extro91

The vote is for some groups that I particularly love within the compilation.

The Hero.

I managed to catch them live twice by pure chance... never again!

Well, how can I argue with you on this?! xDDD I was saying that in any case, for certain people, the free choice to conform or not to the status quo is less free, if not nothing, compared to other cases..that’s all.

Well, then what would it be?! Because after a while of comparing some of our divergent positions, I couldn't figure out what I was trying to prove anymore, and you too..xD

In my last comment, I said bourgeois because that's what you said in your first comment, you know.

Discone!

In fact, I said: "..just to use the clichés of the bourgeoisie." From a structuralist point of view, one cannot say that someone imposes themselves as they are; it is the system that imposes it. There are those who are more uniform and those who are less so. I, living in the heart of the Po Valley, understand these dynamics. People I deem foolish are actually just slaves to the context in which they live. No matter how much I may criticize them, it’s just how it is, and I can't do anything about it. I was like them until a certain age too. A different school context, different skills, passions, and friendships made me realize the world I lived in. I wouldn’t condemn individuals too harshly from this perspective, precisely because one risks falling into ideological racism… ignorance is not always a fault. Anyway, to return to the core of the discussion from which we strayed, I see nothing wrong in observing the opinions of bourgeois Aristarco, so to speak, since they can only come from there (see the example of Lenin I provided). If they serve for the liberation of someone, they are welcome. We can’t criticize them for their origin. It’s like refusing to eat English beef just because there was mad cow disease. I replied here because my other method isn’t working.

Well, that's exactly the result of that "diffused" spectacle society that Debord talks about. If they don’t care, it’s precisely because the proletarians and the sub-proletarians are somehow forced to remain trapped in their social condition. Literature, in general, has dealt with this. It’s no coincidence that, although he doesn’t agree with many things he said, Lenin was right in stating that revolutionary theory is something that needs to be introduced from outside the proletarian class, in contrast to class consciousness. I believe you know better than I do that the "poor" in capitalist society are much more influenced by the dominant culture.

Well, if you take it from a structuralist point of view, there's no way out; anything we do can only result in a bourgeois sense, in the broad, creeping, and totalizing sense of the term. However, I believe that just going to the outskirts of major metropolises can make you realize that it might not be so anachronistic after all. In my opinion, the review manages to capture exactly how, in a certain sense, the productivity mentality (a much more appropriate term than "bourgeois" in this case) can prevent any positions that are genuinely in contrast with it. The communists (Leninists and also a good part of "orthodox Marxists") are not, by accident, the reciprocal of this mentality, but rather its complement.