[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble
ReturnCatalogBottom

File: 1627446371762.jpg ( 571.51 KB , 555x831 , stalin.jpg )

 No.406511[Last 50 Posts]

Half of this board is an Stalin acolyte but no one follows his actual views. He is without a doubt a traditionalist/conservative. He recriminalized homosexuality, recriminalized abortion, reversed all the women's rights laws put in by previous government, put restrictions on divorce. He hated the avant garde of the Soviet Union and built traditional buildings and had a generally traditional view of art. He would have sent postmodernists to the gulag.
>>

 No.406515

>>406511
>/leftypol/ is postmodernists
t. /pol/tard
>>

 No.406517

>>406515
It's 80% postmodernists. Usually two people in a thread will shit on the postmodernists for acting like liberals but it's rare. Just wait until the posts come in lol
>>

 No.406518

File: 1627446780878.png ( 213.65 KB , 800x450 , image_(12).png )

>He recriminalized homosexuality, recriminalized abortion, reversed all the women's rights laws
This was moderate at best during his time. You really have to go back to your "socialist safe space".
>>

 No.406519

>/leftypol/ is postmodernist
or even
>Half of this board is an Stalin acolyte
??? on what basis do you make such outlandish claims, board visitor?
>>

 No.406520

>>406518
He reversed the change that was done before him though
>>

 No.406521

>>406519
Half was wrong. It's probably 25% when I think about it
>>

 No.406522

>>406515
Yeah actually its /pol/yoid shill acting as a progressive. Sage&report.
>>

 No.406525

>>406522
You must not read many threads if you don't think at least half are postmodernists
>>

 No.406527

>>406521
even people who praise Stalin would probably also criticize him for specific policies. or do you not comprehend that degree of complexity in political ideas?
>>

 No.406528

>>406527
If you have Stalin poster on your room but you disagree with 80% of his views what are you doing
>>

 No.406529

>>406525
Can we stop this postmodernist meme and pretend this thread never happened? Its quite frustrating to say the least.
>>

 No.406530

File: 1627447022402.jpg ( 12.38 KB , 474x322 , downloadfile.jpg )

>>406525
you keep using that word
>>

 No.406535


>>406511
>He is without a doubt a traditionalist/conservative
I guess compared with people today
>>406525
>postmodernists
starting to think you are trolling now
>>

 No.406536

>>406530
>>406529
>>406530
How about views generally associated with postmodernists. Would you agree with that?
>>

 No.406537

>>406511
So his views were in line with the vast majority of the Russian populace at the time.
>>

 No.406538

>>406535
>I guess compared with people today
Compared to the people of the previous government
>starting to think you are trolling now
Do you even read the threads? Why would you think I'm trolling
>>

 No.406539

>>406536
that entirely depends on whether the views themselves are postmodernist in nature. otto von bismarck built an impressive health care system, am i a bismarckist for saying so?
>>

 No.406541

If one were to actually read Stalin instead of getting their information from bad memes, he was not some sort opponent of progressive ideals compared to most other leaders at the time, and obviously he had shortcomings also, because no one can fully know the perfect despooked policy, more so in the middle of a world war.
>>

 No.406542

File: 1627447370911.jpg ( 25.31 KB , 480x360 , 1627183363072-1.jpg )

>Half of this board is an Stalin acolyte but no one follows his actual views.
Wow, a man from the 20th fuckin' century has different views to a group of people from the 21st?! SAY IT AIN'T SO.

>He is without a doubt a traditionalist/conservative. He recriminalized homosexuality, recriminalized abortion, reversed all the women's rights laws put in by previous government, put restrictions on divorce.

Karl Marx and Engels both hated, Castro was a fan of Franco, Bakunin and Proudhon were nutorious anti-semites, Bookchin didn't have the best takes surrounding Israel and Guevara didn't view black people favourably until later on in his life. Does that mean we should outright hate them as well? Nobody's perfect, especially within the 2oth century and arguably to this day. Are you suggesting that you yourself are a beacon of human morality?

>He hated the avant garde of the Soviet Union and built traditional buildings and had a generally traditional view of art. He would have sent postmodernists to the gulag.
Sure, but what does that have to with the shit relating to the 21st century? If the Russian people want a 21st century USSR, what makes you think it'll be ANYTHING like the USSR under Stalin's leadership?

Quit being a ding-dong OP.
>>

 No.406543

>>406542
*Karl Marx and Engels both hated the slavic people thinking they were incapable of revolution
>>

 No.406548

>>406545
>Stalin wanted to Uyghur the Jews
damn imagine being the uyghur who led the army that liberated auschwitz and treblinka
>>

 No.406549

>>406539
No but if 90% of your views were bismarckian and the views themselves came from bismarckian influences I would say you were
>>

 No.406551

>>406541
Sounds like a cope to me.
>>

 No.406554

>>406542
>Wow, a man from the 20th fuckin' century has different views to a group of people from the 21st?! SAY IT AIN'T SO.
He was extremely more conservative than the previous government of his own country lol
>Are you suggesting that you yourself are a beacon of human morality?
No but Stalin didn't just have one conservative view. His entire worldview was traditional.
>like the USSR under Stalin's leadership?
My point is only for people who are extreme tankies and Stalin supporters and act like he did no wrong but then shit on conservatives while Stalin himself was more like people the tankie hates
>>

 No.406555

>>406549
meaning that you find this board to be 90% postmodernist….
because of gender equality and the gays?
wait wait and tell me that i am correct in guessing that the "views generally associated with postmodernism" simply refer to REEEE WOMEN AND FAGS REEE?
>>

 No.406556

File: 1627447768826.jpeg ( 19.22 KB , 496x451 , EDZKeSoXUAATN7r.jpeg )

>>406545
>Stalin wanted to kill all Jews
>That's why he stopped the guys that were killing all the Jews.
>>

 No.406559

>>406555
If you say the concept of good and bad isn't real you're a pomo retard. If you say nothing can be superior to something else your a pomo retard
>>

 No.406562

>>406545
Sources? I would like to know.
>>

 No.406563

File: 1627447913989.jpg ( 255.56 KB , 800x1055 , stalin3.jpg )

>>406556
Oh no no no no
>>

 No.406564

>>406559
who the fuck on this board has said these things my retarded amigo
>>

 No.406565

>>406511
>He is without a doubt a traditionalist/conservative.
If he was that he wouldn't have been a revolutionary, you absolute moron.
>He recriminalized homosexuality
No, the entire politburo did and on behalf of the NKVD.
>recriminalized abortion
Unfortunate but necessary measure for increasing birth rates at a critical time
>reversed all the women's rights laws put in by previous government
What the fuck are you talking about?
>built traditional buildings and had a generally traditional view of art.
Holy shit this guy thinks socialist realism was "traditional art" when it was a fucking denunciation of that. You need to read a book and look deeper into context before coming here and attempting to debate. I swear fucking rightoids skim a few pages on wikipedia and think they know everything about history.
>>

 No.406568

>>406566
Thanks (especially for the JSTOR)!
>>

 No.406570

>>406555
not him but the LGBTQ+ support certainly shows something leaking in
>>

 No.406572

>>406570
problem with the bourgeois lgbt movement being infested with actual postmodernism is that it poisons the well for proletarian lgbt solidarity. but that solidarity is what's needed, see.
>>

 No.406573

>>406511
Wtf I hate jewish banker communists now! OP totally changed my mind because Stalin was anti-semitic in some of his policies!
>>

 No.406574

File: 1627448228088.jpg ( 57.72 KB , 679x367 , yousayxyety.jpg )

>>406554
>He was extremely more conservative than the previous government of his own country lol
Ok? And? I'm not suggesting Stalin himself is without criticism, but to argue that MLs or "tankies" as you put it are incapable of change is stupid. Socialism itself is not a static ideology, theory informs praxis and praxis informs theory.

>No but Stalin didn't just have one conservative view. His entire worldview was traditional.
<entire worldview
By todays standards, sure. But for the people of Russia during this time that's a very one dimensional way of looking at it. Does that mean we should do away with everything positive that the USSR away as well?

>My point is only for people who are extreme tankies and Stalin supporters and act like he did no wrong but then shit on conservatives while Stalin himself was more like people the tankie hates.
And what? You're suggesting that the people on this board have a dogmatic love for Stalin and everything that he did? Sure, you get your LARPERs and fuckwits who portray trans people as "bourgoise degenerates" but to suggest that all MLs hold this view is utterly preposterous.

Again, refer to my previous comments on the other revolutionaries.
>>

 No.406576

>>406572
>proletarian lgbt solidarity
why but why is that even a thing. One minute I see people call it the opium of the masses and than the next they are talking about supporting it
>>

 No.406577

File: 1627448357399.jpg ( 67.01 KB , 855x571 , stalinart.jpg )

>>406562
>If he was that he wouldn't have been a revolutionary, you absolute moron.
Not everyone fits into perfect boxes believe it or not.
>No, the entire politburo did and on behalf of the NKVD.
In 1993, declassified Soviet documents revealed that Stalin had personally demanded the introduction of an anti-gay law, in response to a report from Yagoda about "Pederast activists" engaging in orgies and espionage activities
>Holy shit this guy thinks socialist realism was "traditional art" when it was a fucking denunciation of that. You need to read a book and look deeper into context before coming here and attempting to debate. I swear fucking rightoids skim a few pages on wikipedia and think they know everything about history.
Stalin's personal influences were traditional art on the buildings and art he produced. When he made a building he would say he wanted in the Baroque or Gothic style. Even Socialist Realism was modern traditional. This shit literally looks like a Nazi painting
>>

 No.406579

>>406574
This post is just directed towards the Stalinists who say he does no wrong
>>

 No.406580

OP is as retarded as the people he's refering to. Show some self love, hug your neck with a noose.
>>

 No.406583

File: 1627448662297-0.jpeg ( 41.43 KB , 642x478 , images (1).jpeg )

File: 1627448662297-1.jpeg ( 30.17 KB , 640x479 , images.jpeg )

Ehhh judging people from the past using actual moral standards is very wrong and retarded.
Back in 1940 the most progressive shit was allowing divorce, allowing women to work, giving human rights to black people etc, no one considered gay rights and all that shit, literally no one, you can't blame him for that,it's like judging people today using the moral standards of 2080.

Also fuck you OP Soviet architecture was pretty good.
>>

 No.406584

stalin was shit trotsky should have led the USSR
>>

 No.406588

>>406576
it's like with literally anything. there are bourgeois gays. there are petty bourgeois gays. there are proletarian gays. there are lumpen gays. the obnoxious and very gentrified liberal-bourgeois lgbt activist truck is not representative of the needs of most lgbt people and that's at least partly at fault for all the misconceptions.
>>

 No.406589

>>406583
also demonstrably false as social democrats in germany were debating legalizing "Uranian" relationships in the 1860s. enough that Engels whined about it in private letters to Marx.

Sexual relations between adults of any gender were legal per the Napoleonic Code which still existed in many countries before the Vichy government of WW2 although of course that freedom was not always protected, especially since the french colonies often used local bourgeoisie with their backward beliefs to lead in their stead
>>

 No.406592

File: 1627448903827.jpg ( 247.05 KB , 650x433 , image.jpg )

I take the Chinese view that Stalin was 70% correct, 30% incorrect.
>>

 No.406593

>>406543
That's not true actually.
>>

 No.406596

>>406591
Shittiest thread of the month. Absolutely pathetic but its American time so board quality sinks in Mariana Trench for a while.
>>

 No.406597

>>406595
what strength? physical? stalin was a manlet with testosterone deficiency leading to his "mickey mouse" voice.
intellectual? even stalinists agree that Trotsky was a better writer and orator
theoretical? stalin's perversions of lenin and marx especially socialism in one country, have been definitely trounced by the the historical reality

the only strength that Stalin had was the strength of a regressive bureaucracy. it was the only kind that mattered in the end.

>>406596
it's 12:15 AM across America right now, what are you getting at.
>>

 No.406599

File: 1627449253422.jpg ( 514.75 KB , 1600x1119 , Vasili Efanov - An Unforge….JPG )

>>406577
>Stalin's personal influences were traditional art on the buildings and art he produced […] This shit literally looks like a Nazi painting
If you don't know anything about art history. You're only looking at the form not the substance, because that's not really true by the standards of the time, as socialist realism depicted common people.

Traditional European art tended to have authoritarian themes in the sense of "superiors" and "inferiors" (or subordinates). This painting for example of Stalin greeting a worker would've been seen as radically anti-conservative at the time because Stalin is on the same level as the worker with no visible symbols of hierarchy or command.

Compare that to how Hitler was painted. He was painted as a traditional European authoritarian leader, like a king or something. Hitler posed in a similar way because the paintings were designed to reflect his authority.
>>

 No.406600

File: 1627449278439.jpeg ( 23.35 KB , 324x471 , images (2).jpeg )

>>406595
We can finally agree on something.
>>

 No.406603

File: 1627449422381-0.jpg ( 92.59 KB , 750x561 , realism.jpg )

File: 1627449422381-1.jpg ( 147.18 KB , 1038x765 , medieval.jpg )

>>406599
> because that's not really true by the standards of the time,
???
>>

 No.406607

>>406605
What? What's that? What the fuck dude you can post an image here lmao
>>

 No.406609

File: 1627449625285.jpg ( 55.69 KB , 807x900 , 2768337b303658b82aa17fea46….jpg )

>>406511
Stop soyfacing, you fucking stupid polcuck. Got high on Western propaganda about how based and trad Soviet Union was, and that Stalin was Red Hitler, and decided that it was actually a good thing. So you decided to make yourself our problem, like the dumb fuck you are.
>>

 No.406612

>>406588
I suppose I'm not as learned in the ideology, I just don't see how any progress could be made when you fully swallow an ideological poison pill like that. You take what should be the canary in the coal mine to average people and willingly subvert it into successful capitalist propaganda. Worse than that it literally culls those individuals who would have some of the highest dissatisfaction with the status quo.

all for what. Whole thing just reeks of subversion
>>

 No.406620

>>406607
It depicts death.
>>

 No.406621

File: 1627450119407-0.jpg ( 477.96 KB , 1300x1054 , 5b7ffc3015e9f94f8a294c82 (….jpg )

File: 1627450119407-1.jpg ( 412.44 KB , 1300x1035 , 5b7ffc3015e9f94f8a294c83.jpg )

File: 1627450119407-2.jpg ( 86.47 KB , 750x593 , EzIrAjCVoAIuL6H.jpg )

>>406603
The painting on the left is by Jean-François Millet who emerged after the Revolution of 1848 – a revolutionary period in Europe. He was actually pretty controversial for those paintings by the way, and it was said ''for the bourgeoisie his 'Sower' was casting the seeds of revolution" and "profoundly disturbing to the French art establishment at the time they were made."

The one you posted on the right by Pieter Bruegel was painted during the Protestant Reformation for Dutch bankers. They weren't fans of the Catholic Church – the conservatives of their day.

You just look at the form though. You don't look at the substance. It's all historical context. These two paintings of the people driving are socialist realist paintings from the 1930s and 1940s. One shows a woman driving (you see the Stalinist architecture), but she has no husband. She drives herself. This was pretty progressive at the time. In Russia? You bet it was. They also did another "version" of the painting during World War II.

The last painting here is a socialist realist painting from China. It's relatively new, within the past few years, showing a Communist Party committee in an office building in Shanghai.
>>

 No.406624

File: 1627450322081-0.jpg ( 32.72 KB , 727x545 , http___cdn.cnn.com_cnnnext….jpg )

File: 1627450322081-1.jpg ( 42.65 KB , 727x545 , http___cdn.cnn.com_cnnnext….jpg )

File: 1627450322081-2.jpg ( 53.61 KB , 727x545 , http___cdn.cnn.com_cnnnext….jpg )

>>406603
This art form is alive and well there too. 21st century socialist realism.
>>

 No.406627

>>406603
You might like this, too. They have T.V. shows featuring socialist realist paintings they're making now and how the artist painted it and everything. Go to around 9:00 when it gets epic.
>>

 No.406629

>>406621
That's irrelevant. The concept of conservative or traditionalist changes with the person. Some viewing 1950's as the ideal society to literal monke caveman as the ideal society. Something being liberal at the time wouldn't make it not traditionalist today. That's politics though for aesthetics it's can be simply the thought that the ideal art is concerned with beauty and form and that would make it traditional.
>>

 No.406630

>>406629
Okay, I suppose.

Here's one of my favorite recent Chinese paintings called "Eight Women Casting Into the River." It depicts communist partisan women going into the river during a battle with the Japanese in 1938 where they chose to drown instead of being captured.

Saying this is equivalent of Nazi art, whoever said that, is a trash statement.
>>

 No.406631

Ah, my bad. Wrong one. Here it is.
>>

 No.406638

File: 1627451319971.png ( 74.01 KB , 645x770 , 1614226177421-0.png )

>>406629
>its traditional because… because it is alright??!
>>

 No.406639

>>406638
I literally explained why it is
>>

 No.406647

File: 1627452993891.jpg ( 197.16 KB , 483x700 , vladimir-mayakovsky-1893-1….jpg )

http://www.sovlit.net/lefprogram/
< we , with all our strength, shall fight against the transfer of the working methods of the dead to today's art . We shall fight against imaginary clarity; and, because of the proximity to us of the venerable old ones, against the presentation of dusty classical truths in books, disguised as young and rejuvenating.
<Previously, we fought against praise, against praise from the bourgeois aesthetes and critics. "With indignation we pushed away from our brow the garland of cheap fame made out of bathhouse switches."50
<Now, we joyfully accept the far-from-cheap fame which follows from the contemporaneity of October.
<But we shall strike on both sides:
<-those who with the evil intention of an ideological restoration, ascribe to the old academic junk an effective role in today's world,
those who preach a classless, universal art,
<-those who replace the dialectics of a work of art with the metaphysics of prophecy and priesthood.
<-We shall strike on one side, the aesthetic side:
those who, because of ignorance arising from a specialization in only politics, pass off traditions inherited from their great-grandmothers as the will of the people,
<-those who view the extremely difficult work of art as merely their vacation recreation,
<-those who replace the inevitable dictatorship of taste with an institutional slogan of general, elementary clarity,
<-those who leave a loophole in art for idealistic outpourings about eternity and the soul.
>>

 No.406649

ITT people don't know what postmodernism is, and also take the form of art most shallowly to disingeously compare
>>

 No.406671

>>406584
Famines, gulags, and political repression would have been even worse under Trotsky. He was one of, if not the most, authoritarian Bolshevik during the Russian Revolution.

>>406621
>The last painting here is a socialist realist painting from China. It's relatively new, within the past few years, showing a Communist Party committee in an office building in Shanghai.
That painting looks kinda weird ngnl. It's a very modern-looking scene depicted in an old-fashioned art form. It's like you had a 19th-century painter paint an office stock photo found on Google Images.
>>

 No.406675

>>406649
They are nazis, they don't read books, they burn them.
>>

 No.406691

"REE YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE VIEWS OF SOMEBODY FROM LAST CENTURY OR ELSE YOU CANT SUPOPRT THEM AT ALL REEEEE"
>>

 No.406693

>>406691
Stalin is dead, anon. You cannot "support" him anymore.
>>

 No.406696

>>406511
Fucking faggot
>>

 No.406707

>>406511
Trade offer:
>You get the social conservatism spooks
<I Get aiding revolution full planning guaranteed work housing healthcare education transport utilities

Seems fair enough to me.
>>

 No.406724

File: 1627458796527.mp4 ( 146.6 KB , 256x250 , 1613349401624.mp4 )

you mad, OP?
>>

 No.406727

>Half of this board is an Stalin acolyte but no one follows his actual views.
No one here is an "acolyte" of Stalin, we just share his tendency and respect his theory, as well as his role in Soviet politics.
>He is without a doubt a traditionalist/conservative. He recriminalized homosexuality, recriminalized abortion, reversed all the women's rights laws put in by previous government, put restrictions on divorce.
That's not what traditionalism or conservatism mean. I've stated this in another thread, but the term "traditionalist" and "conservative" has become so watered down and has moved ahead with the times (just two steps back from it), that the polices laid out earlier are defining to "traditionalism", despite the overall politcal theory of the person being no such thing. If I gave you a liberal from the 50s, you'd probably think they were "traditionalist" as well. It should also be put into context that many of the more heavy handed natalists policies came in the fallout of major population loss.
>He hated the avant garde of the Soviet Union and built traditional buildings and had a generally traditional view of art.
Actually read about Soviet art at the time as opposed to just repeating memes. The building constructed were in no way traditional, and neither was the art. Soviet realism isn't traditionalist. as a traditionalist would have flat out rejected the conceptual idea behind it, that is portraying and elevating the common worker as being a rising force as opposed to being a people settling in their proper "natural" place.
>>

 No.406731

>>406577
>In 1993, declassified Soviet documents revealed that Stalin had personally demanded the introduction of an anti-gay law, in response to a report from Yagoda about "Pederast activists" engaging in orgies and espionage activities
Proof? All I've ever seen is an anti-pederast law being requested, and because at the time in Russia pederasty was conflated with homosexuality, the law effectively operated as an anti-homosexual law as well.
>Stalin's personal influences were traditional art on the buildings and art he produced. When he made a building he would say he wanted in the Baroque or Gothic style. Even Socialist Realism was modern traditional. This shit literally looks like a Nazi painting
No, it wasn't and he didn't, and that doesn't look like a Nazi painting outside of there being a woman and children. I have my own critiques of the architecture of the time, but this is garbage and not founded on anything.
>>

 No.406742

>>406545
>>406566
>>406568
>Stalin was antisemitic
>Despite literally appointing people who happened to be Jewish to government positions and being close friend with multiple communist Jews
Stalin removing Zionists is not the same as removing them because they're Jews you faggot.
>>

 No.406747

>>406724
No a dead guy who's ideology is irrelevant in the 21st century is meaningless to me
>>

 No.406749

>>406724
Also I'd be a fan of Stalin since he is a conservative so this meme doesnt really work
>>

 No.406751

>>406727
>That's not what traditionalism or conservatism mean. I've stated this in another thread, but the term "traditionalist" and "conservative" has become so watered down and has moved ahead with the times (just two steps back from it), that the polices laid out earlier are defining to "traditionalism", despite the overall politcal theory of the person being no such thing. If I gave you a liberal from the 50s, you'd probably think they were "traditionalist" as well. It should also be put into context that many of the more heavy handed natalists policies came in the fallout of major population loss.
Just because the definition is relative doesn't mean it doesn't exist
> The building constructed were in no way traditional, and neither was the art. Soviet realism isn't traditionalist. as a traditionalist would have flat
Yes they were. The baroque, gothic, classicist etc building that Stalin made were in the form of the traditional styles. Traditionalism doesn't mean just copying the past masters but innovating within that same mold of beauty + form which is where Socialist Realism comes in.
>>

 No.406757

>>406639
NTA, but you're completely wrong in what traditionalism and traditionalist art actually is. "Beauty and form" isn't even something restricted to traditionalism either, and a traditionalist would state that art is by definition something with "beauty and form", and that anything else is not art.
>>

 No.406759

>>406747
yeah, you mad
>>

 No.406764

>>406511
>He is without a doubt a traditionalist/conservative
Read literally anything by him
>>

 No.406766

>>406757
So tell me what it actually is
>>

 No.406777

>>406751
>Just because the definition is relative doesn't mean it doesn't exist
If your "traditionalism" is progressively relative, its nonsense.
>Yes they were. The baroque, gothic, classicist etc building that Stalin made were in the form of the traditional styles. Traditionalism doesn't mean just copying the past masters but innovating within that same mold of beauty + form which is where Socialist Realism comes in.
That's not what socialist realism is though fag, socialist realism isn't about beauty + form, but rather the is concerned with the message behind the art which itself is more fixated with an optimistic presentation of workers as opposed to beauty itself. And there was no singular piece of architecture which defined the architecture under Stalin, and Stalin had little input on the actual design process. Architecture under Stalin varied from architects building things which were inspired by the past but eclectic, and more simple modern designs.
>>

 No.406790

>>406766
Which is, traditionalism or art under Stalin?
>>

 No.406792

>>406777
It's not nonsense. Is the definition supposed to give us an objective time period? People have different ideas of what counts as traditional.
>socialist realism isn't about beauty + form,
It is though. Notice they didn't make avant garde paintings even though it was popular in the country
>>

 No.406809

>>406790
Traditionalism
>>

 No.406810

>>406792
>It's not nonsense. Is the definition supposed to give us an objective time period? People have different ideas of what counts as traditional.
So how is Stalin a traditionalist in the context of the time period he is in then? If you want to argue he regresses, then he merely regresses to the same level the rest of the world is at, and not to any state prior.
>It is though. Notice they didn't make avant garde paintings even though it was popular in the country
Not the same thing. As someone who likes soviet avant garde art, not having avant garde art is not the same as fixating entirely on beauty and form as what is defining of art. Avant garde is itself contextual.
>>

 No.406812

>>406810
By preferring to make his buildings in the style of 400 year old architecture instead of architecture of the time
>>

 No.406823

Where the great libs of the time pro gay/woman or whatever? I never really got this point of stalin being a social conservative when he let women into the red army anyways.
>>

 No.406825

>>406823
IDRK about that. All I know is that soviets are pro-women and gayism is banned again under him.
>>

 No.406829

>>406809
Just look up Traditionalist Conservatism
>>

 No.406830

>>406812
Stalin was a politician, not an architect
>>

 No.406833

>>406830
A politician who told architects to make buildings
>>

 No.406835

>>406829
I've read all the traditionalist conservatives. They all have different ideas of what counts as tradition. You seem very sure of yourself so feel free to enlighten me and tell me what counts as tradition and what doesn't
>>

 No.406839

>>406833
Surely you have a document or two that backs that up
>>

 No.406842

>>406839
Why would you even post if you know nothing about Stalin and his buildings
>>

 No.406843

>>406812
>By preferring to make his buildings in the style of 400 year old architecture instead of architecture of the time
That wouldn't make him a traditionalist though. When you call someone a traditionalist, you are calling them wholly a traditionalist, not somebody who happened to let his countries architects eclectically smash together a bunch of western architecture. Let me ask you this, lets imagine for a second some liberal president after Biden commissions the creation of another building in the capital, and that building is going to be made in some kind of classical style. Because of that build, would they then be a traditionalist wholesale?
>>

 No.406844

He did these things in order to stop pusbback from the mostly orthodox population as he implemented economic planning
>>

 No.406846

>>406842
Now he's also built them? Damn, a man of many talents. You got a source for that though?
>>

 No.406847

>>406835
>I've read all the traditionalist conservatives. They all have different ideas of what counts as tradition. You seem very sure of yourself so feel free to enlighten me and tell me what counts as tradition and what doesn't
This wasn't about tradition, this was about traditionalists. Those may sound related, but they rather aren't.
>>

 No.406849

>>406843
Traditionalist in art and politics are different terms but even then he would probably still count because he sent gays to the gulag and made abortion illegal
>>

 No.406851

>>406846
https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-fresh-perspectives/a1443-stalin-as-an-architect-shivangi-agarwal/

Do you think these guys just built all these buildings on their own accord?
>>

 No.406853

>>406847
?? Are you retarded. They are related.On the wikipedia page

"Traditionalist conservatism places a strong emphasis on the notions of custom, convention, and tradition."

Can you please enlighten me and just explain this all to me because you seem to have such a good understanding
>>

 No.406854

>>406849
Stalin sent them all personally or the law was part of the democratically created criminal codex?
The punishment for sodomy was just prison, though, people only went to gulag for rape.
>>

 No.406856

>>406849
>Traditionalist in art and politics are different terms but even then he would probably still count because he sent gays to the gulag and made abortion illegal
How is that traditionalist though in the context of the time? We aren't talking about a world or even an Eastern Europe which is exactly on board with either of those things in the present time which Stalin was in. In term of politcal ideology, Stalin is not a traditionalist (for obvious reasons). In terms of the social views of the time, Stalin is not a traditionalist if you want to just use it to mean traditional views. At no point is Stalin a traditionalist. If you want to critique him as falling to the status quo of the time and not progressing further, fine, but that isn't the same as being a traditionalist.
>>

 No.406857

>>406856
Have you been diagnosed with autism
>>

 No.406860

>>406853
What I mean is that the use of tradition does not a traditionalist make. A traditionalist utilizes what they see as tradition, but not everyone who uses tradition is a traditionalist. A traditionalist is more then just someone who likes tradition.
>>

 No.406861

>>406851
Cool sauce

>considered the chief architect of totalitarianism
Now that's real architecture.
The article doesn't explain what his actual involvement with soviet architecture was and talks as if he literally controlled every aspect of building the union. Usual lib shit.

>Do you think these guys just built all these buildings on their own accord?
USSR had enormous organizations in charge of building shit, and "these guys" were members.
>>

 No.406864

>>406860
Yes understood but the traditionalist will still have his worldview framed through some period of time. Obviously there is no objective definition hence it's relative.
>>

 No.406865

>>406857
>Have you been diagnosed with autism
No. Obsessively compulsive? Admittedly, but my point still stand. Calling Stalin a traditionalist neglects the broader context which makes him no such thing. Even if he's a communist who took two steps back in your view, that still leaves him as not a traditionalist
>>

 No.406867

>>406861
I never said he controlled every aspect you dumb uyghur. He just told them to build in the traditional style hence them being built in the traditional style and winning Stalin Prize for it
>>

 No.406868

>>406865
Obviously no one here actually thinks Stalin is a Christian traditionalist who wants to bring back the monarchy.
>>

 No.406869

>>406864
>Yes understood but the traditionalist will still have his worldview framed through some period of time. Obviously there is no objective definition hence it's relative.
You can set some objective criteria for the framework. Even in terms of how you "define" it then, how exactly is Stalin a traditionalist contextually? There's nothing I can see that would have him be such in the context of his time.
>>

 No.406870

>>406867
>I never said he controlled every aspect
The article you linked did
>He just told them to build in the traditional style
If he did then surely you have a document proving that.
>>

 No.406872

>>406870
Answer this question you think all the buildings in the USSR were built in the traditional style without the go ahead from Stalin. He has no decision in all the buildings being made in the traditional style and he gave them prizes in closed competitions without telling them the build in the style. This is what you are implying correct?
>>

 No.406873

>>406868
>Obviously no one here actually thinks Stalin is a Christian traditionalist who wants to bring back the monarchy.
The issue here is that that was literally what constituted being a "traditionalist" (as you use it) in the 1940s, because the monarchy and its religious culture was literally what defined the vast majority of "tradition" up to the creation of the USSR
>>

 No.406874

>>406869
We aren't talking about Stalin anymore. You said you have the objective definition of Traditionalism and it's been 5 posts now and you haven't provided it.
>>

 No.406877

>>406874
>You said you have the objective definition of Traditionalism and it's been 5 posts now and you haven't provided it.
But I literally did? I referred back to the actual political ideology.
>>

 No.406887

REVTVRN TV TRVDITVION
>>

 No.406888

>>406872
>all the buildings in the USSR were built in the traditional style
They weren't in the first place, they were built in a variety of styles, most of which wouldn't even count as "traditional" in Russia.
>without the go ahead from Stalin
He was the general secretary of the party, not minister of architecture or construction, yeah this wasn't under his jurisdiction. The prizes being given is the closest his personal taste could be influencing the architects but even then they would have to guess what kinda shit he'd like and majority of buildings weren't designed with prize in mind anyway.

I get that you like the era's style (I do as well) but there's no reason to both classify it as "trad" and attribute it to tastes of a single guy, it reflects the taste and aspirations of the whole of soviet society of that time.
>>

 No.406896

File: 1627467183484.png ( 39.33 KB , 813x853 , soyus goyus.png )

WAOW SAGED?????? THIS IS HOW MUCHJ THE LEFT CAN TAKER CRITICISM AT THEIR IDOLS!!!!!!!!1111111111
>>

 No.406899

"Staling was based and trad" isn't exactly criticism.
Just factually wrong, not to mention projecting contemporary culture war on a history figure.
>>

 No.408061

>>406899
he was "trad" as compared to the developed country portrayal of the Marxist archetype. The criticism is that the 21st century Marxists have been infiltrated by clear subversives and preach progressivism over Marxism.
>>

 No.408983

>>406896
It was saged because the OP's post history was just bad-faith shitposting and so was the OP, but the thread had already become half-decent so deleting wasn't appropriate. Nothing to do with the topic itsef.

Unique IPs: 30
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome