LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Ostroeuropa]

It needs to be viewed in the context of its time. They purposefully adopted cutting edge fashion and art because they were obsessed with modernism. It's like those comics from the 60s about what the 2000s would look like, but what people in the 20s, 30s, and 40s thought the 2000s would look like. Sharp angles, refined simplicity, stuff like that.

With Germany you've also got the pagan shit. But let's be fair, pagan shit is fucking cool. I'll bet you dollars to donuts they'd have been lovecraft obsessed instead a few decades later.

Futurism was probably the only major contribution Italy did during the Great War, change my mind.

Why would I want to change your mind?

[Liriena]

It needs to be viewed in the context of its time. They purposefully adopted cutting edge fashion and art because they were obsessed with modernism. It's like those comics from the 60s about what the 2000s would look like, but what people in the 20s, 30s, and 40s thought the 2000s would look like. Sharp angles, refined simplicity, stuff like that.

With Germany you've also got the pagan shit. But let's be fair, pagan shit is fucking cool. I'll bet you dollars to donuts they'd have been lovecraft obsessed instead a few decades later.

Futurism was probably the only major contribution Italy did during the Great War, change my mind.

Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?

[West Leas Oros 2]

It needs to be viewed in the context of its time. They purposefully adopted cutting edge fashion and art because they were obsessed with modernism. It's like those comics from the 60s about what the 2000s would look like, but what people in the 20s, 30s, and 40s thought the 2000s would look like. Sharp angles, refined simplicity, stuff like that.

With Germany you've also got the pagan shit. But let's be fair, pagan shit is fucking cool. I'll bet you dollars to donuts they'd have been lovecraft obsessed instead a few decades later.

Futurism was probably the only major contribution Italy did during the Great War, change my mind.

Italy contributing? *proceeds to make fun Italian Military Failures*

[Pasong Tirad]

Naziism is mostly about style over substance when you get down to it though, right down to Leni Reifenstahl. Most nazis don't love Nazism as much as they do the films about Naziism.

There's probably also kayfabe going on. The appeal to a group of people to buy in to a narrative of struggle, heroism, and death. Facts that go against that narrative are unimportant, because it's about roleplay and feeling. This also drives the focus of Naziism. People love faces, but heels sell tickets.

Which is why I lean in favor of the argument that the best anti-fascist art would be the art that savagely denigrates fascist aesthetics.

Oh man I just watched a video essay about Mel Brooks.

[The New California Republic]

Oh man I just watched a video essay about Mel Brooks.

It has Dr. Merkwürdigliebe in it. Instant thumbs up.

[Novus Wrepland]

Which is why I lean in favor of the argument that the best anti-fascist art would be the art that savagely denigrates fascist aesthetics.

Tbh, actual fascist art was rather shit to say the least. Either it was just fucking smooth squares or ancient Rome knock-offs like in Italy or strapping swatizkas, skulls and pagan shit fucking everywhere like in Germany.

There was some good stuff.

[Liriena]

Which is why I lean in favor of the argument that the best anti-fascist art would be the art that savagely denigrates fascist aesthetics.

Oh man I just watched a video essay about Mel Brooks.

Lindsay Ellis, my film critic waifu :3

[Autarkheia]

Whenever I see a circlejerk about how allegedly awesome fascist aesthetics are, I just think of how they put fucking skulls on everything and their attempts at neopagan LARPing. Also, those SS uniforms weren't that sharp. You heard me.

Also, neofascist aesthetics is basically just columns and statues of white guys. Boring.

Somewhat hypocritically, my nation's flag was inspired by a Nazi building. But that's because I find the image horrifying, not impressive.

I think Tolkien was only a racist insofar as there is an argument to be made that there may have been unconscious biases at play in how he described certain races in his work. But in terms of his outwardly expressed opinions, the dude was pretty chill, even if not the chillest.

Neo-nazis have a tendency to try to appropriate works that explicitly disagree with their bullshit in the text because they like the superficial aesthetics of them. They love the Stormcloaks' "Skyrim belongs to the Nords" shit despite the fact that the game is very explicit about the moral greyness of it (and that it is also a rather hypocritical stance, if you sympathize with the Forsworn, like I do). They love "Tomorrow belongs to me" from Cabaret, a film that's definitely not pro-nazi.

Agreed. American History X also has a following among neo-Nazis.

The high fantasy genre in particular, however, has the added problem of being a genre largely inspired by Tolkien's work which, in turn, was inspired by traditional tales, myths and folklore, which are fascism's bread and butter. Some authors have been able to deal with this problem through vicious deconstruction (A Song of Ice and Fire) or by just being extra-creative with their worldbuilding (Ursula K. Le Guin).

LeGuin making the heroes brown and the villains white in the Earthsea series was a serve.

Lindsay Ellis, my film critic waifu :3

Mine too <3

I remember him shit-posting nazis in some of his letters and expressing repeated dislike of them so yeah, he very much would have disagreed with that interpretation of his work.

My favourite is the letter where he trolled the fash epic style by pretending not to understand what "Aryan" meant, flexed his knowledge of historical linguistics, then finished by calling the Jews "that gifted people". Iconic.

[Torrocca]

Nobody should hold wealth in the hundreds of billions from the backs of a few thousand workers. That's outright insanity and injustice.

I'm afraid it's theirs to hold and do what they want with. The workers never claimed ownership of it.

It doesn't matter if the workers claimed ownership of it or not, nobody should be allowed such power. Bezos isn't worth thousands of people (especially people whom he only gives a pittance sum of cash back to for their strenuous, debilitating labor, may I remind you). There's nothing but injustice to the fact that his workers hardly make enough to pay their rent or their bills and buy the barest of essentials while he can live in the fucking pinnacle of luxury.

[The New California Republic]

Tbh, actual fascist art was rather shit to say the least. Either it was just fucking smooth squares or ancient Rome knock-offs like in Italy or strapping swatizkas, skulls and pagan shit fucking everywhere like in Germany.

There was some good stuff.

The form of Casa del Fascio was taken from the International Style, the idea that it constitutes a fascist artform is nonsense.

[Autarkheia]

Fascism also gave us that ugly building with Mussolini's face on it.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Fascism also gave us that ugly building with Mussolini's face on it.

Thats his face?

[Autarkheia]

I think it's meant to be a grotesque version of it, yeah. Or maybe it's just a generic Big Brother figure. But I'm pretty sure it's based on him.

[The New California Republic]

I think it's meant to be a grotesque version of it, yeah. Or maybe it's just a generic Big Brother figure. But I'm pretty sure it's based on him.

It doesn't look permanent though...are you sure it isn't just a propaganda work fixed onto the façade of a building?

[Autarkheia]

It doesn't look permanent though...are you sure it isn't just a propaganda work fixed onto the façade of a building?

That was the fascist headquarters and I believe it was meant to be both permanent and a propaganda work.

Either way, it's ugly.

[The New California Republic]

It doesn't look permanent though...are you sure it isn't just a propaganda work fixed onto the façade of a building?

That was the fascist headquarters and I believe it was meant to be both permanent and a propaganda work.

Either way, it's ugly.

But it was stuck on to the building as an afterthought, as the building itself is the Palazzo Braschi, which predates the propaganda by quite a considerable margin; and it doesn't look like it was meant to be permanent due to the prominence of the word si, which indicates that it was for an election.

[Autarkheia]

I always thought the SI part just meant like "yes to fascism, obey Big Brother". But idk.

Anyway, the point is, again, that it's ugly.

[The New California Republic]

I always thought the SI part just meant like "yes to fascism, obey Big Brother". But idk.

Anyway, the point is, again, that it's ugly.

Here is some further info on it: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/headqu ... arty-1934/

[Autarkheia]

Interesting. I didn't know it was for a (rigged) election. But again, we were talking about fascist aesthetics, and I think this is a good example of how they are often ugly or brutal.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Here are two paragraphs from one of my books:

As a libertarian communist, not a left populist, I do not want weaponized enemies. Revolutionary communists alone should carry. I am unaware of any communist revolutionaries committing mass murder in universities. In the U.S., the National Rifle Association (NRA) has successfully promoted an absurdity, that anyone can bring guns onto college campuses. If so, I might, albeit tongue in cheek, counter the NRA’s argument. Average citizens carrying guns have created multiple deaths upon deaths. Police officers, for their part, routinely assassinate unarmed Black women and men. As an aside, for some reason, sexism perhaps, the female victims of police brutality are rarely, if ever, headlined by the media. Why should I trust the cops? I have, as one unarmed by my own choice, remained unpersuaded. Many of the most appalling incidents have centered around the cops themselves.

The proletarian vanguard will, when the time arrives, distinguish between revolutionaries, who should have guns, and renegades. The point of gun ownership, for a libertarian Marxist, is revolution, not the counterrevolutionary gun culture’s misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution as guns just for their own sake. The founding fathers opposed an army and endorsed armed militias in the Second Amendment―later annulled by the U.S. Army. Why, however, would a communist want their counterrevolutionary enemies, especially the police, to have guns? Sadly, whenever this subject comes up, people engage in name–calling. Someone called me authoritarian. I may be many things, including an empathetic person, but an authoritarian is not one of them. Some people seem incapable of discussing any number of issues without lashing out at others. That is clearly not helpful for anyone.

Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ of The Multiversal Communist Collective

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Here are two paragraphs from one of my books:

As a libertarian communist, not a left populist, I do not want weaponized enemies. Revolutionary communists alone should carry. I am unaware of any communist revolutionaries committing mass murder in universities. In the U.S., the National Rifle Association (NRA) has successfully promoted an absurdity, that anyone can bring guns onto college campuses. If so, I might, albeit tongue in cheek, counter the NRA’s argument. Average citizens carrying guns have created multiple deaths upon deaths. Police officers, for their part, routinely assassinate unarmed Black women and men. As an aside, for some reason, sexism perhaps, the female victims of police brutality are rarely, if ever, headlined by the media. Why should I trust the cops? I have, as one unarmed by my own choice, remained unpersuaded. Many of the most appalling incidents have centered around the cops themselves.

The proletarian vanguard will, when the time arrives, distinguish between revolutionaries, who should have guns, and renegades. The point of gun ownership, for a libertarian Marxist, is revolution, not the counterrevolutionary gun culture’s misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution as guns just for their own sake. The founding fathers opposed an army and endorsed armed militias in the Second Amendment―later annulled by the U.S. Army. Why, however, would a communist want their counterrevolutionary enemies, especially the police, to have guns? Sadly, whenever this subject comes up, people engage in name–calling. Someone called me authoritarian. I may be many things, including an empathetic person, but an authoritarian is not one of them. Some people seem incapable of discussing any number of issues without lashing out at others. That is clearly not helpful for anyone.

Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ of The Multiversal Communist Collective

When you say only communist revolutionaries should be allowed to have guns, do you mean the leaders of the revolution or everyone in the revolution? If it's the latter, how do you hope to enforce it?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Here are two paragraphs from one of my books:

As a libertarian communist, not a left populist, I do not want weaponized enemies. Revolutionary communists alone should carry. I am unaware of any communist revolutionaries committing mass murder in universities. In the U.S., the National Rifle Association (NRA) has successfully promoted an absurdity, that anyone can bring guns onto college campuses. If so, I might, albeit tongue in cheek, counter the NRA’s argument. Average citizens carrying guns have created multiple deaths upon deaths. Police officers, for their part, routinely assassinate unarmed Black women and men. As an aside, for some reason, sexism perhaps, the female victims of police brutality are rarely, if ever, headlined by the media. Why should I trust the cops? I have, as one unarmed by my own choice, remained unpersuaded. Many of the most appalling incidents have centered around the cops themselves.

The proletarian vanguard will, when the time arrives, distinguish between revolutionaries, who should have guns, and renegades. The point of gun ownership, for a libertarian Marxist, is revolution, not the counterrevolutionary gun culture’s misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution as guns just for their own sake. The founding fathers opposed an army and endorsed armed militias in the Second Amendment―later annulled by the U.S. Army. Why, however, would a communist want their counterrevolutionary enemies, especially the police, to have guns? Sadly, whenever this subject comes up, people engage in name–calling. Someone called me authoritarian. I may be many things, including an empathetic person, but an authoritarian is not one of them. Some people seem incapable of discussing any number of issues without lashing out at others. That is clearly not helpful for anyone.

Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ of The Multiversal Communist Collective

>man wants to literally disarm anybody but his own ideological comrades
>pretends to have the moral high ground when people get insulted and call him an authoritarian

That logic is bloody stupid!

[Northern Davincia]

Here are two paragraphs from one of my books:

When you say only communist revolutionaries should be allowed to have guns, do you mean the leaders of the revolution or everyone in the revolution? If it's the latter, how do you hope to enforce it?

Through authoritarian means, obviously.

Here are two paragraphs from one of my books:

>man wants to literally disarm anybody but his own ideological comrades
>pretends to have the moral high ground when people get insulted and call him an authoritarian

That logic is bloody stupid!

DCF also advocated the surveillance of capitalists.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

That logic is bloody stupid!

In communism, libertarianism is socialism from below. Authoritarianism is socialism from above. Libertarian communists do not buy into the right-wing definition of libertarianism. In other words, my logic is not stupid. I am just not a right-winger.

It is impossible to have freedom under capitalism. Therefore, capitalism must be eliminated. Communism is freedom. Capitalism is chains.

[Autarkheia]

>man wants to literally disarm anybody but his own ideological comrades
>pretends to have the moral high ground when people get insulted and call him an authoritarian

That logic is bloody stupid!

Marx: the only possible outcome of capitalism is a violent revolution where the state will take absolute control of everything and suppress all opposition
Marxists: yeah but what if I call myself a libertarian Marxist so then it's different