Forgive me if this is a silly question, but if there is one thing I have learned over the years is how important marketing is. This even includes politics as well, and the right weaponizes this to a scarily efficient degree. Politics becomes more than politics, but a form fashion itself. Think of how much of a selling point of "be one of us and you'll be cool and you'll get laid." CHUDs use.

So that leaves the question, what should we organize our optics around. What is the impression we want to leave on others?

Personally, I kind of like the Soviet aesthetic: Extremely cultured (as befitting of a largely internationalist ideology), hyper-rational, future-minded, egalitarian, hard working people. It implies that despite all the snobbery of fascists; they are the true decadents. Leftists are optimistic about the future, and know that no race or gender is superior to the other because that is simply common sense. Cuban aesthetic is nice too because of how fun and inviting the country looks too. Say what you will about cars, but there is a lovely aesthetic with the classic cars of Cuba. Also, Havana has nice paint jobs on buildings and the cars alike. (Please Hexbear create a Havana theme), especially in a world where corporations are embracing minimalism en masse, and shit like 4chan is around telling the world "conform to inoffensive conservatism or else". It's nice to see some color happily shown. If there was a way to combine the two, I would nut.

  • Awoo [she/her]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I'm not saying it's counter-revolutionary. I'm just saying it's odd to dismiss marxism as being a science on the basis of having criticism about some parts of it being ideological. Merging materialism and ideology is always going to be messy an un-exact, humans and society is going to be messy and un-exact... At least until you get to a stage where you can drill down into excruciating detail about the material sources of various aspects. That is impossible under capitalism though. The first order of business is achieving revolution. The second order of business is then the fundamental sciences of changing society.

    I assume since you refer only to Mao's China and not to modern China you do not consider them to be marxists? I'm a little confused by your use of "Maoist" here as Mao was never a Maoist and China was never Maoist, Mao was a Marxist-Leninist. Maoism comes from Shining Path.