Hegel was wrong about civilization, objectivity can't subvert tradition...

Hegel was wrong about civilization, objectivity can't subvert tradition, civilization is a super organism constantly growing and growing until there's nothing to eat but itself. it was designed to do what it's doing from the very beginning.
the moment we emerged as a species this was all that was ever going to happen, it's all we're capable of.
people are too stupid. it doesn't matter what the sheep say to each other if they keep getting kicked in the ass and moving foward off the cliff.
all we can do is shout and warn as we're dragged right off with them against our will. we are all doomed.

Attached: grim_reaper.png (480x301, 279.17K)

Correction: civilization, as a super-organism, tries to reproduce and survive, even at the cost of its constituent parts i.e. us. Except it has the double advantage of not only not being sapient like us, but not even sentient like an animal. Natural system can, and do, operate until an equilibrium is reached. Sapience has been a burden on mankind, as it allows us, without thinking or even noticing, to ruin any balance. In fact, while animals, and other lifeforms for that matter, can live at an equilibrium just by existing, sapience requires active and unending planning and effort if equilibrium is to be kept. Needless to say, we aren't up to the task. We proved the fruit from the tree of knowledge, and for that we were cast from paradise. At least, the super-organism that will outlive us will, like non-sapient lifeforms, exist at an equilibrium by itself. With robots or aliens or bacterial hiveminds or something. Humankind is disposable now, how so much of nature was to us.

One last hot take: maybe the super-organism isn't civilization itself, but cities, as in, human settlements of any size. Ever since being founded in a then-not-a-desertic-shithole in the Levant, they have spread at exponential rates, having colonized all continents, and soon enough will infect Mars Muskia.

Who was it who called it a superorganism again? I'd like to see the argumends because I see it more clearly as a machine fueled by paranoid male fantasy. It's clearly not all we are capable of, either, because muh indigenous people. Read Clastres.
Anyway, we /anticiv/ now

the super organism is dying from aids (baboon peoples) and cancer (jews) and it is all your fault

it is stagnating from neoliberalism at best

Based and fedpilled

Bumplocked
Let's leave this up


Revleft at least had the decency to recognize the reactionary nature of "anti civ" ideology and contained them as needed with the reactionaries they belong with.

Capitalist objectivity has already subverted your "tradition", you poor fool. The only way you can express your longing for the "authentic community" is by commodified and thoroughly costructed images.

I'm not an anprim. I genuinly think abolishing commodity production is unachievable because of the greater population's insectoid brains.

I agree, we need to uphold Rickism-Mortyism for the liberation of us intellectual ubermenschen.

you know very well that I'm not referring to intelligence.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1515x1119, 1.89M)

I was apparentely wrong thinking you were a fellow intelligensia. I guess my proposal is too radical for brainlets like yourself. I've written three theses on Rickism-Mortyism in just a day. What have you done?

So insectoid brains means what, exactly? Some bullshit meme about our brains not being developed enough for communism or what?

it seems that you are the real theorylet here.

Sorry I havn't studied the immortal science of Rick-Mortyism, so can you please fill me in on what you're trying to communicate?

It's sad because I'm still convinced that humans are 'eusocial' animals and cooperative. We may be weighed down by history and habits including a preponderance of 'intellect' and dependence on phonetic language but there are always means by which humans can access something equi-primordial with language and maintain contact with the vital Real. Civilization needs to sever this contact between humans and the Real to exist. Conditioning can be loosened and Leviathan's armor can be taken off.

if you're not interested in social theory then I'm not gonna spoonfeed anything to you.

...

You don't have to spoonfeed me anything, just elaborate on your statement - I mean, why else would you make this thread if not to discuss the topic? What are insectoid brains and how do they stop us from abolishing commodity production?

it’s our entire culture. it promotes consumerism and empty headedness.

Not him and I'll tell it right away that I'm a veryfewbooks-theorylet, but from my meme and completely insufficent understanding of the theories of Adorno I cannot understand why he thinks that only under capitalism art reinforces the hegemonic values. Really, if this is his argument (maybe it's not, since my understanding of him is a meme) I cannot see an explanation for works of art prior to capitalism being subversive in any way. In fact the entire baroque movement was an act of propaganda following the protestant reform and in general artist of any type from the apst had a patron and they had to guzzle his cum in order to keep on working. I don't understand how this argument works and I'd be glad to recieve an explanation, since my basic, but honestly fair knowledge of history makes me find strange contradictions in what is my idea of what the aruments of Adorno are.
I'll do but I had to study a lot of other shit that is imho more importnant than Adorno, and also I believe that it's not impossible to articulate the man's points in a discussion, right?

While his conclusion on Jazz is moronic in retrospect, I'm sure if he were alive today even he would agree upon further analysis of the value of new art forms.
What his main criticism is is how fundamental parts of culture which were borne of critical thinking are then positively reinforced by marketing teams targeting the most primitive, uncontrollable aspects of our brains.
It inhibits our abilities of reflection and critical thinking.
I mean just see for yourself how cancerous shit like YouTube and Reddit can be. Honestly being my age I seriously doubt I would actually be leftist right now if it weren't for shit like Calvin and Hobbes, George Carlin, and my IB Diploma. None of which were peddled to me through consumerist media and marketing shills.
Adorno's philosophy pretty much makes the same assertions as Debord, it's just that Adorno thinks the solution is to enforce high art while Debord's is situationism.

To be fair I don't think it is that. I think it's more like climate nihilism. Not that people are too stupid to see the problem, plenty see it, but that the overwhelming effect of historical development led us to this point at which we have been at least incredibly unlucky in realizing the abolition of this mode of production and achieving one more reflective of out current condition, which is a globally disruptive species with the power to both slowly and instantly destroy the biosphere and ecology which still sustain us. We know this is the case, but fundamentally act as though it isn't. We are plagued with mass idealism, believing if we sign enough treaties or just voted for the right people this would all function smoothly. I'm not OP, and I don't know if we have any hope of getting out of this situation, but it's clear that the end of history is uncertain and it could be ruin or it could be prosperity. I guess OP is pessimistic.

Well, i think it's true that there definetly is some type of sleights-of-hands in culture aimed at taking "subversive" culture and not only neutralize it, but making it useful to reinforce current cultural values.
Honestly my concern is if there is a situation where this could be subverted. On one side capitalists sell us the rope, but on the other when I see shit like "youtuber culture", marvel fanboys, the idolization of popstars and shit I feel real pain.
I think a lot of people see at this problem from a wrong angle: the usual opinion is that capitalism drowns us with tons of shit and we swim in it forgetful of important stuff. But imho capitalism really pushes spectacles through segregation of knowledge and a stream of shit that is forceful and "authoritarian". I remember when film streaming was easy access for most people in the era of megavideo: actually even the normiest normies saw taseful films, moving away from the most squalid commercial shit, really I'm not saying there was some kind of reinassance but more people actually cared about watching good . After the crackdowns on streaming sites and the rise of netflix I swear on god even some of the most interested in good films normalfags that I knew began to watch marvel garbage and spoonfed shit from that satanic shit. And this while saying "it's like streaming but legal!" no, netflix has like 0.00000000000001% of movies and most of its movies are complete shit and propaganda.

Rafiq knew how to chew those people out

Foucault alluded to it, as does Land in regards to capitalism.
Any recommendations on Clastres?


That's idealism. Roughly on par with "society sucks because some people have X ideas".
I remember a thread a while ago about paleo-cons where someone posited just that: We have capitalism because people have "capitalist" ideas.
Instead of - you know - capitalism being about material relations, themselves born from necessity.
As such, if we can overcome necessity we can overcome - by extension - capitalism.
Transhumanism is the way out.

relax mang, this is just one of those threads for pseudo-intellectual wild speculation