|
Jon Joe posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO79DhItC_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHIF4AtseYc
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
good news for PSL https://twitter.com/redstarlesbian/status/1078719145984835584
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 12:08
|
|
|
Jon Joe posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO79DhItC_c https://youtu.be/zDDUY91jrx4
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:Yeah, probably a good idea to start with some 101 stuff. you seem to be operating under some kind of assumption about a central authority dictating what does or does not constitute "art", as though censors reading the script of Hamilton and throwing Lin-Manuel Miranda down a flight of stairs for being a gormless liberal is the inevitable result of left-wing policies this question is basically nonsense if you can jettison the basic truism that communism=authoritarianism that seems to be parameterizing your perspective here. its a ubiquitous idea in American media but it doesn't really have any realistic relationship to Marxist philosophy. the notion that what something "brings" to society needs to be predicated entirely on its economic valuation in the context of capitalism is useless - most art actually isn't valued in the contemporary first world, only a very specific kind of art that can be used to either make money or reinscribe elements of the capitalist discourse. left-wing governance would theoretically create a context in which, free from the need to maximize their profitability from the very beginning, artists would be able to genuinely pursue the type of art they want to make, or at least be afforded the opportunity to do so with much more frequency. beyond that, leftist policies fundamentally encourage a productive flowering of art insofar as they remove barriers to productivity from enormous numbers of people who would otherwise be condemned to toil in obscurity. the construction of a social system (not just a stupid safety net to preserve those who are insufficiently exploitable for private industry but remain an asset to the state) but like an actual qualitatively different leftist model for the funding of public works is basically predicated on the idea that voluntarily doing what you want to do is inevitably more productive than forcing those same people to manufacture tchotchkes in some sweatshop somewhere is tantamount to engaging in more censorship than any government in history the most important thing though is changing the collective discourse surrounding what constitutes value, because as long as everyone who lives in late-capitalist society assumes markets work like natural laws and notions of capitalist value are immutable, political reforms won't be sufficient to override the universally socialized drive to produce only what capitalism will reward us for producing
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:you seem to be operating under some kind of assumption about a central authority dictating what does or does not constitute "art", as though censors reading the script of Hamilton and throwing Lin-Manuel Miranda down a flight of stairs for being a gormless liberal is the inevitable result of left-wing policies indeed, they should throw him in the garbage (again) instead
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:Yeah, probably a good idea to start with some 101 stuff. My favorite art movement, Constructivism, emerged around the time of the Russian revolution. That early period from 1910 to about 1930 is fascinating for art as it was an explosion of open thinking and a huge push to create art that would break from elitism and become available to the poor mainstream. Most people don't know this, but it was largely successful, and the idea of mass production of design that we have today (I'm talking about affordable designer furniture like Ikea, clothes, cuttlery, plates, lamps, etc) was birthed in these early movements (Constructivism, Suprematism) that later influenced and was spread by other movements. Here's a book on it I can recommend: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/imagine-no-possessions quote:In Imagine No Possessions, Christina Kiaer investigates the Russian Constructivist conception of objects as being more than commodities. "Our things in our hands must be equals, comrades," wrote Aleksandr Rodchenko in 1925. Kiaer analyzes this Constructivist counterproposal to capitalism's commodity fetish by examining objects produced by Constructivist artists between 1923 and 1925: Vladimir Tatlin's prototype designs for pots and pans and other everyday objects, Liubov' Popova's and Varvara Stepanova's fashion designs and textiles, Rodchenko's packaging and advertisements for state-owned businesses (made in collaboration with revolutionary poet Vladimir Mayakovsky), and Rodchenko's famous design for the interior of a workers' club. These artists, heeding the call of Constructivist manifestos to abandon the nonobjective painting and sculpture of the early Russian avant-garde and enter into Soviet industrial production, aimed to work as "artist-engineers" to produce useful objects for everyday life in the new socialist collective. Here's a more contemporary artist I always liked (1970-1980) http://englishrussia.com/2009/05/26/francisco-infante-arana/ To summarize, art is human, and it was embraced in the USSR, both contemporary and classical performance. The goal was to break and decouple it from the bourgeoisie. To me personally, Russian theater and ballet remain very hard to beat. While performances like Lion King or Hamilton are definitely high quality, they aren't on the same level as watching Swan Lake at the big theater for 3+ hours. Revolutionary Russians also pioneered film as a medium and there is a long storied soviet film history you can read about. You can watch most of them for free and can probably dig up that quote from Spielberg about how 'since everything is money driven in Hollywood, it's impossible to make what you want', while what he saw in Soviet film was freedom to do whatever you wanted as long as it wasn't critical of the system. BULBASAUR fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Dec 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Tbf, the Soviets did have some issues with art and censorship, especially during the era of socialist realism which ultimately spread to other countries. It's a topic that's really never talked about on the left anymore, since I'd imagine censoring art isn't a big priority right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
All governments censor art, capitalism just does it by preventing anyone without connections from becoming an artist and co opting everyone successful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:All governments censor art, capitalism just does it by preventing anyone without connections from becoming an artist and co opting everyone successful. Western governments do it very explicitly too, the purging of Hollywood in the 50s is a prime example. As the inverse, contemporary collaboration between CIA and Hollywood too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Western governments do it very explicitly too, the purging of Hollywood in the 50s is a prime example. As the inverse, contemporary collaboration between CIA and Hollywood too. i wonder how much of An American's perception of the US military as this stoic faced confident unflappable operator entity is because of films where the DoD has script revision oversight on scenes where they're lending resources at no cost to the production and saving them millions of dollars in order to portray the military in a neutral or positive light if you want to show how often the military fucks up and what fuckery they cause abroad you have to go out of your way to make a movie without their help, pissing off all the companies that get that help on the reg, so you're a radioactive production, not to mention some things that have happened like senate inquiries into the production or methods used to gather details about events (as they may have been classified)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Nobody would even want to watch a movie that's gleeful about American soldiers dying or loving up or whatever if you did make it, which is why people say culture is downstream from politics. It's a little bit of a chicken and the egg problem though. Breitbarts whole thing was that its the reverse, politics is downstream from culture. I think they're wrong, and I also think state censorship isn't effective in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Tbf, the Soviets did have some issues with art and censorship, especially during the era of socialist realism which ultimately spread to other countries. It's a topic that's really never talked about on the left anymore, since I'd imagine censoring art isn't a big priority right now. I thought our main goal was taking titties out of video games?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ClaraSorrenti/status/1079145683691753472
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
excellent, i have two years left to become a chad
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:excellent, i have two years left to become a chad naw, that's a lower bound lenin was in his mid-40's in 1917, so you at least have 20-some years ahead of you before you REALLY miss the boat
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:naw, that's a lower bound starting three weeks ago i started dieting and gymming 3x a week and keeping up with it, so by then i should look like arnold (after the steroids, when he was all flabby)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
julius caesar didn't really get going until he was in his 40s too, and felt all the same pangs us normies do comparing himself to people who did more, younger, like Alexander the Great
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:starting three weeks ago i started dieting and gymming 3x a week and keeping up with it, so by then i should look like arnold (after the steroids, when he was all flabby) I mean, if you're aiming for castro, that's precisely good enough lol but if you also make like castro in pairing the beef with a large beard, you will not want for partners if you are into dudes
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:I mean, if you're aiming for castro, that's precisely good enough lol I'm married and trying not to die from heart disease before 30 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:you seem to be operating under some kind of assumption about a central authority dictating what does or does not constitute "art", as though censors reading the script of Hamilton and throwing Lin-Manuel Miranda down a flight of stairs for being a gormless liberal is the inevitable result of left-wing policies yeah, after reading some of the replies last night and my own post again I started to realize this and that really it has more to do with as you said the market aspect of it. in fairness I did say the question was dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/qikipedia/status/1079134969589567488?s=19
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Nobody would even want to watch a movie that's gleeful about American soldiers dying or loving up or whatever if you did make it, which is why people say culture is downstream from politics. an amusing exception to this general point https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wolf_warrior_ii/
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
LODESTAR
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
blow your lodestar on my eternal bosom, baby
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Western governments do it very explicitly too, the purging of Hollywood in the 50s is a prime example. As the inverse, contemporary collaboration between CIA and Hollywood too. The UK still has the film nasties list afaik.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The UK still has the film nasties list afaik. what’s that
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:what’s that It's a list of movies that are banned by the British government. There's a list of books too. I think it's an informality at this point, but it's never been officially done away with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty#Section_1:_Prosecuted_films
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Nude Hoxha Cameo posted:an amusing exception to this general point Wolf Warrior 2 was bad rear end and 80s hollywood level jingoistic but the bad guys were mercs and not actual US soldiers iitc
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:Wolf Warrior 2 was bad rear end and 80s hollywood level jingoistic but the bad guys were mercs and not actual US soldiers iitc the evil americans getting their asses kicked by the reighreous chinese were mercs, yes i unironically look forward to more schlocky anti american movies as the movie market in china continues to heat up, the inverse of the endless waves of jingoistic poo poo we’ve been enduring here for as long as i can remember
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
lumpen belong in the dumpen
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's a list of movies that are banned by the British government. There's a list of books too. I think it's an informality at this point, but it's never been officially done away with. "Video nasties" as terminology could only have sprang from the pedophilic mind of a tory
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
*scans channels at my parents' place during their holiday party* hey death of stalin 15-year-old cousin: a bunch of my friends say gulag now all the time at school. like "you're going to the gulag" and so on me: oh i see
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:*scans channels at my parents' place during their holiday party* 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:*scans channels at my parents' place during their holiday party* 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
i also have info via my spy network that there's some young communist formation attempting to organize at this high school, but i haven't pried closer because that'd be weird
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
Yeaaaaaaah, nobody wants to be the old commie TOO eager to organize the youth. Any local YDSA chapters?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
actually, stalin and mao did nothing wrong, and its not deifying them to say that
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
I'm a materialist, and reject interpretations of historical events that emphasize a succession of "great men", meanwhile, here are the autonomous, unilateral decisions that a procession of great men took absent their exigent circumstances and why they were bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
I'm going to reveal a bunch of my ignorance here and say it's pretty hard for me to parse the exact nature of arguments for/against historical socialist leaders because I feel I lack sources I can trust. I believe in socialism independent of these historical contexts because Marx's analysis is factually correct, with rigorous and tested hypotheses, but I have no method by which to parse actual interpretations or the world leaders involved in such. Any recommended reading or viewing for me? edit: wrote this post before ShriekingMarxist's post but sure I'll taking reading from that perspective too
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
 imo the most salient evaluation of where the Soviet Union failed comes down to systems failure. That the Soviet Union was too large, unwieldy, and obtuse to be effectively controlled despite the Herculean efforts of the Bolsheviks to centralize its government and planning. There was so much bad information and so many individual and factional agendas at odds with each other, that bad decisions cascaded to the point where you're executing hundreds of thousands of people based on vague accusations of being counter-revolutionary. In the case of the Great Leap Forward specifically, the great bulk of responsibility for the famine can be attributed to bad material science, bad planning, and a paranoiac post-revolutionary atmosphere where accurate information about the scale of the famine was suppressed so that officials could save their own skins. There is little to no indication of intentionality behind the mass deaths of the Soviet Union and China, yet when it comes to the mass deaths of capitalist states they're treated as systemic problems with no clear villain, but Stalin and Mao are treated as cartoonishly evil mass murderers who bear almost sole responsibility for the failures of their respective states. Yet still, when it comes to the famines of the great capitalist empires there's more often than not a clear intentionality behind them. Almost every famine under the rule of the UK was ideologically motivated by capitalists who felt that the markets should remain free (and without relief aid).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 08:18
|
|