No doubt. He’s so dope.

*millions

a few??

If he did, the channel probably wouldn't be what it is now though. It seems to me this kind of channel thrives exactly on not being broadly popular. That's what's cool about it. :)

Why would one deserve anything?

the situation up to 1994 was seemingly already enough for Debord as his suicide is considered to be influenced by the frenzy of the culture of the image around him and whatever connotates with the aspect of spectacle. at this very day im writing bphil thesis which is theoretically very based on his book and i dont want to sound like his reincarnation but man do i start to understand that cod of his. his style of writing really makes this a slow-burn decyphering and each time i read it over&over my pity (and angst @tst)towards the sitation right now unfolds itself peel by peel. if he were to see the condition of today hed prolly implode imho

@@Teivanslv French exhaustive reader of Debord since a very long time, his suicide was mostly linked to his physical condition and the total absence of personal autonomy that would have ensued if he waited longer. It's kind of a staple to link this to some kind of hopelessness, but from the original sources we have in french he even mentions the neuro-degenerative illness he acquired by a llifelong alcoolism. I think even the 1994 documentary by canal+ also mentions his condition, thought I didn't watched this one since a few years.

I imagine enterprising and exploitative entrepreneurs finding a way to sell unlimited energy to the masses by jacking up the ever-spinning corpse of Baudrillard.

Foucault! thanks for the connection I was pondering on..... The Body. mindblowing.

This has always been the case to some degree, as far as my limited knowledge of antiquity and medieval times tells me. The Received Pronunciation that has taken over England supposedly came from the upper classes wanting to distinguish themselves linguistically from the poor. Hell, even the suburban lawn in the USA is apparently descended from the lawns of the Palace of Versailles.

Guy Debourd was a Marxist though

@@joma5721 so? This channel primarily talks about leftist philosophy that has some level of influence related to Marx and or Hegel

@@sad-qy7jz I’m not saying this is a bad thing. I am a Marxist, I’m a fan of Society Of The Spectacle and I respect the Situationist International for some of their contributions to our understanding of the conditions of contemporary capitalist society. I was literally just correcting the statement that he was a postmodernist. A lot of people tend to confuse things like structuralism, Lacanian psychoanalytic theories, non-Leninist interpretations of Marx, and the whole of 20th century/more contemporary continental philosophy more broadly, with postmodernism. This is kind of the core of Jordan Peterson’s incoherent label “postmodern neo-Marxism.” People only buy that type of nonsense because they don’t understand either school of thought, and it’s worth pointing out the distinction.

@@joma5721 I would argue his works reference both. I personally don’t like to get too hung up on which box I fit into. It’s good to understand different schools and which you align with but I can embrace both? I just call myself a leftist, socialist, or anarchist. I wouldn’t call myself a “post modernist” mainly because it’s kind of.... a weird way of putting it? Like I don’t really embrace so much we recognize it. Maybe post structuralism because it pertains more to a different way of viewing language and organizing and what not but postmodernism isn’t my goal, just like critical theory isn’t my goal.. it’s just a way to view things. I also wouldn’t call myself a Marxist though, I identify with Marx, support many of his ideas and other socialist efforts but I don’t soley operate on Marx’s ideas, I take issue with some, and an influencer by many a leftist thinkers. I didn’t realize he identified himself as specifically a “Marxist” I thought he just called himself a socialist, but that’s valid. But what this book entails is postmodernism and aligns with a postmodern lens. So I’m not going to argue you if you say he didn’t identify his work as such, and strictly referred to his philosophy as “Marxist” but by definition I would argue that’s not accurate in hindsight

@@sad-qy7jz a couple things: 1. Almost nobody refers/referred to themselves as a postmodernist. It’s sort of an outside label applied to a certain brand of thinkers who came to prominence in the second half of the 20th century. So, you’re not alone in not identifying with the term. Neither did Foucault. 2. Postmodernism isn’t a goal. It’s not like Marxism or anarchism. It’s an analytic method, and an analytic method alone. Marxism and anarchism have a broad goal: wholesale social transformation. Individual postmodernists might share this goal in some form (some do, some don’t), but ‘postmodernism’ doesn’t have a goal. That said, postmodern anarchism (or, post-anarchism/post-left anarchism) integrates postmodern critiques and analyses into an anarchist worldview, whereby one uses postmodern tools to criticise the State, hierarchy, capitalism, etc. in service of furthering their ideal of a stateless libertarian and socialist society. In the same way, critical theory is literally just writing theory critical of the currently existing social order and its institutions. There isn’t some kind of “critical theory-ism” where people advocate for a society based on critical theory. Rather, they use critical theory to highlight flaws that exist in society, in order to motivate people to work towards alternative modes of social organisation. 3. Postmodernity is the social condition that presently exists. Or, to steal the title of one of Frederic Jameson’s works, it is “the cultural logic of late capitalism.” The rehashing of the old into the new, the breaking down of former distinctions between things, the sort of “crisis of meaning” many experience, the siloing into various spaces approximating reality without agreeing on what/if the the truth is, the culture of irony and detachment; all are products of the postmodern condition. This is because postmodernism can coexist with capitalism. It isn’t a mode of social and economic organisation, and has been thoroughly integrated into the current capitalist cultural hegemony. 4. You can’t be a Marxist and a postmodernist. Postmodernism rests on the rejection of “metanarratives.” Marxism is arguably one of the grandest metanarratives that has ever existed. The two are fundamentally incompatible, and postmodernism isn’t necessarily a materialist philosophy. Many reject dialectical methods of analysis. Class struggle isn’t placed as a prime engine of social change. The two are fundamentally incompatible in ways that can’t be reconciled. That doesn’t mean you can’t LIKE both, or draw ideas/inspiration from both. But, adopting the core logic of one is necessarily the rejection of the other. 5. Nothing about society of the spectacle is “definitionally” postmodern, and Guy Debord’s work fits squarely into the Western Marxist canon. He has influences, and has influenced, others outside this milieu, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was a Marxist and wrote Marxist theory. He was also a member of the Situationist International, a Marxist intellectual and artistic organisation, as well as other ultraleft orgs like “Socialisme ou Barbarie.”

Not only that, it avoids any meaningful criticism of the fucked up times we live in.

Coming up next week!

naturally. content like this (criticism of image culture etc.) is without doubt the arch enemy of YT, its founders and users (i mean vloggers mostly) and all the other sm platforms

I just hope he keeps hustling for a while cuz the content is top notch and the whole production as well, it's bound to explode in time

ngl it showed up in my recommended vids several times before i gave it a real chance because the guy looked too fashionable to be smart. i regret my prejudice and have since binged and subbed.

**edited for presupposing your pronouns. My Good man may be an artificial representation of your true identity. My apologies.

Not to mention warnings of the military industrial complex, endless wars, etc.

Same!

lmao your lecturer is cool, my professor still hasnt posted the syllabus yet.

Thanks Chris-Anthony. Your suggestion is compelling--reminds me of a quote from Max Weber: “Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved.” The driving force behind that I expect is that there is no economic incentive in having political subjects that are knowledgeable in areas outside of their specialization, as they'd be more difficult to manipulate!

Nice. Whom else are you thinking when you say "communications scholars"?

Thanks for this 👍👍

@@PlasticPills I'm just telling the truth haha. Maybe a videorequest if I may - do more videos on Žižek? ✌️ Peace

Yea the main reason I wanted to start this up was that otherwise good videos would come up short on the theory side, so I tried to be entertaining and go into some more detail

@@PlasticPills Well keep up the good work, your format works well ! Did you study this in college ? Because listening to you it seems like we follow a similar cursus, though I study in France

The religiously touted concept of financial freedom is not possible without someone else's financial slavery.

@@Max0r847 and im completely ok with that

@@bbyponk I'm completely ok with you getting sticky stickied for your wallet

Ok?

and another one!

Another one