The Film and the Book The Society of the Spectacle Exposes HOW You are Tricked

WARNING – Read the following before you begin to watch the video. If you don't, you are at risk to deny yourself one of the best opportunities there is to begin to dissolve the trick – formally called Platonism – that forces you to only exist on the surface so you can be reduced to a production unit.

The film embedded above is simply one of the most important films that is ever made in the current Western culture.

Unfortunately it is extremely easy to get bored fast and loose the grip as the film delivers many what at first appears to be highly complex sentences in a rapid pace.

The worst example is that is taken for given that you know who Bruno Rizzi (1901–1977) was; as it nice to know something about the current culture of the West in the perspective of Bureaucratic collectivism.

In fact, the best way to reflect on the messages of the film when you have an overview is probably to click forward one sentence at a time.

So, continue to read this post and my explanations of the film when you reach the point of boredom in the film or before you begin to watch.


Contents of this Post

Intro

The Remake is – Today – Better than the Original

Debord's Concept the Spectacle

Why Debord Could Not Get It

The Film and the Book are Mediations that are Concrete Here and There

The Book

Intro to the Confusion Regarding the Concept Alienation

Short About the Confused Karl Marx

To Define Debord as a Marxist is to Strengthen the Total Confusion

Debord and the Dimension of Art

Strange Words



Intro

The book (1967) and the film (1973) The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord (1931–1994) and the remake of the film (2013) made by Heath Schultz, that is embedded above, demonstrates the concrete and direct effects of that the People of the West are tricked to live in Plato's cave.

To live in Plato's cave is in practice to be restricted to Static relations or to Accept how it is and Obey; as Dynamic relations like, for example, to create new insights are mystified and can accordingly be rejected by everyone.

It is useful to observe that the book was published before the Protests of 1968 and the film was made afterwards.

It is vital that you from the beginning know that Debord was aware of the shortcomings of what is said to be explanations in the current Western culture. For example, Debord says in both the book and the film.

124

Revolutionary theory is now the enemy of all revolutionary ideology, and it knows it.

This and the following quotes are from the book.

Here is a very good presentation of Debord's work and how and why it is essential today. But please observe this text is conventional in every aspect.

Trump and the ‘Society of the Spectacle’, Robert Zaretsky, The New York Times, 20 February 2017.



The Remake is – Today – Better than the Original

The remake made in 2013 by Schultz follows Debord's intentions with perfect precision.

The remake is today much better than the original as Debord's project is based on that the viewer recognise images and the story in the film.

Debord's original film is accordingly full of stories and individuals that were immediately known by at least a French audience in 1973 and needs therefore a lot of explanations today.

So, Schultz has successfully transformed the hard to get from yesterday with what is easy to get today.

And hopefully is Schultz remake the last remake that will be needed.

Schultz writes about the remake on his site.

Here are links to the original film, in two versions, on YouTube.

The Society of the Spectacle (1973), French with English subtexts, Bad quality.

The Society of the Spectacle (1973), English version, Good quality.



Debord's Concept the Spectacle

Debord uses the Metaphor of the Spectacle to describe the restrictions of the current Western culture.

Or like this. To live becomes the same as to be a part of a Spectacle that is the same as a show or a play where everything is defined from the beginning and therefore is a real life rejected or impossible.

In other words the Spectacle is the same as the shadows of the walls in Plato's cave.

At the moment I am not aware of if Debord understood this concrete relation. Nevertheless, was Debord in many other aspects unaware of the concrete nature of Platonism.

But, and this is essential Debord understood that there is a construction that holds the People as prisoners even if his knowledge of this construction is vague.

It can be said that both the film and the book are explorations of different perspectives that demonstrates how the for Debord unknown construction makes a real or concrete life impossible.

It all can be boiled down to that Debord demonstrates almost concrete that You are forced to be reduced to a spectator of your own life; as to live, in the current Western culture, is to be transformed to be a representation of a real life; you exist only as a shadow on the walls in Plato's cave.

In a way is therefore Debord's observations a bridge between the concrete and systematic definitions I write about and what the People of the West are trained to talk about.

Observe, there is a Compact Oversight of my stuff.

It must be underlined that Debord's work is well inside the intellectual tradition of the current Western culture.

I think a core definition by Debord is the following.

18

… But the spectacle is not merely a matter of images, nor even of images plus sounds. It is whatever escapes people’s activity, whatever eludes their practical reconsideration and correction. It is the opposite of dialogue. Wherever representation becomes independent, the spectacle regenerates itself.

So, please observe that a main theme of Debord is that the current culture of the West of Platonism or the Spectacle is the same as the rejected Dynamic process or the missing Dialogues.

And that the effect of this elimination is to hit a concrete Wall that cannot be understood: “the spectacle regenerates itself”.

Here is another example.

72

… What brings people into relation with each other by liberating them from their local and national limitations is also what keeps them apart. What requires increased rationality is also what nourishes the irrationality of hierarchical exploitation and repression. What produces society’s abstract power also produces its concrete lack of freedom.

And two more examples that illustrate that Debord was on his way to realise the concrete structure of Platonism or a culture that is based on to mystify the Dynamic process of the Dialogue, sometimes called Dialectics, in order to fool the People that they can only Accept how it is and Obey.

205

The very style of dialectical theory is a scandal and abomination to the prevailing standards of language and to the sensibilities molded by those standards, because while it makes concrete use of existing concepts it simultaneously recognizes their fluidity and their inevitable destruction.

173

… The obvious core of these conditions is the authoritarian decision making which abstractly converts the environment into an environment of abstraction. The same architecture appears everywhere ...

A conventional description of the Spectacle is on Wikipedia's page Spectacle (critical theory).



Why Debord Could Not Get It

For example, Debord writes.

20

Philosophy — the power of separate thought and the thought of separate power — was never by itself able to supersede theology. …

It is as annoying it can be that Debord never investigated this relation; in order to reach that so called Philosophy, in the current Western culture, is in fact based on the dogmas of the Church.

Or like this. When you know in a concrete sense that the religion of the Church is based on Platonism or a perspective to eliminate concrete Dynamic relations and that this religion in the next step formulate the framework for what is called Philosophy; you also know for sure that Debord makes perfect observations and that he is stubbornly confused at the same time.

And it is of course this trap that also all other Westerners have fallen into.

To underline it all is here the full paragraph.

20

Philosophy — the power of separate thought and the thought of separate power — was never by itself able to supersede theology. The spectacle is the material reconstruction of the religious illusion. Spectacular technology has not dispersed the religious mists into which human beings had projected their own alienated powers, it has merely brought those mists down to earth, to the point that even the most mundane aspects of life have become impenetrable and unbreathable. The illusory paradise that represented a total denial of earthly life is no longer projected into the heavens, it is embedded in earthly life itself. The spectacle is the technological version of the exiling of human powers into a “world beyond”; the culmination of humanity’s internal separation.

Here is another annoying example. Debord says.

125

Man, “the negative being who is solely to the extent that he suppresses Being,” is one with time. Man’s appropriation of his own nature is at the same time his grasp of the development of the universe. ….

If he only had cared to look up the concept Negative (and Positive) Debord would have found out that these concepts are the very foundations of the Dualistic trap, called Moral.

Moral is the restriction to separate into what the Ruler demands is Good or Bad.

The idea of Moral is maintained in order to eliminate the Athenian concept Ethos that allows concrete Dynamic relations.

Moral is the very base of the Church Static dogmas and so called Science that forms the current Static culture of the West.



The Film and the Book are Mediations that are Concrete Here and There

As it is impossible to openly or directly in Platonism or the current Western culture to talk about the missing Dynamic relations can only indirect relations or Metaphors be used to try to grasp the Dynamic relations.

Or like this. To understand how Platonism is constructed to suppress and exploit the People it is necessary to explore Platonism outside of Platonism.

As Debord like most of the victims of Platonism had no clear insight of that the current Western culture is based on Platonism; was he accordingly trapped in the Spectacle he hated.

However, even if Debord was restricted to demonstrates the Effects as there is no concrete relations to Cause and Context was Debord a true master of to put together what he understood to an almost concrete and systematic story.

Or like this. Debord understood that there is a system that suppress and exploit the People but could not define the system in a truly concrete or systematic manner; but at least he put together his insights into an almost meaningful story.

Or like this. Debord's book and film are the next stage after single observations of the restrictions of the current Western culture.

The perfect illustration of such single observations is the song People Are Strange by The Doors that was released, in 1967, the same year as Debord's book. Here are some of the lyrics from the beginning of the song.

People are strange when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone
Women seem wicked when you're unwanted
Streets are uneven, when you're down
When you're strange
Faces come out of the rain
When you're strange
...

Link to The Doors, People Are Strange, YouTube (embedding of this video is not allowed).

It is somewhat easy to get that the song People Are Strange is an artistic definition of the concept Alienation that is the main theme of Debord's book and film.

Or like this. The song People Are Strange pinpoint that when you realise that you feel like a stranger, and are not at home in the world, everything becomes strange and ugly.

It is also so that this song underlines that within Platonism it is taken for granted that the feeling of to not be at home in the current Western culture is only an emotion that we are not capable to understand in a concrete or systematic manner.



The Book

The film covers most of the straightforward messages in the book.

The full book is on Wikisource and the links to the chapters are as follows.

In the parenthesis are the paragraphs.

1. The Culmination of Separation (1–34)

2. The Commodity as Spectacle (35–53)

3. Unity and Division Within Appearances (54–72)

4. The Proletariat as Subject and Representation (73–124)

5. Time and History (125–146)

6. Spectacular Time (147–164)

7. Territorial Domination (165–179)

8. Negation and Consumption Within Culture (180–211)

9. Ideology Materialized (212–221)

And

Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord, (1988), NOT BORED



Intro the Confusion Regarding the Concept Alienation

In the upcoming chapters I will sort out the confusion regarding the concept Alienation that often is called Social alienation.

In short, it is a confusion as the Alienation is actually demanded in the basic formulations of Platonism; and is therefore not a mystical effect that somehow appears in the current Western culture.

In a concrete or systematic manner can Alienation be defined as the feeling or emotion of the gap between what actually can be demonstrated or defined. But the concrete definition is rejected in order to follow the usually hidden rules of Dictatorship that the people are fooled to believe is the same as the laws of the Nature.

In short. The promoters of Platonism wants the People to be Alienated; and not understand that there exist such a concrete objective.

It is therefore possible to talk about the mystical tradition of Alienation in the current Western culture of Platonism and the concrete and systematic definition and function of Alienation that can be made outside of the system or culture of Platonism.

That the concept Alienation is frequent today depends probably on that Marx used the mystical form of the concept.


Short About the Confused Karl Marx

It is undeniable that Karl Marx (1818–1883) made essential contributions to the Dimension of Economics as he made some fundamental definitions.

It is also so that Marx demonstrated how the workers are/can be suppressed and exploited in the Dimension of Economics.

But here ends Marx greatness as he outside of the Dimension of Economics are totally clueless and it all ends with that he takes for granted that the suppression and exploitation, more or less, depends ONLY on the Dimension of Economics.

And then explodes this intellectual disaster in the tragedy that Marx supports the very system that is the foundation of the suppression and exploitation – Platonism in the form of the hierarchical system – that is named the Dictatorship of the proletariat and the resulting Bureaucratic collectivism.

Marx realised of course somehow that the Dimension of Economics is not everything. And to get what it is was Marx unfortunately strongly influenced by the extremely stupid book The Essence of Christianity (1841) by Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872) and the truly horrible result is called Marx's theory of alienation.

It must be noted that Feuerbach here and there gets it right; as, for example, in the quote that begins the first chapter of Debord's book.

I will in the upcoming chapters explain the confusion of Feuerbach that is taken up by Marx. All in all it can be said that Feuerbach never bothered to check up the foundations of the Church.



To Define Debord as a Marxist is to Strengthen the Total Confusion

It is clear that Debord rejected the very idea of the necessity of the hierarchical order that is central to Marxism. For example Debord says.

23

The root of the spectacle is that oldest of all social specializations, the specialization of power. The spectacle plays the specialized role of speaking in the name of all the other activities. It is hierarchical society’s ambassador to itself, delivering its official messages at a court where no one else is allowed to speak. The most modern aspect of the spectacle is thus also the most archaic.

It is also so that Debord is highly critical to different forms of Marxism as well as the core messages of Marxism. For example Debord says.

85

The weakness of Marx’s theory is naturally linked to the weakness of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat of his time. The German working class failed to inaugurate a permanent revolution in 1848; the Paris Commune was defeated in isolation. As a result, revolutionary theory could not yet be fully realized. The fact that Marx was reduced to defending and refining it by cloistered scholarly work in the British Museum had a debilitating effect on the theory itself. His scientific conclusions about the future development of the working class, and the organizational practice apparently implied by those conclusions, became obstacles to proletarian consciousness at a later stage.

It is simply so that Debord wanted to understand the missing Dynamic relations that force the People to be suppressed and exploited and was fooled by the Academic cult to believe that Marxism was the only possible answer.



Debord and the Dimension of Art

Debord wanted to reach the true function of Art, or Art in the Athenian sense that is about to reach to what can be understood or what can be done.

Debord was far from to understand such concrete relations as he was stuck within the Static perspective of Platonism where Art can only be, for example, Static objects. Debord says.

188

When art becomes independent and paints its world in dazzling colors, a moment of life has grown old. Such a moment cannot be rejuvenated by dazzling colors, it can only be evoked in memory. The greatness of art only emerges at the dusk of life.

Within the present culture of the West or Platonism is this observation as good as it can be.

From the perspective outside of Platonism or from the Athenian perspective of Understanding is Right are the words of Debord an example of the confusions that Platonism is made to create and maintain.

Update 13 November 2017: This is probably wrong. It was in my first notes;) It is likely an addition made by Schultz.


Strange Words

Debord uses lots of clunky concepts. Some of theme are perhaps common in the French language and has survived the English translation and others are for sure a part of the jargon of the Academic culture and especially the Academic subculture of Marxism.

Here are some explanations and links.

Amelioration, improvement, from French amélioration,

Bourgeoisie

Class conflict or class struggle is just an effect of the stupid belief of that the universe is based on a hierarchical order or on the Roman worldview to secure the rule of Dictatorship and is also called the Conflict of the Orders.

The very base of Commodification, Commodity (Marxism) and Commodity fetishism has in fact nothing to do with Marx as to make Life and the World Static is a result of Platonism by to reject a concrete understanding of Dynamic relations.

Détournement means almost literally “that they take you on a ride”. Based on “detour”.

The Negation of Negation, is the trick to criticise something, false or real, from a false aspect; and if the false criticism is made believable will the false be established as real. At least at the moment I think this is a good explanation. See Double negation.

Tautology means literally a copy or the same in other words.