Review: The L Word

The L word is a series about lesbianism in los angelas (which is the real l). It's plot centers unsurprisingly on sex and being closted or out of the closet.

Positive aspects: features wimmin training to use martial arts to defend their bodies
portrays wimmin as healthy and strong. portrays gay sex as an acceptable lifestyle. The show also clearly treated all races as equal which is liberalism but progress relative to the ambient racism.

Negative aspects: 1) unquestionining acceptance of the Amerikan Empire's leading role in world "culture" via hollywierd. 2) Pushes subreformism about bourgeois liberal individualist privacy rights and the "right" of queer's to serve in imperialist institutions of oppression such as the military (gays in the military / don't ask don't tell) and hollywierd. 3) Pushing straight fantasies about lesbians -- guys figure it out lesbians are NOT secretly yearning for cock. Your Minister has *no* idea why heterosexual patriarchal imperialism has wild eyed heterosexual fetishes about lesbians. Is it just a pure power play, the dominance of the dominant culture at it's horniest or what? I've no idea, it makes no logical sense for straight guys to get all hot for lesbians, it's like their hitting their heads against the wall.

Technically, some of the 'drama' in the series is obviously that, pointless 'drama', situations that just don't and wouldn't happen in real life. Whether presenting 'drama' generates the drama or serves as an object lesson in avoiding the drama is an important subtle question. Here the party should definitely give artists the benefit of the doubt, to see the 'drama' is presented as an object lesson so that inexperienced comrades can be given a chance to foresee the bad effects of bad actions. So the party will insist that pointless 'drama' conflicts be succesfully resolved and not used as 'cliffhangers' to string the audience along from episode to episode. The string-along-cliffhanger method of bourgeois art will be eschewed in practice by Maoists because we have some very important things to say and so unlike teasing imperialists we actually want our audience to 'get it'. This is just one reason Maoist education is always and everywhere more effective than capitalist rationing of freely available information a-la-friedman.

Neutral points: doesn't push gay life as either "a free choice" (liberalism) or "instinct" (authoritarian biological determinsm). The better view from Marxism is that sex is a choice; even liberal freudians would argue that sexuality is "polymorphously perverse". Though, one does tend to see "manly women" and "womenly men" at queer bars how much of that is really biological versus dress and style? Dress a bulldyke up in a dress and makeup and voila so much for biological determinism. So the series is silent here but we would actually argue against bio determinism since we're not racists.

This show would not be banned by the JDOP but would get subtitles and edited to get rid of the useless subreformism and pointless imping for imperialist militarism. Queers should be bright enough to figure out that they don't belong in the imperialist death cult and queer's that don't should get outed systematically by the party in order to undermine the enemy force. That would undermine the enemy army's strength, show solidarity to the Third World and would be more effective at getting the public to accept queers in the first world.

Caitlin Plush, Hotel California

youtube changed my icon to a hot half naked womyn.

i predict increased traffic and since the subtitle is good i'm keeping it even though i persynally prefer the red theme of mao.

Caitlin's a wannabe rockstar. Lol@fbi. Good luck.

That whole corpse farm thing is just too sick. I really feel sorry for you guys on that day. P.s. did you fibbers figure out the fbi is doing you for the cash? That might lead a striving patriot to question capitalism's inner logic...

Poem; Paytryoutism; Decadance

Liberty

Proudly once I stood
and surveyed
with stately gaze my work of wonder
a new world wild and tamed made more productive
and then set aflame
again and again
a war to liberate the slaves
betrayed
and then wars to subjugate the reds
my promise broken on bloody spears and shields
of global wars for gold and greed
Blood stained tears have flown from my eyes ever since
My promise ripped from my lips
with each death grip
that seizes they
my children
the enemy

================================================================

Striving patriotism and strident patriotism

MIM has made clear that sometimes the vanguard party, even when composed largely of individuals from the first world can outpace and indeed guide the Third World proletariat -- only because the first world comrades have access to resources which were stolen from the Third World in the first place. MIM has also pioneered the distinction between striving and strident patriotism. Strident patriotism is the patriotism of death, the strident patriotism of hatred and greed, the patriotism of the oppressor seeking to extract even more from the already robbed. MIM contrasts the strident patriotism of death that with striving patriotism, the patriotism of the oppressed seeking liberation. This is really just ultimately the dialectic of hate and love. MIM has had a lot to say recently about love too, that love cannot be a scientific criterion but at most a guide; that we cannot go forward by saying "we love this person" because that is individualism and it is unscientific and it is biography lifestyle politics of "follow the leader". We don't in fact want leaders and followers - ultimately we want no rulers or ruled - but the imperialists give us no choice. We live under a capitalist dictatorship, a police state, so We cannot get to the anarchic ideal without going through the dictatorship of the proletariat. Be your own leader and make your own art and struggle through to the end game.

The patriotism struggle is necessary to explain to the first world oppressors that they are oppressors. When the first world pigs discover their pig nature then they can at least have the choice of walking away from that. Of course most will simply try to become more effective pigs. Those supposedly clever pigs will wind up marching off a cliff just like the nazi pigs that lit the way for them. It is vital that the first world oppressor understand that their patriotism is a patriotism of hatred and oppression. That will strip away some imperialist enemies and at least put them in the neutral camp and it's polarizing effect is not to be feared.

In this sense, we must not fear the possible imposition of open fascist dictatorship. Fear paralyzes. Planning and preparation kill fear. We must be prepared for open fascism as a likely outcome from the fact that the pigs are sharpening their knives for slaughtering other pigs in order to oppress horses. MIM says we must help the imperialist capitalists try to keep open borders and is correct, we should support the bourgeoisie when it thwartsthe labor aristocracies economy wrecking border closing idiocy. But we must have no illusions and understand that if a fascist dictatorship were to happen in amerika, france or eastern europe we would be faced with a replay of world war II, a war in which the international communist movement emerged victorious globally in play after play.

The strident pigtriotism we oppose is the lie that suckers in naive imperialist youth who then go and get slaughtered in pig wars like Iraq. This too explains why exposing pigtriotism is so important, it's about preventing them from stealing youth and sending them to Iraq to kill other youth.

Yet, there is a striving patriotism. MIM is correct the ameriCan nation died with the assassination of Lincoln. This striving patriotism of americans might be found in MIM but frankly we have seen the ugly truth. amerika killed America and amerika is an oppressor nation. There are no Americans to rally. They we're all wearing red and brown skin and were massacred and lynched by the first amerikans.

===========================================

I have to say, I come to these questions with an insufficient knowledge of Freud, Kristeva, Kollontai and Reich. Still I hope to clarify, or at least explain, my thoughts on gender, sex and desire in artistic representation.

What is decadance? What is the problem with decadance?
Decadance is the hedonistic enjoyment of bodily pleasures, the lazy use of things for pleasure.
Decadance is really only possible after all basic needs are met. In this world where labor exploitation is still the reality for 80% of the planet any pleasure seems decadant -- and attractive.

The reality of decadance as only possible in a society of abundance explains why puritanism arises in poorer societies as an ideology and as a powerful ideology. Puritanism channels sexual energy via sublimation of desire into production. We can see puritanism in Christianity, Islam, Confucianism -- it's a universal ideology of development. Puritans only allow enjoyment of productive energy thus self denial, altruism, and the idea of sex as primarily about reproduction are keys to puritanical thought and indeed recur in the communist movement.

An essential attitude of the lumpenproletariat is decadance, the enjoyment of alcohol, sex, food as the highest end of life. What if the lumpen were right? Why should someone give up their pleasure? The puritan answer is to attain something greater, nirvana, enlightenment, salvation.

Objectification is the use of people as objects of bodily pleasure.

A usual objection to porn is the objectification of the body: as if people were not bodies, as if people were platonic thought firms, virgins, angelic, ever perfect and untouchable and only perfect as long as untouched. My ass. We're stuck here on earth not in some nonexistent heaven.

Of course, this attitude is the virgin half of the virgin-whore myth, the idea that a man wants a virgin at marriage who turns into a whore, but /only/ his whore, after marriage; she is to remain a virgin as far as everyone else is concerned. As if.

Because people *are* bodies (thats just materialism, the idea that the mind and body are one and it's Marxist) objectification is *inevitable*: a body *is* an object.

What is the problem with the objectification of sex? Is it the unilateral nature of pleasure in cases of rape? Is the solution to objectification's unilaterality bilateral pleasure? But if pleasure is decadance and mutual pleasure is non objectification than the non objectification would be decadant too.

If objectification is inevitable then why or how is it a problem?
If puritanism just feeds the virgin-whore bullshit mythos it's not the solution.
Especially since puritanism goes really well with capitalism, just read Weber.

The solution is to see that the problem isn't decadance. Decadance is the solution. But decadance can only be achieved in a society of superabundance. The decadance of today is the product of exploitation, is only possible because of exploitation. Communism will achieve a possibility of guiltless pleasure of libidinal liberation through the increased productive power it unleashes. True decadance, libidinal liberation, simply isn't possible in a society of scarcity. Communism might be libertine or monogamous but the only way to get there is via sublimation.

Sublimation outmaneuvers both puritanism and decadence by channeling and directing desire into production. So then the tactical question isn't whether to eroticize or not, but when to eroticize and how.

Eisenstein desequenced film for dramatic effect distorting and sorting scenese out of temporal context to attain maximum impact. That tactic is correct. So too is Stanislavsky's "Method". Those seeking to decipher the works of the Art Ministry can use those ideas as guides.

Re: Beauty standards -- really I have said all that has to be said here. We want healthy people so we eroticize healthy bodies. MIM has already written of "fat liberation" as a decadant and unhealthy lifestyle choice found only in the imperialist countries. I also remain of the opinion that we should in fact eroticize not the extremes of either gender (hairy men, smooth women) but rather androgyny. Note that imperialism tends to confuse androgyny and anorexia. We specifically will not eroticize starvation just as we will not eroticize fat. You can note this unisex tendency in the Art Minister's earlier work with "Mimi" and other animated characters.

Though, if someone wants to argue that we should be in fact eroticizing women who would bear healthy children, thus large breasts and wide hips, and eroticizing very masculine men with large muscles there are arguments there. However we are so far from the days where species survival depended on sharp division of gender roles that those are not the ideal types that I think should be represented. However, if you disagree by all means make art.

What will not be acceptable are unhealthy bodies. Flabby, unmuscled or starving bodies are not erotic.

Because the white race is the historically oppressive race, globally, and a minority in terms of genome ideal coloration would be light brown with dark hair and eyes. Again, this is the tendency of the socialist era to merge the formerly conflicting groups. Of course, fascists will scream that this is a recipe for genocide against whites. Please. First, it's not like lots of whites never did things to actually deserve genocide. But more importantly, any standards or ideals that the party holds up will never replace or express the thousands of differences in body types and social experiences that explain attraction.

Likewise, as has been stated, fetishes involving tobacco, blood, fascism will not be represented or tolerated.

Further, the idea of "perfection" is not the goal, we do not wish to present any person, art form, or artist as "perfect". That's unrealistic. There are always flaws. We will present people as they are, but in the better light. We will not creat "unattainable ideals" to be longed for and never met. The creation of unattainable desire to fuel consumption is one way capitalism wastes resources. Socialism will not do that. The ideals we present will be attainable but imperfect.

Freedom is the not-being-owned, the not-being-coopted, the independence; not the power over others rather the lack of the power of others over one's self.

"For any dragon male or female, it would be far better to be seeing prostitutes than to get sucked into abandoning revolutionary possibilities by joining the NSA, especially through an emotional connection."

As tank girl said: "I win!"

"For revolutionary males and revolutionary females both there is a shortage of potential mates."

Noted, oh so noted.

"In the old-fashioned language, there is no 'ho or pimp good enough for our revolutionary dragons."

Heh. High standards.

Mao Say Tongue

Lakonisch

Votre artille arrivait 'a vous bombarder il y avait allentours X annees.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/pl_afp/usvietnamintelligence512

"Wir ERBittEn Befehle."
BDU

Klartext: MIM -- hold on and hold out. This just goes deeper and deeper.

Another letter

"gay men "wimmin" wannabes.

They think they're wimmin.

Well, i think this crap is reactionary, it doesnt mean if you are in love with a guy, and ur a guy, you need to be a wimmin, or you could be a wimmin.

Gender roles pschology etc. isnt for genuine revolutionaries. I think everyone should act like gender neutral and strong. Some gays really are just quite annoying"


"Thats why dads hate them, why not use be more "masculine". i mean strong.???"

PSYCHOLOGY:
About psychology I already explained we need a Maoist psychology because of teen suicide if only for that reason but also because of all the other fucked up damage that imperialism inflicts on people; but all we have is a piece of shit bourgeois spychology that's worse than useless justifying the worst forms of repression.

SEX:
The Comrade who wrote in is bewailing the split of gender and sex; it's important to understand that split so we can look at things scientifically. Who you fuck and how you fuck are two different things. Who you fuck and what you wear are two different things. How you fuck and what you wear may or may not be the same.

We Maoists know that gender occurs on a spectrum. During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution a gender neutral "look" became the norm; all people had short hair and wore the same style of clothing. This is probably the healthiest of worlds -- we know it was the healthiest in every other way. But just like there are people who are completely unhappy with imperialism and it's gender roles there will be people unhappy with the disappearance of gender roles. Such reactionary throwbacks, the people who are "normal" today should be tolerated in the new society for the "gender benders" who are sometimes tolerated under imperialism will be tolerated too in the new society. Basically the comrade writing in needs to be more tolerant of others.

On the role of gender and sex and fashion we will really not be able to do much more than look at and emulate the Maoist practice during the GPCR because our society is definitely not at all at that level of progress. Instead our society features a gender aristocracy which has appropriated anything potentially progressive about feminism.

The comrade above correctly points to the sexual convergence which is the future and which we saw briefly during revolutionary China. At the same time, the comrade wrongly is intolerant about others with different tastes in gender and sex than s/he.

Tolerance is of course part of liberalism; we will not at all tolerate Nazi costuming, for example and will actively repress that part of BDSM. We will also try to direct sexual energy away from BDSM and toward "vanilla" sex because, duh, BDSM Is the recreation of the eroticization of bourgeois power. Sure, it's possible to imagine BDSM and roleplaying communism and Red Army costuming but that's not what is happening under imperialism and it's dubious whether such could be achieved since the eroticization of destructive coercive power is the Enemy ideology. Even if there were some way to roleplay the proletarian dominating the captured fascist it would still likely play into fascism. And of course, these are questions about the use of surplus energy, they are luxury questions. However they are relevant to understanding the whole Queer Bashing dynamic why some people beat down others and how homoeroticism and violence mash together (and who is doing the mashing, duh, fascists). So even though the questions of costuming and BDSM are really distasteful not just in the eww sense but also in the sense of omfg this society is soooo decadent -- whilst people are starving and dying for oil! It deserved to be addressed especially since we really have so very little to go on in terms of thinking about what the New Society will look like.

In terms of clothing and gender roles it will be closest to the Mao / GPCR era though possibly somewhat more tolerant of the remnants of the dying bourgeois culture -- though not at all tolerant of the murdersome aspects of bourgeois culture!

The take home message is:
Who you fuck and how you fuck and what you and they look like are basically unrelated to each other. Some people will fuck in ways that you don't want to -- after all there are 6 billion other people out there. That becomes a concern when it manifests in ways that are unhealthy for society. People gender bending isn't unhealthy for society especially because we have positive population growth globally. People having kinky sex at home may - or may not - be unhealthy. Of course, deception generally is unhealthy and so too is the need for a sense of privacy. Ideally we would all be able to live with glass walls and feel safe exactly because other people are watching out for us. We don't live there yet. So the bourgeois "consenting adults in private rule" will likely remain in place after the revolution even though we know full well consent is an illusion under imperialism.

For the revolutionary the question is what fucking leads to more killing and what fucking leads to less killing and secondarily who does the killing and who does the dying. If all the imperialists got together for a mutual necrophilia wargasm bloodfeast leaving the rest of us standing that would be progress. It won't happen because they just have to drag the rest of us into it. When Hitler and Churchill were killing each other's labor aristocracy that was progressive, a double win for the proletariat and a loss for humanity but a necessary and inevitable one, Stalin made the very best of a very ugly situation imposed on him by the imperialists.

A lot of people questioned the "whores not wars" line because of course the patriarchy wants whores too. Well, it's not so much that we WANT whores, but guess what we have whores anyway whether we like that or not. And guess what else the rest of the world hates prostitutes even though in their own hypocritical ways they are ALL prostitutes unless they are johns. So yeah, we want whores in fact, in the sense that we don't think the word "diseased" and the word "slut" go together. We actually give a damn about people who are the most downtrodden.

SO then it's a question of how do we get rid of the wars since a major source of demand for whores is in fact war. Even if all wars stopped tomorrow and we had a giant fuckfest instead there would STILL be prostitution because people have to eat but once they are no longer starving they like to fuck too. However the WNW line is that if we had a giant fuckfest a lot of people would have less reasons to want to go off and try to kill each other. It really is orgy versus genocide and of course the enemy line wants to have a nice necrophiliac genocidal orgy. To which we say: Nein Danke.

It might be nice if MIM made clarification of the designations of terms like whore, prostitute and slut since the only term they have defined so far is 'ho and bitch. So I have a nice term for designating the enemy and another term for designating people that might be on our side, people who we give the benefit of the god damned doubt to. However I would prefer to be able to be more scientific when talking about prostitutes, sluts and whores. Until then I shall hereafter use prostitute and whore synonymously for people who are overtly paid cash for sex, slut for persons who like sex with lots of different people regardless whether they are paid cash overtly.

Questions on sex, gender and artistic representation

A Maoist proletariArtist wrote to ask me about gender, sex and representation in Kunst. This Minister can only produce Kunst by definition. So right there the proletariArtist has got to understand that s/he has, basically by definition, a more correct perspective and thus more likelihood to reach/grasp the truth. Real Maoists stand the usual "first world = knowledge; third world = ignorance" bullshit on it's head. Under the JDOP this Ministry will go into recievership, likely in some form of cooperative collaborative art production! :D That will mean lots of sex and wine for me and no more crying over spilled blood.

But, for now we are faced with monumental task. Let's look at the proletArtists questions and try to see if, even living in a pigsty, we can stop thinking like pigs and start thinking like people.

"Do maoists discuss "erotica" and sexual attraction?"

My line is that we MUST discuss eros and sex because those are two driving forces in the world. 99% of people got here by sex. Sex was needed for species survival until the 1970s. So it was vitally necessary.
But, yes, I do not think there was enough discussion of eros and sexuality. Otherwise we would not be facing the confusion we see today: where Trotskyites preach at once homophobia and open marriage. Where real Maoists stake out monogamy as fakes do whatever they want. This confusion is manifested / reflected in these influences on the movement:
Reich, MacKinnon, Freud, Kollontai, Kristeva, Foucault
The most correct view would be a synthesis of them, rejecting parts of each and possibly taking up something from each. MIM fairly clearly rejects Freud and grapples with Kristeva though I have no line on Kristeva. I am likely closest to Reich. MacKinnon's line also heavily influenced MIM and we do take up MacKinnon's opposition to the eroticization of *destructive* *bourgeois* power. But I am 100% of the opinion we can and should celebrate constructive Maoist power. Even if the eroticization of power were per se wrong we could still take up eros to smash eros. But I don't think the healthy and happy outcome is an asexual world. I am heavily influenced by MacKinnon but because I tracked her down I was able to get some clarity about her ideas.

"+i think society too has great influences on these things. [eros and sexuality]"

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism teaches that almost all of life is socially defined, socially created that we are tabula rasa at birth and that our experiences engrave us with habits. So, of course society has great influences on eros and sexuality. Cigarette companies eroticize cancer succesfully all the time, with a line "fuck, because you're going to die anyway". Imperialists eroticize guns and we can and in some cases should too. Though, I would prefer to not eroticize guns ever the imperialists leave us no choice since just to address eros we are forced to address their pimping of guns.

"Whites are sexy in a culturally westernized nation it seems. In some places here and in Africa, healthy and strong wimmin are sexier than thin angelic looking caucasian races wimmin."

Clearly imperialism eroticizes particular body types namely white, blond and overly thin to the point of anorexia. We should eroticize athleticism that is healthy we want to build the strongest people possible. The waif like easily raped girl-child is not the object and a careful examination of this ministry's eroticization will show that the eroticism is directed toward healthy persons i.e. athletic persons who are strong. A unisex and well muscled body type would be best, i.e. would lead to the most rapid progress. Ideally erotic representation will leave everyone wondering just what gender the persyn is. In this sense the emos, though imperialists, can be seen as a guide to what can be accomplished in the divorce of gender and sexuality.

"+In my opinion, all "proletarian" like humyns are hot to me, you know, muscular, strong and healthy."

Yes. Did I mention, the proletariat have the answers already but don't know for sure they do thanks to the bourgeois elitism that grinds them under? All the party in the first world really does -- all it really can do -- is try to guide and confirm the intuitions of the mighty proletariat.

"I realized that gender is realy complex, "

Yes, gender occurs on a spectrum :D It's a complex and at times beautiful world.

"all it matter is what makes you happy, either its a maan or a wimun(biologically speaking)."

Not exactly; individual happiness isn't the right goal because there are real life mass murderers who get off on that. Maybe develop your thought here and get back to me?

"*Do you have any notes on "competition" for romance partners, i mean I watched "Enemy at the gates", one soviet officer said that socialism may make everybody happy, not in the sense that it would make them happy between a girl and two rivalled boys. silly me"

Competition is a normal part of existence, at least under capitalism... and may be a healthy fact of life. We should all desire to be better people to be stronger and that Is a form of competition itself, competing against ones self. Just as there is a destructive power which kills, and a constructive power which gives life, builds houses and feeds children there is also a destructive competition that seeks to limit the opponent and a constructive competition that seeks to better one's self. We try to encourage self development, self improvement and encourage cooperation and collaboration. So we want friendly constructive competition and do not want unfriendly destructive competition.

About competing for romantic partners, isn't it healthy that people will want to be their best for the person they want to build a life with? Aren't people worth struggling for?

"+here, the boy1 gets the girl, the boy2 lost, beloved and gone depressed."

Yes, it is sad for one but it's happy for the other and part of life is learning to accept loss and go on despite loss. We all will get rejected romantically unless we have arranged marriages while we are children. What we need is to figure out ways to help people who are rejected to understand that rejection is not the end of life for indeed youth do kill themselves. MIM here has a problem because we need a Maoist proletarian psychology that will nourish and strengthen the proletariat. Instead all we have is a piece of shit bourgeois spychology designed to toss troublemakers and "deviants" into hospitals and prisons and then keep them there, preferably producing some junk for the bourgeois bloodfeast.

"This crap, i am confused. "
Rejection hurts, a lot, but isn't the end of life.

"Why are girls being competed over by men?"

Because this is what makes people be their best. Yeah, the destructive aspects of that competition suck, when one persyn threatens to kill another, or lies. But those destructive aspects can and should be brought under control by Maoism.

"This is partriarchy right. girls are even sold in Arabia, until now."
Maybe it is patriarchy but it is all we have to start from. We have socialism just about nowhere on earth today and so all we see is the ugly fucked up bourgeois reality and then we have to ask ourselves what we can build out of that and how. We won't be able to get rid of the idea of competition, but we can at least get rid of unhealthy competition.

I am glad we are going to get to see more proletariArt! :D Keep up the production! (Make your own damned art! :D

Art is Not Elite nor Individualist

Art and Elitism

A common misconception perpetrated by the bourgeoisie is that art is somehow "superior" to ordinary life. Even Mao fell victim to this, a bit, in his idea that art expresses life not just in a concentrated synoptic form but also the highest and best aspects of life. Yes, our art should inspire, and be both expert and red. However our art should also reflect life as it is, in order to expose and critique imperialism and to edify the truly productive sector, the proletarians who live almost exclusively in the Third World.

That is, the artist is not to be seen as an elite as somehow superior or above anyone. Bourgeois art often tries to make "art stars" like Andy Warhol. Maoist art will not make "art stars" because we want to unleash the creative potential of all and at every level. Andy Warhol could not write poetry. Madonna cannot act. Creating stars gives artists unrealistic views of themselves and the world.

Art is not "superior" to daily life. Art is part of daily living and art must reflect daily living. Marxism is egalitarian. The child's painting is every bit as valid as the adult's poem. Art is representation of reality and like any intellectual endeavor risks becoming a purely speculative imaginary venture for that reason.

The reason the bourgeoisie elevates some art and some artists is to reinforce the bourgeois world view, to bolster and shore up the defence mechanisms, both psychological and physical, of the world's elite rich ruling caste. Nothing doing. We do not want to make the bourgeoisie cry like an emo but they really give us no choice since they are making the proletariat bleed to make a killing on the stalk market.

Subjectivism argues there is no "good" or "bad" art. We must reject that line. There is objectively progressive art and art that is technically well done.

Relativism argues that there is no "good" or "evil". Again, we must reject that line. Survival of our species is good and extinction of our species is bad.

Subjectivism and relativism both allow the critique of the bourgeois line of superstar individualist elite art that is somehow light years beyond what the proletariat are capable of even though the proles outnumber the superstars by factors of tens or even hundreds of millions.

But, we do not make scientific progress by critiquing failure with more failure. So attacking elite art with relativism or subjectivism isn't the way to go.

We arrive at the idea of the validity of all art as an expression by egalitarianism, by recognizing the inherent worth of each person and their hunger to self develop to self express. This explains why we will censure but not censor art. We will archive bad art as notes for the future and as grist for satire. We will not expose bad art to the proletariat, they deserve far better than that. But we will not chop off the hands of the enemy classes even when they hold something as deadly as a paint brush.

That line could be critiqued as fostering individualism and liberalism. No. Artistic creation can be collective or individual. Bourgeois art is most always individual but sometimes at least collective performers are presented by individual authors. We will foster and encourage collaborative art. We will permit individual artistic expression but will channel the output in some cases shunting it off to dusty vaults of libraries access to which may be granted only on showing of good reason. We will for example present expositions of failed art, bad ideas, and "What don't we do anymore". The cathartic function of art, the healthy expression and release of unhealthy pent up tensions, can only occur through art production and art dissemination. However that dissemination impacts on whether the art functions as a catharsis or as a pathogen.

These medical terms can be criticized as more Aristotelianism, and as a false analogy. Would anyone argue that fascism is not like an illness? The fascists labelled the communists an illness but they in fact were the illness. What of catharsis? People have emotions and they need to express them to be healthy. That's what drives art. Those emotions can be expressed healthily, as when a lover puts all their energy into creating a house, a painting, a meal or unhealthily as when one goes to war for profit. Yes, Aristotle talked of Catharsis? So? We must make the old serve the new, and truth is truth regardless of who sees it or who says it.

Maoist Art is anti-capitalist and pro-letariat. It is anti-elitist and cooperative. It's something we have only seen glimpses of thanks to comrade Jiang Qing. Hold high Chiang Ching's works, study them to understand the correct line and emulate them to elevat that line in the process of displacing bourgeois individualist elitist "arte".

*The Art Ministry will use the terme "arte" for the poseur individualist elitist bourgeois trash masquerading as oh-so-fine-on-high. The Art Ministry will use the term proletArt to refer to the Art that is produced by the world's exploited majority. The Art Ministry will use the term "Kunst" to refer to bourgeois art that gets a pass. The term "art" will be used for artistic production generally speaking with no determination or indication whether that art is prolet, bourgeois, evil, or good. These definitions are subject to revision by the Chair or the Central Committee when it reconvenes.

Self Analysis versus Self Criticism

I prefer the term self analysis to self criticism as it is more accurate and less accusatory. Analysis is to break an object down into it's constituent elements. A criticism is to attack something as wrong. To criticize is "to find faults with". It is not a neutral term. Analysis is a neutral term and will result in better self examination. Also someone with proper training needs to analyze and present the therapeutic functions of self criticism and integrate that into the theory of s.c. I prefer the term self analysis.

This is a brief self analysis of my work.

A useful distinction can be made here between cardinal points and resolutions of the party congress. As far as I can see my work has never violated any party resolution. I am certain my work has never violated any a cardinal principle. In fact my work makes a point of directing attention to the labor aristocracy thesis, the anti-war struggle, the struggle for ward Churchill and the struggles against revisionism and capitalist restoration. I invite anyone to point out where my work is going against party resolutions or cardinal principles.

Notes on Art Production :D

"sorry for my whacky messages lately. i was drawing. :D"

This gives a chance to talk about art production; MIM made clear at most two years ago that front line cultural workers must be given the freedom to experiment and express without censorship. This is because all persons have thousands of experiences and are trying to express those experience to thousands, millions or even billions of people. Errors in line, even cardinal errors, are bound to pop up since no person is 100% correct 100% of the time. So the role of the party is to weed through the 100 flowers to uproot those weeds and also to nurture the flowers. ALso it is very important to help the artist to understand their line errors after the production of the work, not to stifle their production of art but to control the dissemination of their art and to use the dissemination as a reward for art that is progressive and the non-dissemination as a punishment.

The bourgeois have a tactical advantage here because they have the myth of the separation of "form" and "content". They can claim to any artist under criticism that their error is one of "form" not "substance" and that they just need to change their "form" to put out the right content (i.e. the bourgeoisie elitist individualist greed driven wargasm machine).

We in contrast must develop the ability to "make the old serve the new", to make foreign things serve the proletariat. We have a tactically tougher task because our line is strategically correct. All the imperialists little wins tactically get swept away in our big win strategically.

Our criticism should just about never be directed to "style": that would just be repeating the bourgeois bullshit "form/content" split. The medium IS the message.
Further, there are thousands of styles any of which can be used to convey the Maoist message.

A common critique of Stalinist era art is that socialist realism is somehow stultifying and limited. That critique is invalid. However, a valid critique could be made, that socialist realism became the only style.

Mao's hundred flowers campaign specifically repudiated the "one style fits all" approach and encouraged ALL forms of art. Even traditionally reactionary styles such as woodcuts and calligraphy with out-size brushes were permitted provided they carried the Maoist message. And such art did exist and can be found. Ballet, for example, is traditionally the most reactionary of arts, reinforcing the idea of fixed gender roles and in the USSR became one tool of "peaceful coexistence" of the integration of Soviet Social Imperialism into the global imperialist order. Yet, Comrade Jiang Qing (Chiang Ching) was able to use the reactionary form progressively.

For the obvious reason that the party is in an ugly security situation no form of censorship has or could have been implemented in the past year.

Your Minister's line can be criticized for being overly liberal, for being willing to tolerate most anything: "run it up the flagpole and see who salutes". However, Your Minister's pornified anti-war line is clearly gathering viewers. At some point those viewers will be able to be transformed into art producers and to take up anti-war and pro-Maoist lines. To inspire and encourage art producers is a current realizable goal of this ministry. To transform passive viewers into active Maoists (party building) is currently not possible but is a goal that could be attained, and that I think should be attained, within five years.

At that point, when we move to transforming our viewers from passive opponents fighting against imperialist wars into active supporters of Maoism then a system of censorship may be needed. My own approach, at that point, would be liberal. Just like the state tolerated "Anything but Stalin" I would argue we should tolerate in artistic production "Anything but fascism" and to actively attack fascists using art as this Ministry has been doing. That is the line I am implementing through my practice of artistic production is also the line I would want to see implemented when the security situation changes. In doubt we should not censor and censorship should consist only of "no public showings". Art of the most reactionary kind could continue to be produced by individuals but would be never shown publicly. Rather evil art would be archived in museums to be made the object of ridicule or as historical notes to future generations.

Artistically another defence of my line is that youtube has censored (removed) several videos showing dead imperialists. The imperialists cannot bear to see the truth that their wars are suicidal. However they are more vulnerable to sugar colored bullets. So the whores not wars line is tactically superior both in gathering viewers and in not being censored by the enemy.

Happy New Era

Monkey Smashes Heaven has put forward several points that merit attention:
I see no reason to disagree over any of points 1 through 8.

Lin Biao:
1) Lin Biao was accused -falsely?- of running an attempted coup.
2) Even if Lin Biao did run a coup attempt so what? Truth is truth no matter who says it.
a) Lin Biao's theory of people's war is correct. The global "countryside" can encircle the global "city".

MIM "degeneration"
The Art Ministry isn't PIRAO. I'm not and don't want or need to be aware of the level of penetration of MIM by spies or of what concession MIM has and will extract or how MIM does that.

The issue is whether and what affect spies had on MIM's line.
So it's the same question/issue as Lin Biao.
Either MIM's line is correct or it isn't, just like Lin Biao.

Gender:
MSH rightly wants to fight out gender/sex issues. These coincidentally are the places I would have attacked the MIM if I were the state. They are also not cardinal issues in MIM's line. So I still see no reason for MSH to have split from MIM. MSH whines about MIM's line on gender but has yet to develop something more coherent.

Let's look at the MIM controversial gender line then.

1) Age of consent at 14.
To me that's at worst one year too young. MSH hasn't grappled with this nor has anyone else in fact.

2) All sex is rape. (ASIR)

ASIR evolved out of "all sex is prostitution". (ASIP) I would be okay with ASIP though like I said how does one distinguish ASIP from ASIR?

Suppose MSH is correct and ASIR is incorrect? Then what, if anything, would be wrong with making porn? MSH rejects ASIR - then why is MSH not happy about sex in the Art Ministry's work?

3) Pimping/whoring for the revolution (whores not wars)

MIM explicitly said go right ahead and do that well before the Art Ministry took that line up and ran with it. MIM doesn't have a naked news network or pornotube site because your minister is wanting to reexamine these questions first.

Does MSH have a line on ASIP? On prostitution generally?
These issues were circling around the questions of Reich, Kollontai and Kristeva.

I would prefer to see these issues debated on something like the proboards or egroups/yahoo groups. I think that would lead to the quickest advance.
However MIM thought that such sites led to security risks so I have not set up an egroup/board for that.

Does MSH have a line on ASIP? Age of consent? Gay rights? Prostitution? Pimping/whoring for revolution?

Also I see no reason to call Maoism anything other than Maoism.