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.
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.
posted by Maoist Internationalist Movement at 9:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home