Americans to emancipate women will weaken them from within

By making them an, even more, wealthier nation than they already were?

As a follow-up question, can I ask for some famous examples/evidence of the KGB trying to subvert American culture? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'd just like to know if this was actually a serious issue during the Cold War.

It's the tiny little Jews swimming through your brain cells that are making you say that.

Looks like a stack of Chinese food boxes

guns are older than the United States but guns are still tools of the United States army.

Doubling the labor force makes everyone only half as wealthy even if the nation's GDP doubles, user.

Not him, and this isn't specifically what you wanted, but here's a list of USSR agents caught spying in the US.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eastern_Bloc_agents_in_the_United_States

There's a number of film producers and directors in there.

>for most of history this has been a left-wing idea.
For most of history the left didn't exist
Even in Greece there were philosophers calling the theatre degenerate, suggesting people shouldn't attend it too often lest it rot their minds and souls.

but wasn't sociology repressed in the Soviet Union?

It was under the categorization of "bourgoisie pseudo-science". Soviet academia ruled that "sociology is a false science concocted by the French reactionary August Compte [sic?], and the word itself sociology is not to be used in Marxist literature".

Still influential in critical theory and the Frankfurt school.

>Design works
>Other people copy it because it works
>Thus the design becomes more common

Techniques which produce desirable results are naturally emulated by others.

True.

Most of the founding fathers of sociology disliked Marx's ideas. Durkheim especially.

>I love how extremists always hate people in academia; it's almost as if intelligent people pretty much universally disagree with them
>oh woe is me I'm so smart

Try going out once in a while instead of jerking yourself raw over how '''intelligent''' you are.

Also
>thinks that academia necessarily equals intelligence
>thinks he's smart

Fucking lmao what a brainlet

I misspoke. I meant that in our modern culture, it was first the Left-Wing academics who discussed how the establishment was using pop-culture, such as tabloid newspapers, literature and cinema to repress the proletariat.

This idea was then, much later, adopted by conservative conspiracy theorists with a few words replaced.

As for the Greeks, thank you I didn't know that.

Thank you, but I couldn't really see any big names in there but I might have just missed them.

I don't entirely trust that all of the listed individuals were true communist spies, however; McCarthyism was no different from one of Mao's cultural-campaigns but without thousands of deaths.

>McCarthyism was no different from one of Mao's cultural-campaigns
>but without thousands of deaths

That's a pretty big difference.

I am not an academic, so when I spoke of their intelligence I was not boasting, and you obviously know that. You're just doing the only thing /pol/acks know how to do: deflection.

>/pol/ack telling people to leave their houses more often
lol

>thinks that academia necessarily equals intelligence
It generally does. I trust academic journals a lot more than I trust /pol/ infographics, and any reasonable person would too.