...Wew

Well that was expected.

what the fuck

It was an expression of the right-wing tendencies in Marxism-Leninism. The good stuff was the early avant-garde shit.

Attached: 1925_—_El_Lissitzky_—_Poun_99.jpg (1658x1658 361.51 KB, 424.35K)

everything must be in its right place.

shit I might be a conservative

have you considered that a study of "liberals" vs "conservatives," IE, two different aesthetic flavors of fascism, will not yield useful material for analysis of art under actual socialism?

What do you imagine socialist art to be like? Not the socialist realist trash, right?

Kill yourself petty booj sophist.
Socialist realism was and is fantastic. If you don't like it, you don't like socialism.
Marxists are dialectical materialists. We must uphold a materialist outlook in all areas including art. Of course there is room for abstraction and art communicating in abstractions, but we need Marxist materialist, scientific abstractions, which sets limits on abstraction– it needs to have real content. The "avant garde" CIA-funded mindfucks of the past century are absolutely empty trash. There was certainly good abstract art produced during the whole history of the USSR (even state sanctioned under Stalin!), but overbearing abstraction opens the door to idealism, and good abstractions are not somehow superior to good realism.

Attached: 6a00d83451c29169e2014e5f869706970c.jpg (774x809, 116.73K)

I remember there was also a study that showed that toddlers who were more afraid of harm and more strongly reacted to pain were far more likely to end up being conservatives as adults.

It just goes to show the underlying psychology behind the majority of right-wing brains is that of a weak child who wants a big, strong father figure to protect them from danger, real or imagined.

The biggest issue with these studies is the political broad-stroking with the categorization. I don't believe for one second that the psychology of SJW anarchists is the same as the often actually reactionary third world talkies, or that libertarians have a similar psychology to textbook fascists, pipeline aside.

essentialism of the brain is fine but you have to also remember nogs and other poc not only have less voluminous brains, but less convoluted brains as well

science bitch

Its a first worldist illness. The scariest thing is that you people don't realize this is not out of the ordinary, this is just the true nature of first-worldists.

This implies trying to reproduce reality? Bullshit. There is nothing in matter that suggests realism over any other style.
And how are we going to achieve this without opening the door for all abstraction? Who is to decide which abstractions are scientific and which not?
Fully agree. As is much of socialist realism.

Materialism has absolutely nothing to do with artistic realism.

do schizophrenics exist outside the first world?

I live in an Eastern European shithole and I used to visit the local asylum for my practice where I've met a few schizos, one of them was even still a university professor even though he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

There have always been psychotics. This isn't a first-world thing.

It implies trying to approximate absolute truth via abstractions. Realistic paintings are of course still abstracted, just with closer visual approximation to the reality we perceive. Socialist realism is not just any visual realism, it's realism in social depictions. Even highly visually abstracted socialist art should be realistic in the message it sends.

Given the immense quantity of objectively empty abstract art, which any layman or serious Marxist critic can look at and immediately understand conveys nothing, how can you seriously say that?

That's literally what scientists do. As Marxist social scientists, it's our job. If some jackoff wants to paint squares, he can do it on his own time and get the fuck out of the people's art galleries. Or go where he belongs, making graphic designs and layouts.

Lol you're slipping. Now it's "much" of socialist realism. This is totally pointless now, you could complain this way about all art that's ever been made.

Read Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/

No it doesn't, materialism isn't realism, they aren't related, this is stupid. You're engaging in some kind of autistic iconoclasm and it's embarrassing.

lmao not an argument

My uncle is schizophrenic and he lives in a third world country.

You don't have an argument either. Do you intend to ban non-fiction literature because it isn't in alignment with your autistic conception of artistic materialism?

fiction literature*

dark times indeed

Why burn books when you can just recycle them?

Now you're just pulling accusations out of your ass. Fuck off.

I'm just showing how stupid your opinion is.

No, you're a meme-addled shitposter with no reading comprehension, who needs to take a break and read a fucking book.

Won't be any left to read after you're done burning them.

Reading comprehension bud. You'll never be of any use to the revolution if you act like a child.

What? No.

In as far as that description is adequate, it's common to both idealism and materialism, so I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore.
Why is visual reality outside of the artistic material something we should approximate though? This seems absolutely arbitrary to me. The material has a visual reality of its own. Materialism seems to suggest that we start with that. Then we can begin to experiment with correspondence to other visual realities, but the nature of this correspondence should not naively be "make it correspond as perfectly as possible." That would mean you are getting stuck in the ideal of realism, which is very different from materialism.
I thoroughly disagree. Often you will have to break with realistic depiction exactly for onlookers to experience it in a new way, for example.
I just wanted to acknowledge that some socialist realist may have created something of value in spite of the propagandistic nature of the movement, as well as the fact that much of the western art tradition is pretty shit too. Not all avant-garde movements have been useless though.

so what art is great in your opinion

The absolute truth that scientific abstractions approximate is our material reality. Idealist absolute truth is the truth of some idea either in people's minds or some spirit.

Where did I ever say "should?"

What is a "visual reality of its own?" This seems like nonsense to me.

This is again totally arbitrary, realism has never meant and never can be a complete clone of our material reality.

All art movements are propagandistic.

Never said so.

ayo, thread derailers stfu.
Centerist DC comic nerds get a sentence of 9 - 36 months reeducation camp

Attached: BANEforyou.png (690x644 103.5 KB, 96.83K)

How many times will I read some shit along the lines of
It’s almost as annoying as fascists who “hate capitalism” but when asked what they dislike about capitalism they screech about capitalism “reducing people to numbers” or people consuming things they don’t personally (see Cultured Thug on Youtube), all while supporting private property and not even knowing the contradictions of capitalism. To these retards know black people on TV and some government intervention = non-capitalism

Like I said, I like the early constructivist stuff.

To me materialism has a slightly different meaning. It isn't a faith in material reality independent of the human being, but an understanding that human beings actually interact with the world. Scientific abstractions thus only approximate material reality in a way that's concretely useful for human beings. Forgetting that returns you to idealism, since you assert that there is a way to know material reality that isn't mediated by your material existence.
A canvas has a concrete appearance. This is the visual reality of a painting. The task of an artist is to work this appearance. Whether he chooses herein to make a reference to an outside reality is his secondary concern. He'll likely be forced to if he wants it to be an interesting painting to look at (although purely focusing on the process of painting is also an interesting experiment), but the exact relation between this picture and outside material reality is still open. Materialism offers no imperative here to copy outside reality as closely as possible.
My comment wasn't meant to give a universal purpose art should pursue, just one mechanism by which diverting from realistic depiction may help onlookers understand reality.
Wikipedia defines realism as "generally the attempt to represent subject matter truthfully, without artificiality and avoiding artistic conventions, or implausible, exotic, and supernatural elements." By excluding the element of artificiality, it denies materialism. A materialist understanding of the world involves the mediation through the human laborer. Trying to exclude this is pure idealism.
This applies both on a stylistic and a narrative level. Hiding the awareness that an ideological agent has created the picture, and presenting it as purely realistic, is an idealist lie.

Centerist fence-sitters like this are just unradicalised nazbols. Mentally deffecient (nazbol) and weak willed (lite).
>nazbol-lite or just a liberal
Their kind have not adapted well to the internet see figure 1

Attached: 5245dc346dc490ad021fdc9cd4b936b05e5b06e9155583326a6bf2561a079767.png (1209x309, 90.8K)

*will not implying that they will come across pic related and think >ayo left=right yo

In this respect, Marxist materialism is the understanding that the material reality determines consciousness, and that consciousness doesn't determine reality. So no, it's not "independent of the human being," it's precisely that the human being both depends on it, is part of it, and as a result, also determines it in turn. Some examples of the material determining consciousness include evolution leading to the existence of consciousness, consciousness itself being a material phenomenon (electrical patterns in the brain, etc), individual consciousness being heavily shaped by society aside from plain genetics, and social consciousness being determined by the mode and conditions of production. Again, please at least read Lenin on this topic:
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/
Marx and Engels as well of course.

Again, this just seems like empty rhetoric, and as I've said, materialism does not necessitate "realism" or "verisimilitude" in every aspect. You talk like the paintings each contain a parallel world like Super Mario 64 or something. And this can get incredibly arbitrary, "Whether he chooses herein to make a reference to an outside reality is his secondary concern." I mean, even the most worthless canvas consisting of a single color can't escape the fact that the color that's painted on it is a result of natural phenomenon. So the problem is the idea it espouses.

Don't cite Wikipedia, it's bourgeois.

The first one is really cool

Congrats your a Red-Moralist

Yes.

Attached: Freimaurer Frankfurt am Main FFM Rotschild steht ffentlich zur Satananbetung.mp4 (320x240, 1.76M)

I didn't know TPB is still going, I find it impossible to torrent shit these days.

Max SE 36
Literally nothing.

There's conspiracies all over the internet what else is new?

>Since 2012 I'm getting from the fREEEmasoooooon… secret societies and also the freemason media – ARD, ZDF (Germany's public TV), SAT1, Pro7, RTL (private TV channels), and so oon, Spiegel, Stern (weekly mags) and BILD-Zeitung (daily newspaper like the British SUN) *breathes* bullied and harassed every minute. All this ESTABLISHMENT operates massive SACRIFICE cult shpiritism, oh-ccult-ism, and plaguesh me un-deshcribably. I beg everyone who hears this to IM-ME-DIATELY go to my pages in HAUSDAVID.WORDPRESS.COM and inform themselves!!
Very interesting. According to his blog, there are evil people out there who are looking inside his butthole whenever he poops ("mir ins Arschloch sehen beim Kacken"). Evil people reading this, stop doing that >:(