Poltards rant against "cultural marxism" and the perceived degradation of culture promoted "leftists" and "SJW"s based...

>Moral relativism is really the only sensible position
I find this issue extremely interesting and tend to agree with the first part but I find it nonsensical to claim it doesn't affect society.

That said, "cultural marxism" goes far beyond moral relativism. It applies relativism to things like science, truth, family structures, kinship, and so on. When we're done with it, we are nothing but animals once again and have destroyed millennia of attempts at civilization.

You're wrong, commie. Literally the only reason the Renaissance could happen was through patronage by rich merchants, who became so prosperous through (gasp) capitalism.

There's a reason why in the 19th century following the bourgeois revolution in France we have the worst art ever put to canvas

>Delacroix
>Manet
>Rodin

Gommynism

Bankers aren't merchants

>capital is the agent. everything that seems to act, acts through capital
Oh so now we're placing one "entity without agency" with another.
When Merkel allowed millions to illegaly cross the border and didn't dare to close the borders again, that wasn't the capital acting (although parts of it certainly welcomed it). It was her clinging to power and first being afraid of looking inhumane, then afraid of admitting to a mistake and no one else in her party dared to take responsibility either. This has been chronicled by journalists. Pretending everything is just "the capital" as if the capital wasn't such diverse actors like the Kochs and Soros is just intellectually lazy.

>lol your "values", whatever they may be, are irrelevant in modern society
That's a funny way of looking at "Don't kill people". Your radicalism really discredits anything you're saying.

Pale in comparison to preceding centuries. The Enlightenment put the human subject at the centre of art. It hasn't been capable of greatness since

In an academic philosophical sense I can agree somewhat, but when it come to the real world with crime and punishment we need socially agreed upon values. They're foundational to society.

The end of form is not form itself.

Merchants and trade directly lead to the prosperity of Florence, this is undeniable.

Name any period of art greater than the 19th century excluding the Renaissance

>You're wrong, commie. Literally the only reason the Renaissance could happen was through patronage by rich merchants, who became so prosperous through (gasp) capitalism.

Mercantilism isn't capitalism. And you posted an image of the Sistine Chapel, which was not at all funded by wealthy merchants.

Those wealthy "merchants" acted and behaved more like nobles in the end, anyway.

Not to mention that patronage is extremely rare compared to what it once was under feudal societies.

>clinging to power
>afraid of "looking inhumane"
>Kochs and Soros actors

lmao these things are all part of capital (although not exclusive to it of course) power, capital, status...

>we need socially agreed upon values. They're foundational to society.

But moral relativism doesn't prevent this. Communities are free to make moral standards and enforce them, as they should, but the moral relativist position would simply be that there is no one objective moral truth.

Capital could exist just as well without them, though.

>Merchants and trade directly lead to the prosperity of Florence, this is undeniable.

Not patronage though

Maybe you should look into the origins of banking and who the families were which financed kings.

how can we actively fight against the commodification of culture? i feel like things such as promoting DIY art scenes and "anti-art" are nice and all but usually lend themselves to being recuperated

The Renaissance.

thats not the point of what im saying. people who are jockeying for power, in a diverse array of positions, make decisions because of capital/power based on where they are. therefore capital/power is the actor (as now capital and power are practically synonymous)

>lmao everything is the capital
Wow I wonder why you're not taken more seriously.
>No dude I swear, there is no ideology; when people demand we take their otherkin pronouns seriously that's just the capital acting

That doesn't matter. The post said 'through patronage by rich merchants' which is false. Also guilds aren't capitalist

>implying rennaisance patronism even remotely resembles the process of the industrialization of culture for mass market consumption

Let's just ignore the way profiteers who benefit from American imperialism who make money creating all those refugees and the plundering of the third world creating the migrants.

That is precisely the point. These people act on drives (identity, reputation) that are exogenous to the logic of capital itself. Human beings are not utility maximizing animals.

?
I'm replying to a post that said "bankers aren't merchants" which is objectively wrong for the time we're discussing.

>identity and reputation are exogenuous to the logic of capital

lwhat is fashion?

lol

O ya. That worked REAL slick in China, to take one example. Millenia of culture lost. Capitalism may be bad, but so is Marx.

Here's a thought. Most political or economic systems can be bad or good depending on the moral substance of the people who run it.

War profiteers*

>Millenia of culture lost.

Fuckin postmodernists

>implying soviet realism or china's cultural revolution remotely resemble anything related to what the frankfurt school or the situationists were talking about

>No mention of the destruction of culture and tradition in Marxism.

Classic.

I never said "the capital" doesn't have an opinion on the refugee crisis or has nothing to do with it.

All I said was that the white girls clapping at the train station or the journalist writing his 20th NOT ALL MUSLIMS article have other interests than just the capital, such as plain virtue signalling. And that behaviour wouldn't stop just because we got rid of capitalism.

They go against individualist economic rationalization by placing faith in shared assumptions larger than onself.
>exogenuous
I take it that English isn't your first language?

Indeed, Mao destroyed chinese culture more efficiently than centuries of subjugation by colonialism did.

Are you falseflagging or baiting?

Destroy capital and you've got to start from ground zero. Of course there will be some geniuses who would like to "fix" everything.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with socialism per se, but I think it's asinine to claim that something as extreme as "destroying capital" will solve anything.

Dude everyone knows that the intelligentsia was the most cherished class during Marxism.

Art and culture have never flourished like they did under Mao and Lenin. Fucking commodification, man.

>b-b-but muh Rosengolds!

i used the word correctly and spelled it wrong. but nice attempt to legitimize my argument.

fashion is a display of vertical status and power. hence why you will never see a banker dressing like a trucker.

I really don't know why the saw a billionaire capitalist with global financial interests pretending to be a protectionist for 24 months as a good idea. One could see from a mile away that DJT was not about to shoot himself in the foot and deconstruct his own global network of assets for the sake of being a good president.

His little boys (Eric and Junior) now make
B I G D E A L S
in dangerous nations using our secret service as their own personal tax-funded kingsguard. His daughter and son-in-law are his closest political advisors. The alt-right guy who was born in poverty (Bannon) is mostly kept around as court jester.

He fucking fired an FBI director who was under tremendous pressure to investigate both he and his opponent, and then he flip-flopped on his own reasons over the course of two days.He is the second president ever to fire an FBI director.

Goldman Sachs Executives litter his administration. He wants to bring back the failed war on drugs with his attorney general (more free labor for the for-profit prison industry). He wants to continue our interventionist foreign policy despite running as a Dove. He wants to kill the families of insurgents so we can create whole new generations of disaffected extremists in the middle east (which will inevitably as a pretense for more interventions later on)..

His secretary of state got 100 million dollars for quitting his job (a "severance" package so big you can only assume they gave it to him so he could continue to carry out their interests as SoS).

Meanwhile we had an anti-isreal, protections democrat candidate who wasn't even a millionaire (we have only had 9 non-millionaire presidents, if you adjust for inflation to 2016 dollars, and Donald is the richest we've ever had by a huge factor).

We are so brainwashed to view wealth as synonymous with merit that we won't even elect someone from our own ranks to the highest office.

Donald Trump pays more taxes on a yearly basis than I will make in an entire life time of hard work. It's a small percentage of his income, and if he could pay less he would.

That is the sort of vapid greed we are dealing with.

Neither, you're a postmodernist if you're concerned with the preservation of an alien culture

you don't understand what im saying.

O rly? Do clarify.

The problem is mostly not the cultural marxism itself, but (((who))) is spreading it and what goais are (((they))) trying to achieve. Cultural marxism is one of the many tools is use.

>media and politicians
>no agency

Really? Do you think certain (((people))) invest large sums of money into both of them without having any agency?

The ideals of the Left sound nice. The problem is you have to go right (assuming you don't want stalinism) when you are facing downfall of morality, horrible fertility rates and especially for Western Europe, muslim invasion.

>debord.gif

>legitimize
Not him but you used that word incorrectly.

SI revival when? This really is the best timeline.

you are exactly the type of moron this post was made about

meant delegitimize lol, autocorrect

hopefully we'll get a hundred SIs in the coming years

I read Society of the Spectacle. Srsly, it's good, but as per usual, I thought it oversimplifies things and comes off as a very bourgeois critique of culture. Not as bourgeois as Adorno, but still bourgeois. It's pretty much a rich art school kid manifesto, imho.

Get out /pol/tard. Reacting to Marxists doesn't solve the problem. Enjoy your solipsism.

I agree with it all but it's too lazy to just pretend everyone is shocked by it or saw none of it coming. You had the choice between someone who would probably flip-flop on some issues and someone who was firmly set on "flop" on every issue from the beginning.

Some things were kind of obvious, but I didn't think he'd change his Dove stance so quickly for example. I also don't really think he's doing it out of personal interest, in that case it's likely other bigger actors.

Also, non-millionaire presidents are no bit better and trusting them is just as stupid. Blair, Schröder, Sarkozy, they all talk openly about just milking their position to rise into the ranks of the money elite.

Also, look at our new situationist art. Tim and Eric, Sam Hyde. Definitely not meaningful. Just nihilistic and cynical. I'll take my tacky old books and religions over that junk any time of day.

its the opposite of bourgeoisie, the SI wanted everyone to make "everyday art" and to bring art out of the museum and into life. they want to turn it from spectating to being participatory and extended to everyone.

and while adorno might be a classicist snob (even if he denies this too, it IS debatable) his critique is also non-bourgeois

fuckin libtards on twitter set immigration policy, cuck. even before twitter, it was feminists who opened the borders, not the political and economic class who actually run shit, cuck

You mean like all that "outsider" art and writing made almost exclusively by rich kids (true to this day)? Gimme a break.

Even Deleuze and Guattari in AO said that they aren't looking for REAL schizophrenia.

All that stuff is made by rich kids, for rich adults. Definitely bourgeois.

no. why dont you actually read the SI instead of making vague generalizations as to what im referring to?

Recuperated, sure. But when I think of detournement I'm not thinking of Banksy

I think there's more meaning in Sam Hyde's vertical vids about the despair and uselessness of growing up an atomised millenial than any uptopian shit that drowns popular culture about the wonder of fucking VR, Globalisation and "flexible career opportunities"

>WHOAH! WHOAH MY SON! HES A GENIUS! HE FIXED UP MY COMPUTER LIKE THAT! YOU SHOULD'VE SEEN HIM, IT WAS LIKE MAGIC! JUST YOU WAIT AND SEE! HES GONNA GROW UP TO BE A BIG, IMPORTANT MAN!

Snooty prick.

>The production of commodities, which implies the exchange of a variety of products among independent producers, was long able to retain an artisanal aspect embodied in a marginal economic activity where its quantitative essence was masked.
>p. 27
Ohhhhh, I see. So we should get rid of technology! Like, drive around in those cars, and eat all that food that outsider artists make!

>they still must be liberated from their liberators
>p. 28
Well, that wouldn't be necessary if things had been done right the first time around, now would it?

Back to the Republic.

Sam Hyde has issues. He's wallowing in his own filth. Very sad. The guy should grow up a little.

Got a problem with culture? Try to fix it. Don't throw a tantrum and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

>>blame shadow entities

Is exactly what Debord does.

>Secrecy dominates this world, and first and foremost as the secret of domination. According to the spectacle, secrecy would only be a necessary exception to the rule of freely available, abundant information, just as domination in the integrated spectacle’s ‘free world’ would be restricted to a mere executive body in the service of democracy. But no one really believes the spectacle. How then do spectators accept the existence of secrecy which alone rules out any chance of their running a world of whose principal realities they know nothing, in the unlikely event that they were to be asked how to set about it? The fact is that almost no
one sees secrecy in its inaccessible purity and its functional universality. Everyone accepts that there are inevitably little areas of secrecy reserved for specialists; as regards things in general, many believe they are in on the secret.

>As to the rising number of assassinations over the last two decades (Kennedy, Aldo Moro, Olaf Palme, ministers and bankers, a pope or two, some others who were worth more than all of them) which have remained completely unsolved -- for, while the odd supernumerary has been sacrificed, there has never been any question of apprehending those who hold the purse strings -- their serial character shows a common hallmark: the blatant, and variable, lies of official statements.

>The ubiquitous growth of secret societies and networks of influence answers the imperative demand of the new conditions for profitable management of economic affairs, at a time when the state holds a hegemonic role in the direction of production and when demand for all commodities depends strictly on the centralization achieved by spectacular information/promotion, to which forms of distribution must also adapt.

>As regards the concentrated side, the controlling center has now become occult, never to be occupied by a known leader, or clear ideology. And on the diffuse side, the spectacular influence has never before put its mark to such a degree on almost the totality of socially produced behavior and objects. For the final sense of the integrated spectacular is that it integrates itself into reality to the same extent that it speaks of it, and that it reconstructs it as it speaks. As a result, this reality no longer confronts the integrated spectacle as something alien. When the spectacle was concentrated, the greater part of surrounding society escaped it; when diffuse, a small part; today, no part. The spectacle has spread itself to the point where it now permeates all reality. It was easy to predict in theory what has been quickly and universally demonstrated by practical experience of economic reason’s relentless accomplishments: that the globalisation of the false was also the falsification of the globe.

Outsider artists is like literally the exact opposite of SI. That's putting shit back in the gallery

lol yep thats EXACTLY what they mean. you definitely read that in earnest

>Outsider artists the opposite of SI.

Do tell.

to be fair OP said shadow entities with no agency

Wow! So snarky! So clever!

Where are your arguments, hipster.

debord denies those entities agency.

Like I said, putting shit back in the gallery, qualifying otherness by the art world, which in a sense makes artefacts out of 'dead art' to be viewed out of curiosity for the bizarre, and aggrandizes the person who discovered the outside artist. Where are the parallels to self-identified Situationists in the 60s?

Who doesn't? If you can afford therepy then good for you

It's the naivety of this those still stuck in 20th century politics of an "ideologicaly pure" left/right dicotomy who are in denial of what is happening, as if we can somehow return to some idealised simple past of worker/ethno-states. They are often doing to work of their enemies for them. Hyde is a fool, but his lampoon of the modern is too painful for such "progressive s" to swallow. The radical notion that time is not linear and man is awash in the wave of its epoch is probably too devastating to acknowledge

>every single intellectual and artist is a communis, many of them university-educated, so they are familiar with the work of Gramsci and Marcuse
>"it's capitalism faults, goyim"

If media was motivated by only profit, they wouldn't cancel popular shows (like "Last Man Standing", or the rural purge of the 1970s) and promote promiscuity and degeneracy even though it draw less viewers.

No, what is put in the media is decided by the staff, not by the owner, and the staff is Marxist, because it is educated at Marxist universities.

>Marxist universities

Most people go to university to study law or business or accounting or some shit

>If media was motivated by only profit

? Maybe you want to give OP post another read

Is that a rhetorical question? If it's not, I suggest you answer it yourself, to re-educate this poor ole peasant...

Andy Warhol was pretty cool. At least he formed the Velvet Underground! Anyway, I don't have a problem with outsider art. In fact I think it should get more attention than it does.

I just think that the people who want to use these concepts to apply to every level of society are either batshit crazy or trying to start up a new marketing strategy.

not the guy you're replying to, but you are fucking retarded

marxism has been co-opted by manegerial liberalism and produces artificial negativity (race, gender, marxist, academic theoretizing) to quell and channel dissatisfaction away from the elite

Tell that to my face cocksucker

It seems what you're describing is recuperation of radical ideas en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation_(politics) which isn't the point of Situationism, in fact the opposite

Generally, ethics are the best kind of therapy. Examining one's own priorities. Trying to become the kind of person one can feel happy about. That's free, and will always be so.

The fact that time may not be linear does not mean that Sam Hyde understands what modernity is. Modernity and postmodernity were always myths. They're convenient indexing terms for academics.

>that time is not linear
It's not exactly that - I think a more accurate statement would be that there's no teleology to history despite its tendencies.

Identity politics is meant to unify different disaffected groups in an united front against the elite. The managerial elite who thinks they are in control will soon be surprised.

And it's not me saying it, it's Marxist intellectuals themselves.

the messiah might come through that door anytime...

Was Warhol not a situationist? If so, why not?

Multiculturalism is going on with money forcefully taken from people and companies.
Without this socialism it would be more modest and not this twisted shit seen now.
I don't think /pol/ is generally against economic globalism that much, it depends on the actual case.
Media and politicians ain't really shadow entities, there is something like 300-1000 persons in the world, that really pull any strings that count.

Well, starting from ground zero would leave the whining lazy commies as poor as they are or even worse. There are reasons why some people don't have success on work/business.

please stop posting

>the multiculturalism they hate is also the result of capitalism.

So what you're saying is that Leftists parties are actually capitalist?

Because everyone all the way from the Communist Party to the centre-right are for mass-immigration in my country, with the exception of the parties on the far-right.

So it can't simply be about capitalism. It's far more likely to me that it's about an extremely idealistic form of internationalism.

I was probbs one of the few that would have been willing to have a conversation with you. Enjoy getting crushed by "reactionaries".

Sam doesn't understand modernity but he can reflect it's pure ugliness in mimicry. He's not an intellectual, but his finger is on the pulse of the malaise of our generation. Your perspective is essentially "just be yourself and your be happy" which is no different from mainstream reactive therepy for making people better operate within the constraints of modern society

Tbh I just don't want niggers, Asians or sandies in my country. I don't really care if you destroy capitalism senpai.

>Your perspective is essentially "just be yourself and your be happy" which is no different from mainstream reactive therepy for making people better operate within the constraints of modern society

Try Plato, Aristotle, Aurelius, Hegel, Fichte, Seneca, Plotinus, Proclus, Kant, or whatever. Even Lacan, to a small degree. Things have always been difficult. Some folks have come up with ideas about how to deal with it. Equating this with cheap self-hypnosis is profoundly misguided.

Nice straw man though.