What do you think about Fight Club? Is it an anarchist or an fascist movie?

What do you think about Fight Club? Is it an anarchist or an fascist movie?

Attached: oipo.jpg (1277x1600, 368.63K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7ndavKZ7LCk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

never seen it

...

Have you even seen the movie?
How is that a liberal movie, idiot?!

an fascist

Watch it two times
1st did not understand shit
2nd this movie is shit

youtube.com/watch?v=7ndavKZ7LCk

both wrong. it's all about the growth of consumerism in America. it's peak 90s leftism.

This. My brother's a Transgender SJW and he never shuts up about Fight Club. He thinks it's about LGBT stuff or something.

It's Juche, actually

Yeah this. Bret Easton Ellis and Don Delilo are superior in every single way though.

They literally go after Starbucks and Rich people, and it culminates in blowing up credit card company buildings. It's overall liberal but wants to be rad left

back to Zig Forums

its fascist with an anarchist paintjob
tyler durden is the ubermensch ed norton needs to guide him to his goals. yeah sure theyre the same person but ed is still framed as needing a strong alpha male to lead him out of the hell world he's found himself in
i agree with that it's also about consumerism but tyler is a great personification of the fascists that arrive when the failings of capitalism are realised by the disenchanted.
(but its also a lot about toxic masculinity i guess)

epic false flag

???

toxic masculinity is a meme used to placate angry proles. if you're not Zig Forumsyp then you are most definitely from reddit.

How is Tyler fascist though?

no, anger in men isn't the same anger thats linked with toxic masculinity. there's nothing unhealthy about anger, but anger as a default response to any single thing that mildly annoys you is pretty unhealthy. when that guy bumps into you at a club because its an exciting song, its unhealthy to think that your default response should be to start a fight.
but when you're born into an economic system that inhibits your personal freedom and actively punishes you for not following its rules (that you never agreed to) then that anger is justified and not unhealthy.
you've got the same problem as incels and mgtow where you see the word masculinity next to toxic and get irate because you can't into nuance.
god forbid then worst thing you can do in life is use another website. you're embarrassing and massively overcompensating

Muh unexplained subjective opinions

Easton Ellis is often straight trash. Read more than American Physco and less than zero he has some really shitty books also. Still good though one of my favourite writers as a teen


Sir I think I was trying to make a point about the duality of man sir

(Toxic masculinity is about a lack of positive male roll models not the inherent toxicity of masculinity)

Overall point:


It is not anarchist or fascist, it’s an exploration of masculinity under capitalism oh my shock horror

on top of this, i don't even think it's mainly about toxic masculinity, i've seen a few video essays that make a pretty good case for it, but my entire post was about fascism and consumerism, but for some reason you fixated on the last line of my post

It's anarchist but it shows that no matter what even if anarchists succeed some form of crapitalism will emerge again. Just like Tyler in the movie. He starts off living in a delapidated house. talks about not needing possessions etc but as the movie progresses and Tyler becomes richer due to his FC connections he starts dressing in expensive clothes, Traveling the world etc, Basically he becomes everything he stood against.

Unironically this.
It's about alienation of man in capitalism from its infinite creative power.

I know, that why i didn't make that point

...

I think it's a pretty accurate look into the mentality of people who become terrorists and school shooters and such. Fight Club makes this literally a split personality but a lot of these guys adopt a terrorist "persona" and pose for the cameras wearing uniforms and holding weapons. I call this "Tyler Durdening" because they have adopted this warrior/redeemer/apocalyptic-avenging-angel persona that eventually eats and consumes the old, original and shattered personality.

Attached: 563cd25686d16.image.jpg (460x287 775.57 KB, 31.78K)

whichever it is we all lose

the reality is that psychotic behavior is a lot more right wing than it is left.
before the 2008 leftists were often painted as crazy conspiracy theorists for talking about FBI counterintelligence programs, observing the social manipulation of 9/11 and the Kennedy Assassination (as well as many other assassinations in the 60s), our foretelling of runaway debt and economic disaster, and the highly negative impacts of incessant consumerism on culture.
This bias definitely shows in Fight Club, but it turns out everything we've been saying has been proven right, increasingly so. The only way neoliberal governments know how to address this is by regressing everything back into identity politics like old times.

This is true, but doesn't really seem to be directly addressed in Fight Club.
Which is why I personally like Mr. Robot better, it draws the tone of Fight Club to its conclusion, while exploring the nuances of neoliberalism and neoconservatism and its impact on activism. If you can get passed the cringey KDE/Gnome conversation and Season 2's edginess, the rest is pretty fucking based.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1000x563, 760.84K)

No, that's wrong. Tyler never ceases to be a revolutionary and in fact he grows more radical as things go on. The narrator just gets to the point that he realizes that 1. Tyler isn't real 2. Tyler's plan is more or less insane and his actions are unjustifiable (from the point of view of the narrator).

Tyler's never shown abusing his power for self-enrichment, in fact, his fling with Marla is really his only vice. All those "expensive trips" you mention are part of his revolutionary effort to destroy modern civilization and usher in the anprim utopia.

The narrator rejects Tyler's terrorism but is unable to formulate an alternative solution to going back to "year zero" very deliberate reference there. That's probably why even though the basic bitch liberal known as the narrator succeeds in winning back his bodily autonomy from Tyler but in the end fails to stop his plan from being carried out.

Perhaps, between the triumphalist capitalist shitshow of the 90s and anarcho-primitivism, the narrator is unable to formulate an an alternative to either solution. I think you can say that he psychologically self-sabotages his effort to bring an end to the project and only realizes to late that the endeavor had become bigger than himself.

The 90s were the last, sad, decade of humanity, the chapter where it was killed. We are not the human race anymore.

Wow so deep fam.

Attached: woji.jpg (710x473, 115.6K)

Is season 2 actually worth it? I dropped it twice because its so fucking dull and the plot goes nowhere.

I say watch only the last episode of 2 and continue onto 3. I barely remember anything from 2.

Theres a seaon 2?

3*

actually you do need to know what Angela was up to during season 2 to be able to follow 3’s plot. you can probably just read that on a wiki or something.

Yeah, Fight Club is more if "Ted Kaczynski was more social and charismatic in achieving his goals and also was a split personality" then being the fascist/liberal story a few people here are thinking it is.

are you implying he's wrong? we are essentially on a course for Cyberpunk.

The movie was made during the 90s wich was arguably the peak of capitalism. I think if that movie were made today it would be more communist in nature.

Cyberpunk is a romantisized term for capitalist dystopia. it wont be like in the anime's and movies and games. It's gonna be millions of dumb serfs pecking away at phone screens in the new favelas wich were once the former middle class neighborhoods. It's gonna be lots and lots of barely literate brown people and not much else.

good for you, you can define words. want a cookie?

I'm implying it's vague and dumb. What the fuck happened in the 90s that "killed the human race"? No one is denying we are 'on a course something bad' or whatever, I'm just saying his comment is dumb and you're dumb for not seeing how dumb it is.

capitalists discovered virtual realities were possible. they're a prerequisite for the Society of the Spectacle.

Debord: Understood in its totality, the spectacle is both the result and the project of the dominant mode of production. It is not a mere decoration added to the real world. It is the very heart of this real society’s unreality. In all of its particular manifestations — news, propaganda, advertising, entertainment — the spectacle represents the dominant model of life. It is the omnipresent affirmation of the choices that have already been made in the sphere of production and in the consumption implied by that production. In both form and content the spectacle serves as a total justification of the conditions and goals of the existing system. The spectacle also represents the constant presence of this justification since it monopolizes the majority of the time spent outside the production process

user after reading three memes: Society of the Spectacle is like when you have virtual reality and it's, like, not real man.

Attached: hx4Prda.jpg (228x221, 4.64K)

It is a deep concept being misunderstood and reinterpreted to be some vapid shallow ego stroke edge lord.

Destroying the financial industry is the most redeeming aspect.

It's both, like most anarchism.

Well firstly nothing disgusts me more than recent liberal idpol attempts at ‘re-evaluating’ dismissing the clearly emancipatory figure of Tyler Durden and Project Mayhem, with their typical nonsense.
“T-t-toxic masculinity!1!”. Sniveling philistines they are, they shudder at any concrete revolutionary action against neoliberalism, with the excuse of faux progressiveness.
Durden, and Fight Club in general, is significant because it almost predicts the predicament of the alt right and incels a good decade before they materialized. That is the crises of masculinity in an economic shift that further and further finds no use for its long held social purpose. Tyler instead of channeling these anxieties and fears in his men towards self serving fascist goals, instead correctly blames it on capitalism itself. Like a loaded gun he uses this bitter rejected masculinity, and points it right at the heart of its origin, more or less.
Obviously the liberal critique of Durden is actually written into the film itself, we know we are not supposed to root for him and Mayhem, all its negatives are displayed in full light. Yet even then Fincher’s critique is still limp-wristed and offers no alternative but Mark Fisher’s maligned ‘capitalist realism’ that the film’s own ending shatters by brutal force! That’s why liberals are looking back to re-evaluation, and in it, only attempting to reinforce the original critique already built in the work, transparently so.
Another film/surprisingly revolutionary film villain we’ll see this happen to(in fact it’s already happened thanks to the internet), is Black Panther and it’s modern Sankara, Killmonger.

Stopped reading. The only people who unironicaly use that phrase are Eunuchs and “political lesbians” from the 70s.

"machismo" was an adequate term

More than adequate.
Machismo has a pretty concrete definition. Masculinity is a pretty vague concept, and toxic is even worse in that regard. Toxic [anything] amounts to "I think this is bad," and toxic masculinity specifically is just a way to label certain things men do as bad things you don't like.

Why so many speak of masculinity? It's more about venting frustrations. Instead of attacking the system from the very start it's prole vs prole used as a distraction from the alienation.


This is false. Toxic masculinity has a precise definition. It just gets misused a lot. It's about traditional masculine roles that are harmful to the psyche or body of ones self or others.

Yep. Killmonger, Durden, and Bane all represent what liberals know they should be, but are too scared of due to the complacency media reinforces. The treatment of these characters in Hollywood pisses me off to no end.

You don't know what "precise" means.

Attached: 4640a08177e7916604665dd4311e9e7ce369c8c8.jpg (454x500, 65.38K)

This reads like translated russian for some reason.

Don’t you know that everything on this board is translated from Russian? There aren’t any actual posters here just aging FSB agents trying to recapture their youth

the singularity is coming, user

The theory of toxic masculinity posits that this dysfunctional trait is inherit to men's sex. This is textbook bigotry because a mans' sex is inalienable.
The real political motivation behind trans rights is to make bigotry against men socially acceptable. If gender is a construct, then a man's gender is not inalienable and therefore prejudice against them isn't bigotry. Since their sex is simply an identity
The idea that men starting fights over minor annoyances is endemic is such silly feminist moral panic I can't even being myself to talk about it without laughing.
Men suffer more deaths, state persecution, and injury then women. Women that suffer disproportionately on certain issue is held up as proof a a patriarchy but men dying more in jobs and war is never recognized as any form of id based oppression.
TL;DR toxic masculinity is a dog whistle of reactionary feminist liberals.

What traditional roles are those? The term is not abused, its just that liberals like you shift around its meaning when people catch on to its implied bigotry.

Neither, it's a conservative movie essentially selling the whole "rebel against the system and you'll end up becoming everything you hate" line again. The gist of it is that all these essentially alienated, faceless workers tried to find some meaning in their lives and ended up becoming a cult, a terrorist group, and a totalitarian system all in one, the visual aspects of the movie even reflecting that: think of the scene where Tyler is repeating his ideology on a loudspeaker as guys with no name, dressed in black and with shaved heads, do manual labor for him. It's obviously meant to hint at Communist movements, just like other aspects of it are meant to hint at cults and terrorist organizations. Even if the author is unaware of that, what he's preaching is what every respectable liberal figure has preached for the past century: critiques of capitalism and its dehumanizing affect are valid and everything, but let's not try to rebel against it because well just you look at what happens. In that sense it can be Fascistic or Anarchistic, because regardless of how you perceive Tyler's movement the movie is essentially portraying them negatively.

That criticism works because the movie operates with essentially the same sensibilities of the mainstream Center, the viewer is meant to pick up the "irony" that people wanting to escape the system became just what they wanted to fight, even bourgeois producers to an extent.

For a precise definition, so far we have "anger as a default response to any single thing that mildly annoys you" and "about traditional masculine roles that are harmful to the psyche or body of ones self or others" (why do left-liberals cloak political points in the language of psychology?). As others have said, "toxic" is only meaningful insofar as it signifies dislike for something or some aspect of something.

Just chiming in here: "Toxic Masculinity" does have a definition, that being the subset of social norms men are expected to abide by which directly hurt them and their relationships. A common example is, say, a man bottling up his feelings and ignoring major depression because "men don't cry". The term is misused a lot, but understanding this concept is crucial to both men's health, and the eventual dissolution of discrete gender roles, which should be an end-goal for any consummate communist.

Bear in mind, this comes from someone who's lived on both sides of the coin. Anyway, with all that said, anyone tossing "Toxic Maculinity" within ten feet of this movie is blatantly talking out their ass.

Attached: 9f6aa69a972aeb407571a62a0df7b24d5fdd9b2f_hq.jpg (512x430, 46.99K)

Anarcho-primativism my dude, Tyler wants to LARP as a hunter-gatherer

I'm still pissed about how you couldn't marry the dragon.
Also, RF5 never.

Fight Club criticizes both capitalism and fascism for being alienating. The narrator begins the book/film alienated by his corporate job and consumerist lifestyle. Then he begins defying the social norms of that lifestyle, living for himself. This brings to mind egoism. But then, instead of valuing the independence and individuality of others, he manipulates them and turns them into literal brownshirts who lose their identity to "the cause" - fascism. At the end he dissolves his fascist following, kills his fascist alter ego, and blows up buildings that symbolize capitalism, creating room for a more authentic, less alienating, and more individualistic society to grow by rejecting both fascism and capitalism. An anarchist fantasy.

So if anything, it's intended to be an anarchist book, and probably an individualist anarchist one at that.

However, since it is a deeply ideological book, and is inherently shaped by Palahniuk's own worldview, we should also take into account Palahniuk's own ideological weaknesses.

For one, part of the alienation it's critical of is the "loss of masculinity" in modern society. Palahniuk said that there are lots of books for women, about womanhood, but none about manhood. Even now, he claims Fight Club is pretty much the only one. This is obviously a ridiculous claim, and is the same claim reactionary right wing "thinker" Jordan Peterson often makes. For one thing, pretty much the entire adventure genre is about manhood, since it's nearly all influenced by Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces and the hero's journey, but Palahniuk and Peterson both conveniently overlook that entire genre. The concern over masculinity has actually led to Palahniuk befriending the white supremacist, neo-fascist "alt right" group the Wolves of Vinland and its leader, Jack Donovon. On a related note, there's a noticeable sexist streak in the book, with the narrator blaming all his problems on his girlfriend, Marla. It could be argued that this is actually a criticism of the sexist mentality of fascists, but the fact remains that she's the only female character, and she's a very negative one.

I don't know if this is fair, but if judged as a political tool, then it's worth noting that it may have made its condemnation of fascism too obscure. It does seem like only morons could miss the condemnation of fascism in it, but the problem is, the morons DID miss it. Masses of them. The book can be read as glorifying the revolutionary actions of a formative fascist group, and it seems like pretty much the entire "alt right" read it that way, since Fight Club is hugely popular among them. They're also strangely fond of American Psycho.

I think Palahniuk is a centre-left liberal with a fondness for left-anarchism. However, I think this is betrayed by an underlying reactionary streak, and specifically a masculinist one, and this muddles what he was trying to achieve. It's ideologically complex and self-contradictory because Palahniuk is a self-contradicting pseudo-intellectual who I doubt is completely clear on what he himself thinks.

Further, while the book does go into more detail than the movie, this is one case where the movie actually is much better than the book, purely for the fact that Palahniuk isn't a very good writer.

This is why liberals have less revolutionary potential than (the few) non-racists on the right.

… seriously i know most of you are ☭TANKIE☭s but holy shit, cut out the neckbeard stuff.

I think the alt-right like it so much because the left was so dead when it came out that blowing up banks and destroying debt records could only be seen as fighting the Jews. Its the movies fault too since they didn't mention the word "Anarchism" let alone any theory.

Mr. Robot is a little better since they say they're anarchists at least but it'd be better if they talked about it more.

I've seen liberals as well claiming that the movie is fascist because blowing up banks must mean blowing up Jews. Unless you specifically show me a quote of Fincher where he makes antisemetic iimplication, I fear it's almost the libs who are the crypto-antisemites. - yes, all the stereotypes of fascists against Jews are all true, but you should actually like them (their attitude towards blacks is similar).


This is correct, but 90% of the self-declared feminists will just conflate toxic masculinity and what was used to be called machismo to make a point against men. I think this is why I would be hesitant to use the term because of its current implications, and rather talk about alienation per se of men in capitalism, because the "suck it up" mentality is a direct result of the productive relations of early capitalism. Just avoid using these buzzwords co-opted by SJWs, so you won't have this label slapped on you.


Has anybody seen Spiderman: Homecoming? Vulture is depicted as a construction worker who steals secret technology from a billionaire's megacorp to give it to the people. He's also a pretty caring dad. They don't even try to hide it anymore. At least Bane had some serious fuck-ups, as he was in the end only motivated by selfish love towards Ra's Al Ghul's daughter. All superhero movies, especially Marvel ones, are fascist crap anyway (made by Phil Greaves gang).

vulture was giving his stolen tech to crack dealers and his only gripes with stark is that he didn't have the means to properly compete with him. i'm sick of people pretending he's leftist just because he acknowledges the rich and the powerful. if anything, he's just a morally grey merchant that juxtaposes spidey's black-and-white naivete. he's nowhere near a socialist or even a metaphor for one

Fight Club is about 1%ers. And OP is a fag.

The problem, though, is that if you make a villain genuinely lefty in any legitimate way, they immediately become sympathetic and develop a fandom. Making the bad guy completely contemptible without turning them into a ridiculous strawman is a balancing act filmmakers haven't mastered yet.

Attached: rampage.webm (640x360, 9.17M)

That was a raw rip from YouTube, btw. Sorry if the end bullshit bothers anyone.

Attached: spinthink.gif (320x320, 120.78K)