In everything, there's some good and some bad---some truth and some falsity SI may have been marxist, anticapitalist, etc.... BUT Guy Debords "society of the spectacle" was, in my opinion, an extremely VALID intellectual critique, because any attempt to try to reduce it to simply 'anticapitalism' would be extremely dishonest.  The spectacle would be about the illusion created by the MEDIA and the prevailing power structure ('establishments') attempts in perception managmenet and worldview shaping--mostly by creating shitty narratives about people to keep them feeling either completely confused and confounded by strong forces of cognitive dissonance, or keeping them suppressed by narratives that tell them theya re wrong and stupid and powerless. Such is the case of nearly all marketing  "you're too X, so buy our thing to make you more X, otherwise you're stupid, ugly and people hate you, but most of all you won't "belong" So in my opinion, Society of the spectacle is more about hyperconsumption perpetrated by weaponized social pyschology forms rooted in edward bernays' dark heart of marketing and manipulation of public opiknion, than it was about a critique of capitalism generally (anarchocapitalism and the free market--which imho, without marketing would be praiseworthy and meritorious)  On a personal note, when I first read society of the spectacle it was difficult and confounding, but hauntingly compelling of an idea to me that essentially broke all concepts I had about life on earth.  It made me believe that while we can bicker about socialism, communism, capitalism, orwellianism (techno totalitarianism) and other forms of "global" or centralized or unipolar governance, the truth of life for humans seems to be directed by a persons concept of sovereignty and power/control...who should have it, and why; what constitutes to a person a 'legitimate authority' and for what reasons do we give either people, ortganizations, objects, movemenmts, concepts and ideas, or things our power over us?