Can someone explain to me the difference between Debord and Baudrillard's thought. In particular the difference between Hyper-reality and the spectacular society.
At face value the two critical systems seem overly similar. Did Baudrillard take ideas from Debord, or is there a lot that I'm missing
>>7615948
it's all bullshit anyway
Debord is useless to read without having read Marx and Lukacs.
>>7615948
If you can't see the difference then tyre too retarded to be reading them
>>7615948
its all jewish sophistry, it doesn't mean anything. its purpose is to confuse you and distract you from the very real threats being faced by white european civilization
>>7616171
>its purpose is to confuse you and distract you
Quite the opposite, but I gather you haven't read either of them.
mcluhan >
>>7616277
I actually agree with some of their ideas, but, like most french philosophers they ignore all the positive contributions of capitalism, which has done more for human freedom and wellbeing than statism or socialism. socialism has failed too many times before. The solution imo is a combination of anarcho-capitalism with traditionalist morality, ethnonationalism and judeochristian values
>>7616352
Debord was actually one of the first writers to openly attack state socialism.
Of course a fucking AnCap like you wouldn't understand the difference between libsoc and state soc, so you might as well ignore my post.
Anyway OP, being really concise, Debord believed capitalism / the Spectacle was a artificial structure built upon the "real" life which alienated the individual from this real, while Baudrillard believes capitalism to be a simulation without a truth - capitalism is a lie, but it's the closest we'll ever get to any truth.
Debord was optimist, Baudri was pessimist, p. much.
