Stop destroying authentic culture with capitalism

Stupid.

All the greatest literature to come out of communist regimes are about how awful communism is.
Really makes you think.

Hahaha, like a fucking Marxist cares about culture.

Also, LOOK at that guy's fucking face. LOOK AT IT.

>Communism is the same thing as Marxism.

An educated lot like Veeky Forums should know better.

Yes, lets pretend they aren't extremely related to each other just to vindicate Marx's shitty fucking utopistic ideas.

"No".

Just look at those ex-soviet states, they have no national identity at all.

While France, Germany and England are thriving ';^)

Apart from Russia, none of them had major writers, philosophers and composers prior to the USSR experience.
France, Germany, England, Italy, Austria, Russia, Spain: these are all exceptions in the capitalist world, and their strong cultural tradition stem from state patronage, wich lasted centuries (just think about how many geniuses 300 years of enlightened government in Florence, from 1200 to 1500, produced).

These are now capitalist countries, but their culture was not linked to the free markets, instead it was promoted by rich conoisseurs, in spite of what the population (or even the rest of the aristocracy) wanted to read, see or listen.

Not all Marxists are communists, but most communists are Marxists.

Marxism and communism are not the same thing. It's intellectually dishonest to conflate them and unfair to Marx.

Marx barely even wrote on communism and he didn't even invent the term or the idea. He was primarily a critic of capitalism rather than a writer on communism.

Soviet literature wasn't great but the reason "anti-soviet" literature is whats popular is obviously for its political value in the West.

>Apart from Russia, none of them had major writers, philosophers and composers prior to the USSR experience.
>who are Gogol, Shevchenko, Mickiewicz etc

kys pleb

>Not all Marxists are communists, but most communists are Marxists
Agree..

>Marxism and communism aren't the same thing.
Yes, not 1:1, but lets not be ridiculous and pretend there isn't a massive (in relevant things) overlap?

>Marx barely even wrote on communism and he didn't even invent the term or the idea. He was primarily a critic of capitalism rather than a writer on communism.

>wrote a book titled COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
lol

The Communist Manifesto is Marx's most famous book, but it shouldn't be. His most important work is Das Kapital. The Communist Manifesto is a very short call for a change in political system which doesn't actually spell out any sort of communist system. All it calls for is for revolution. He wrote very little about communism.

Most Marxists aren't communists.

Doesn't exactly absolve Marxist, when they're all socialists anyway.

Trying to separate Marx from communism is retarded but so is saying

Marxism = Soviet Union

With the failure of the German revolution (i.e. what was meant to be the industrial base of operations so to speak) the Russians were forced to defend their gains and fall back on state capitalism to

1. rapidly industralise the country
2. become strong enough to defend themselves from the growing fascist power on their borders

Naturally, what with this being a unique set of circumstances that they found themselves in, they fought amongst themselves trying to figure out how to "create the conditions for socialism" all the while presiding over capitalism. Of course their economy, although under state control, still operated under the logic of capital.

Eventually what with all the original revolutionaries dead and only a sad post-WWII population remaining, totally uninterested in "leading the world revolution" the country continued to degenerate from state capitalism to plain old capitalism.

tl;dr, it was fucked from 1922ish.

>and fall back on state capitalism
dont try to subvert the narrative

>What is NEP

Reminder that marxism and capitalism both have roots in materialism which is the ultimate root of decay and nihilistic hedonism.

Are you into Jesus or something?

t. Julius Evola

evola did nothing wrong

Try actually reading some Adorno.

The confusion will remain as long as Marxism is identified as liberalism, which would be anathema to actual Marxists and socialists, but makes sense if your whole perception of the left is the New Left movement starting in the 60s, which was largely an attempt to remove all economic theory from Marx and turn him into a social critic.

Why does /pol/ pretend to read Evola. If you're going to promote an author at least have the audacity to READ him.

>white "people"
>culture

Are you stupid? That's my point.
Of all the post-communist countries only Russia had a strong cultural tradition (wich certainly doesn't go as far back as the exampled cited in the same post).

One has to acknowledge however that there are a bunch of vulgar "marxists" who are actually just progressives.

>if I haven't heard about an author they don't exist

That... is not an argument

>in modern capitalism richfags are no longer patrons of the arts
Is this the point you're trying to make? If so, could you elaborate on why that might be?

>comparing the French tradition to the Bielorussian tradition

Eh, you're dense. A tradition is not built ln individual name, and to say that Ukraine is artistically irrelevant doesn't equal saying that no relevant ukraine artist has ever existed, it just means that his existence was not propedeutic to the enactment of a national canon.

>state capitalism
You misspelled feudalism

>not propedeutic to the enactment of a national canon
christ

The fact that Marxism makes people have that quality in their face is more than enough to invalidate it for me. It's the way they look at life. So dry. It's in their architecture too. And writing.

Fucking monsters, all of them.

Lenin literally called the result of the revolution state capitalism, this isn't controversial.

Because the new aristocracy's set of values is radically different from what bourgoisie people believed in 200 years ago.
We won't ever have a new Dante or Beethoven because 99% of the possible patrons are simply not interested (and probably even appreciqte the newfound link between free market and art) and the 1% who knows better will be biased and brainwashed by contemporary academic trends, who may become irrelevant (and probably will) in 10 years from now.
True greatness required not only the artist, but the patron too, to completely overcome the world they live in and trascend every possible expectation with craft and spirit. This mindset won't ever stem from literary and music competitions, and these competitions are the only way we've got to prientate ourselves in this new artistic world (well, we've got that and our opinion, but the more jaded we become, the harder it is to trust the latter).

The focus of the thread is on society as a whole, not on individual great artists. It makes sense, in this case, to analyze what impact every artist had on his cultural tradition, and what impact had that tradition on the rest of the world. Of all the post-USSR countries only Russia was somewhat relevant. Again, remember that that was a response to this post

Neither is my remark.

palgrave.com/us/book/9780230600966

Even the merciless, iron gaze of the fascist is preferable to the creepy, cold, resentful bureaucrat-face of the Marxist.

>1An authoritarian and nationalistic system of government and social organization. = fascism (Oxford dictionary)
how isn't Commienumism fascist?

Fair enough but I would point out that the decline of patronage may actually be related to the decline of the noble class and their associated representative values and their subsequent replacement by the bourgeoisie which in itself upholds different values more akin to the no nonsense protestant work ethic.

Of course, there are exceptions like the Trumpian nouveau riche types who haven't been assimilated yet into the predominant ethic.

The new aristocracy doesn't have the same set of values because the government and leftist fags convinced them that modern art is really cool and they should fund blank canvases and menstrual spaghetti.

Fascism is a left wing ideology, but I'd say:
1. While the economy is not far from being state-run in a fascist state, it's more a form of corporatism than government control of the economy.
2. Fascism is authoritarian, but communism is totalitarian. At least people in a fascist country have some freedom, even if it's not that much freedom.

>Fascism is authoritarian, but communism is totalitarian. At least people in a fascist country have some freedom, even if it's not that much freedom.
What freedom?

>Fascism is a left-wing ideology

You at least have a market, even if it's kind of a sham.

The freedom to serve your nation and race.

>You at least have a market
I don't really know what to say to this.

did you get btfo that hard?

>how isn't Commienumism fascist?

By that definition it isn't, because communism is anti-nationalistic.

That was two Ukrainians and a potato you retard

It's a baffling answer, as if there were no markets in communism.

>I know nothing about economics or history: the post

fucking burger education i swear.

>everything becomes nationalized
>it is anti-nationalistic
?

fascism is vital, enthusiastic and heroic. communism is defined by a wretched humanity-abasing resentment, compulsive criticism, and self-policing.

But they're both authoritarian and nationalistic systems of government and social organization, thus, fascist.

The ultimate goal of communism is to have a nation-less, unified communist world.

The Soviet Union didn't celebrate the inherent greatness of its nation or culture (outside of its acceptance of communism), it celebrated that it was communist.

The ideology of communism is anti-nationalistic. It doesn't always work out that way, but it is. Nations and national idenitty are a capitalist construction to communists.

>communism is defined by a wretched humanity-abasing resentment, compulsive criticism, and self-policing.

You pretty much just described fascism as well though.

>The Soviet Union didn't celebrate the inherent greatness of its nation or culture
You must've missed out on all the SU era propaganda.

>>The Soviet Union didn't celebrate the inherent greatness of its nation or culture
>You must've missed out on all the SU era propaganda.

It celebrated it only in regards to its communism though. The underlying, at least face value ideology was that all nations could have the same level of utopia if they switched over to communism.

>The underlying, at least face value ideology was that all nations could have the same level of utopia if they switched over

Can't really be sure if we are talking about post ww2 democracies/capitalism or oligarchic socialist countries to be honest with you

>Fascism is a left wing ideology

Define "authentic culture."

Bitch please. See

Define "define" first.

Read m0re Arendt.

That's not ow you debate user.

Explain how the Soviet Union was feudal.

Better yet explain how one of the two superpowers of the 20th century who managed to rapidly industrialise, send a man into space and rival America did so with a feudal economy.

Define 'first'.

Algebraically

o i m laffin

The only book this guy has read is the fucking Communist Manifesto, where Marx uses Feudalism to describe our cultural evolution.

This is some hevy level assumptions, but if I am right, that guy is a BOURGEOISIE FAGGOT

Its more of a Jew thing really.

There is not a massive overlap, fights between marxists and non marxists have been plaguing and dividing communist movements since before the Paris commune.

You don't really wana engage with these ideas even for a fight, you just wanna keep on punching the strawman in your head.

Indeed.
>2017
>Still seeing man as a productive being

Do you even know what modern art is? Because from the top of my head, I can think of at least 4 right wing dictators who promoted modern art when it was still a thing, and your husbando Evola was quite literally involved in most early modernist movements in Italy.

>Fascism is left wing
How is fascism left wing, if they are left wing why most italian left wing personalities had to flee or be murdered during the war? Are you the retarded brazilian reactionary?

it's really shit.

>this guy was DFW before DFW existed

Mozart was the quintessential starving artist.

Don't forget Avicenna

Not really, he was fairly wealthy, but wasted most of his money on meaningless possessions, parties and alcohol.

That said he was as pro-aristocracy as it gets: he condemned the French revolution and expressed joy in his letters everytime a major esponent of democracy died (if I remember correctly he was happy about Voltaire ''dying like a dog'', this was from a letter sent to his father). Also notice that 99% of the music Mozart wrote was written to calm down German and Austrian aristocrats (and to a certain extent, himself) during the French revolution.

Beethoven was certainly more socialist than Beethoven, even if he thought that he was literally the best man in existence.

No.

>tfw people still believe in the Frankfrut School conspiracy

>poland, hungary, lithuania
>No major composers pre USSR

You should end your miserable existence t b h

>No major composers pre USSR
You literally have no more than 2 GREAT composers for poland and hungary, I don't know what composer you're thinking about when you talk about lithuania, but it may be a simple lapsus.

this.

and the still fall for the "prima philosophia" of nazi pricks

what a way to become

it's only shit if you're shit tbqh

>Beethoven was certainly more socialist than Beethoven, even if he thought that he was literally the best man in existence.
Wut

Sorry
>Beethoven was certainly more socialist than Mozart

>hungary

>Ottoman occupation
>Habsburgs
>Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
>Brief period of sovereignity
>Nazis
>Soviets

~1500-1989.
Hungary, Hungarians, and the Hungarian language has been pushed to the side by occupiers and "allies" for centuries. The Habsburgs wrestled with Hungarians over language and culture. At some point(s) in Hungarian history German was spoken by many more men and women than Hungarian in the country's capital. Even today, some Austrians doubt the ethnicity of some Hungarian "Greats" (e.g Liszt). Even under these circumstances, Hungary had an amazing, lively literary life from ~1750. It's not by chance that most of our writers' work haven't even been translated to English (for example). Our literature and culture progressed with Europe. The problem was never the quality of our arts, but the circumstances under which they were created: Cultural oppression, and the inability to fight against it.

When the Soviets came Hungarian literature began to die. While the west had freedom of expression and speech, we were mightily fucked by censorship until 1956, when we revolted, after which the Soviets realized that some gentle rape would do us good after ~10 years of DP fisting. Censorship stuck until 1989.

From what I understand, Mussolini's intellectuals is quite critical of Evola.

not only of Evola but also of how he is perceived by people in the "present".

Thanks, that's great. I didn't know Mozart was such a cool guy.

wrong
also wrong

fascism is anti-marxism read ernst nolte

That would be correct.