Is every work of popular post-1945 western art widely adored specifically because of its anti-communism? (long)
Is every work of popular post-1945 western art widely adored specifically because of its anti-communism? (long)
Yesterday I made the mistake of watching random comedians on youtube. One guy I saw had an audience of thousands of people in Australia, and he told nothing except painfully racist anti-China jokes. (Yes, it might have been the algorithm being like: "You like China? Well, howabout a comedian advocating genocide on China?") Everyone on hexbear knows that this is typical for comedians because the audiences at comedy shows tend to be drunk bourgeois scum, etc., etc.
But it's not just comedy. How many movies have you seen or books have you read where any of the characters, at any point, says something incredibly basic like: "capitalism bad, communism good." I'm not even sure Soviet or Chinese movies go that far (with the notable exception of Eisenstein's films...which were made before 1945). Plenty of works of art might imply that there is something corrupt about the military, police, or the powers-that-be, but they will never say that the system is the problem and that a better system exists. One very rare exception I can think of is The Battle of Algiers.
Also think about the dogshit novels Americans have to read in school: Animal Farm or To Kill A Mockingbird. The moral of both stories is basically: "Opposing the system is futile. Accept the system." Nabokov is hailed as the greatest novelist of the latter half of the 20th century, but he's basically a highbrow version of Ayn Rand, and repeatedly condemns communism by name in his books. We also know that the CIA had (and has) its fingers in every pie, and that the PMC also knows that it's not allowed to "get political," i.e., provide context. Even when it comes to classical Russian literature, Dostoevsky is probably the most popular in the USA, and the guy is a reactionary Christian monarchist who recycles the openings to his novels and is apparently nowhere near as popular in Russia.
I've just also been thinking about the greatest works of Statesian literature, how they are few and far between, how they were all written before 1945, and how they rarely were recognized for their greatness until long after their authors were dead. Steinbeck is one exception. The Grapes of Wrath is great (it was also written before 1945), but doesn't advocate for a better system. Poe and Melville are as good as the best writers from any other country, and Melville specifically inveighs against colonialism in his earlier novels, but both of these dudes were dead before they were recognized as titans. (Melville enjoyed some early success but then faded into obscurity long before he finished Moby Dick.) Are any post-1945 Statesian writers as good as Poe or Melville? Maybe just Octavia Butler, who was dead before she was a household name AFAIK. She advocates for communism in Parable of the Sower, but has to hide it behind mystical language ("God is change"). Sorry To Bother You is one possible cinematic exception, but it never goes beyond saying that the system sucks.
I'm wrapping up a trilogy of novels at the moment, and they are blatantly pro-communist, and I'm just preparing myself for the fact that they are almost certainly not going to be a success, not just because of the numbers involved (millions of books published every year), but because of the passionate anti-communism in western countries. These books don't have people saying "capitalism bad, communism good." But they do have workers and peasants forming Soviets (even though they aren't called Soviets), and I know from experience that even if as a writer you never turn to the camera and say "capitalism bad, communism good," readers will still pick up on the fact that something is wrong, from a capitalist perspective—that workers aren't capable of doing anything on our own, we need guidance from our enlightened masters, "human nature" is futile to oppose. I think there's just a dialectical materialist style of writing that liberals and fascists pick up on without necessarily knowing that they're picking up on it (because they spend their entire lives asleep).
Also I thought about this because I just saw and liked Trumbo, even though I was like: the blacklist never ended lol, where is my biopic about Paul Robeson, a Black colossus who never backed down from praising Stalin? Even if your job is dog shit picker upper (which I have done), you’ll lose that job if you praise Stalin.
And yes, this is a Arby's.
You're viewing a single thread.
dogs hit novels like To Kill A Mockingbird
Man, what is it with this site?
The moral of [To Kill A Mockingbird] is basically: "Opposing the system is futile. Accept the system.”
If Marx didn't write it, I didn't read it.
Did I upset hexbear’s Harper Lee stans?
I think maybe you need to reconsider your interpretation of To Kill A Mockingbird.
How so?
The book is specifically about the exact opposite: Scout learns over and over that The System (the prevailing culture in America) is shit, and learns to look outside of it. She learns the "creepy weirdo" who lives next door is actually just a mentally ill man who was forced into being a hermit by the culture around her. She regularly hangs out with the ex-slave community in her town and treats them better than the adults do. She watches her father fight for the rights of a falsely accused black man.
Like no, it's not a revolutionary book by any means. Atticus doesn't go full John Brown on the jail to break Tom out, and yes the Finches do have a black housekeeper - shit ain't perfect by any means. But it isn't a book about how we must all accept the system.
Why on Earth would you think a novel about a Black man being wrongfully convicted and ultimately killed is an endorsement of passivity within the system, rather than a damning indictment of that system?
It’s a white savior novel, and the white savior doesn’t even succeed. It seems more like a medieval Christian folk tale with a martyrdom complex to me.
It’s a white savior novel, and the white savior doesn’t even succeed.
That doesn't make any sense. At this point I'm starting to think you're just determined to hate it for some reason.
The white savior attempts to save the helpless Black man, and fails, and we're still supposed to cheer for that, because Atticus followed the rules and was polite and still failed. I also just think the book is super suspicious because it's one of the few books most Americans have read (I believe), only because all of us are forced to read it in school.
we're still supposed to cheer for that, because Atticus followed the rules and was polite and still failed.
That's the whole point.
That's why the inhumanly competent Atticus lost, but the prison guards shot Tom in the back anyway; nothing that Atticus or Tom could do within the confines of the system was ever capable of changing the outcome.
So the book is afro-pessismist but from a white perspective, that's actaully hilarious
lmao no wonder I disliked the book so much when I read it in high school
But can you not see how lib that is? Where is the character who says "oh yeah, this happened because amerikkka is built on slavery and genocide, we should all therefore band together to destroy it." CPUSA was active in Alabama at the time the novel takes place (according to Hammer and Hoe) but you'd never know it from reading To Kill A Mockingbird.
No, I don't see how lib a books whose main point is "working within lib institutions is futile because their rules are just a pretext to for the oppressing class to wield power against the oppressed class" is.
Yes, looking directly into the camera and telling the reader to destroy capitalism would be funny, for actual propaganda value, it's best left to let the reader draw that conclusion themselves.
The white savior attempts to save the helpless Black man, and fails, and we're still supposed to cheer for that, because Atticus followed the rules and was polite and still failed.
The lawyer defended his client, and did a really good job of it, but his client was convicted and killed anyway because of how horribly racist the system is. The whole story is about people suffering injustice due to the broken society of the depression era south. Atticus is present as trying to behave nobly in the face of this system but ultimately is unable to change it.
Man, the book is set in a realistic 1920s Alabama. The entire point of Atticus and the entire trial is that Tom Robinson was falsely accused of miscegenation and SA, and that the whole town is too racist to care, except for a lawyer willing to defend a client the town is willing to lynch. It exists both to show Scout that racism is bad (not a common idea in fucking early 1900s Alabama, let alone 1960 when the book was published), and to be a frank depiction of how godawful America was in the 20s, published when America was equally awful (60s).
I don't even recall the book having Atticus use white saviour language regarding the case. He takes it because he sincerely believes in what would pass for equality in that era. What the fuck were you looking for, him to start going John Wick on the town for being racist? Is any white lawyer who works for a black client a white saviour?
What the fuck were you looking for, him to start going John Wick on the town for being racist?
yes lol the book would have been so much better then.
But that's not what happened and the book is meant to be autobiographical, a reflection of the authors actual lived experience. Yes a alt-history story where Atticus becomes a communist guerrilla may have been cooler but Harper was trying to paint an accurate picture of what life in the depression south was like.
I love how all the responses you're getting boil down to "don't you know this book was radical in 1920"
It's like, ok and? Today it's a shitty book that let's white people think their smart for figuring out racism is bad
I thought the book was lackluster and defeatist when I read it in high school because I'm not white and easily impressed by every racism bad take made 75 years ago
lmao I still remember how bummed our white high school English teacher got because nobody in a majority non-white class in the year 2012 was super electrified for a book about a little white girl figuring out racism is bad
Atticus isn't a savior, in fact the book makes it pretty clear he's just doing his job. He's just really good at his job. He does have noble attributes but he's not on a crusade to save the lowly Blackman, he was assigned to defend his client and he did his job.
Harper Lee only wrote one book (well okay two kinda, but, eh) so I don't see many people stanning her as an author, the work should be considered divorced from the author regardless.
to really upset them bring up the "sequel" (first draft) that got published via elderly abuse
Written before her only other published novel, the Pulitzer Prize-winning To Kill a Mockingbird (1960), Go Set a Watchman was initially promoted as a sequel by its publishers. It is now accepted that it was a first draft of To Kill a Mockingbird, with many passages in that book being used again.
Not all us hexbears are white, so autobiographical books about little white girls discovering racism is bad just doesn't hit as hard
lmao that was a mistake my old English teacher made when she made a class of literally only black and hispanic kids read it, everyone including me, really did not fuck with that book
This is valid, and nobody’s saying OP has to like the book. But the main reason people are arguing with OP in the comments below is because he was incorrect about the themes and intent of the book, which is not the same thing as just disliking it