Should I actually read this book or is it a meme?
Will I understand any of what he's talking about?
Society of the Spectacle
Wyatt Thompson
Other urls found in this thread:
notbored.org
notbored.org
notbored.org
notbored.org
twitter.com
Adrian Thompson
It's a dangerous book, which is why they have degraded it into a meme. It's popular to talk about it, it's name is now a commonplace, yet almost nobody reads it because they consider it "unreadable". You will understand what he's talking about if you pay attention. Don't give up on the first chapter, it becomes more straightforward after. After finishing it, I recommend reading the preface to the Italian edition and the commentaries also:
notbored.org
notbored.org
Jonathan Hernandez
In France, all serious leftists know of that book.
Julian Watson
i.e, the four of them
Sebastian Peterson
That's four more than in most countries of the EU.
Tyler Morales
If you think you need more than half the country to agree with you to enact social change, you need to rethink your theory.
Matthew Roberts
Yes you should read it, if you don't get it Debord also wrote some notes about it, I assume they perform a similar function as Stirner's Critics.
Brayden Ward
If you think you can force social change through authoritarian-socialism, you really need to rethink your theory
Of course you need about half the country.
Jacob Edwards
My problem I have with it is its structure. It reads more like a manifesto than an essay, it's a short read but I don't think it holds up to scientific standards. It's artsy but prosaic, and unlike traditional Marxism it doesn't have a whole body of work behind it confirming its assessments. He's also memeing about China and the USSR by completely abandoning materialism because he ultimately wants to come to the conclusion that everything plays out the same.
Jack James
So I forgot why I read it but when I did I read most of it at once and repeat reading until I understood it. His solution is good in that it's serious and viable with his philosophical arguments earlier in the book, so it holds up. His section on the Soviet Union and China is comically bad, his other political stuff is okay. His comment on Lukacs is the epitome of the lazy criticism and take it as you will. My favorite part personally was his view on cyclical history and that section.