I felt the same way. I would liken it to the author technically living in the same city, but they were describing the other side of it and mistaking their small sphere and local description for the rest of us in that city. Their idea of the art world was similar yet very foreign. A few proverbial landmarks could be seen from both our relative places, but they lost me with their inaccuracies so their critiques and conclusions didn’t land.

Art has already been industrialized. Content, which is the only thing AI can make, is not all of art. Art and the creative fields are part of an evolutionary survival strategy to impart experiences to others. If you’ve ever wondered why the Greeks had only two genres, Drama and Tragedy, it is because Drama was about helping people navigate the world, and tragedy was a warning of what not to do and why. So if class consciousness will help people the most, then the most substantial form of art will pass that experience along (e.g., Social Realism). Modern narratives are mainly content—and we can see that they are unsubstantial because they are “just entertainment” (Fun fact: American films had their right to free speech revoked in 1952 for this reason). They exist for profit. Art is much more than that, and if art helps us, the working class, better navigate life with experiences we don’t yet have, I would argue such art is inherently revolutionary. That is why the ruling class can’t make new stories; they only make entertainment and content, lest they risk imparting valuable lessons to the working class. And yes, this is a summed-up version of a fascinating thread of soviet art philosophy but one that the author of that article has either never encountered or has a more limited audience (i.e. western lib artists) the article is applying to than let on in the preamble.

Beautiful!

In addition to the other responses, we don’t have much nuance in our political conversations. Partially because we hear the same thing repeatedly but also because other views don’t break into our bubble that often. It ends up framing everything much more like a script to be followed. If you’re challenging the “left-wing” candidate, you must be doing so from the stance of someone who supports the right-wing candidate. That’s the script. And very often, those roles come with baggage (eg, ‘trump supporter’, ‘misogynist’, etc.). So because you have put yourself in one of those roles/boxes, the script in their mind is being followed, and you’ve taken on that baggage.

You can see this in our media discussions as well. Who likes what movies, franchises, why, etc. Many people are unaware that they are acting this prescriptively, so we often talk past each other and rarely act in as good of faith as we think we are engaging in. Neo-liberalism is built on flexible word choices, slogans, and terms without meaning. This results in a lot of reverse terminology, empty words, and a clinging of identity and labels around more solid terms. The latter has the effect of simplifying people and positions into boxes that result in script-like behavior due to regurgitating known responses and interactions with people in that label over there. The implication that you might not fit that label demands an immediate and intense examination of the subject matter in a few seconds or risk not appearing smart/moral/etc. So not only is that a threat to their image, but it’s a lot of internal pressure in a short time—hince the response you got from them was very reflexive and combative.

“We lost the war politically but not casualties.” How to tell people you’ve never read Clausewitz.

Oh this takes me back. We used to play everyday before school. Its a classic

No DEI in games is how you get unmodded Rome 2. I ain’t going back to that!

;)

In addition to what others have said, liability is also a factor. If you don’t work out, it’s because you somehow lied about being able to do the job and not that their training was inadequate or that they failed to prepare/equip you. Additionally, less training is required theoretically, which means less cost on the investment of a new employee. Less risk overall for presumably better results.

Lack of experience also means they have deniability not to hire someone. I’ve had interviews go south immediately when the interviewer realized I was LGBTQ+ (stealth fail), but their stated reason was that I didn’t have enough experience with MacOS. I’ve done volunteer work in my field for the UN using MacOS, but alas, I was “too inexperienced”. The higher the requirements, the safer those sorts of dismissals are for them to make.

But then they couldn’t blame the humanitarian crisis on Yemen rebels when it fails to materialize.

It would have been nice if they had kept the axii in the same order between the charts

Isn’t this the plot of A CHRISTMAS CAROL?

It’s not weird at all. In fact, I’d argue it is very healthy.

Stories are our way of transferring human experience from one to another. Our brains intentionally blur fiction and reality to facilitate this transfer regularly. While not a positive example, you can see it in action when fictional representations of, say, trans people are only informed by the media consumed due to the lack of other experiences to draw on. Once an experience/story is no longer relevant or helpful, we forget it. When you read a forgettable story, that’s exactly what happened.

To categorize them in the way of the Ancient Greeks, Tragedies are cautionary tales, and Dramas are explorative/navigational—meaning they primarily help us navigate the comprehensive options of situations.

Looking at the stories themselves, we can see their structure parallels that of proper arguments.

One-act stories are a thesis—they answer a single question Three-act stories are a thesis, countered by an antithesis, and then the synthesis/conclusion. Five-act stories are more based on Marxist thought—a thesis that examines the contrast, contradiction, and possibly the negation of the negative before forming its synthesis.

Long story short, what is a story beat but elaborate dressing for points A, B, and C, leading us to the next logical point and its reasoning? It’s an illusion and allegory of crashing emotions, symbols, and situations for our subconscious to process the same way it does all our experiences. Memory itself is a story we are retelling ourselves.

And that’s underlying all stories that at least have some structure holding them up. Of course, it’s going to affect you. And it should.

I’ve taken a morbid interest in watching the drama of the Kaldorei/Night Elves story unfold and the drama erupting from it. For some in the Imperial core, it’s the first thought they’ve ever given thought to the complications and effects of colonization and genocide on a people. Is it anywhere near enough? Oh, hell no. But the capitalists’ need to sell [edgy] stories at least is breaking the veneer of silence civility of not talking about hard issues. And they’ll keep having to push that line to make money. And as they do, more voices that generally get glossed over will slip through in the trend-chasing. And now and again, we might get a comrade’s allegorical voice (see some of the classics like A CHRISTMAS STORY). Contradictions exist in storytelling, too, and it plays out the same way as it does in other areas. It will affect you like everyone else because you are digesting it like everyone else. We communists, arguably more so because we can see most of it as the junk food it is—and trying to enjoy the odd bit of nutrients that slip through capitalism/liberalism’s processing. But these imagined yet shared common experiences are also what will provide us with the common ground needed to reach others here and there.

If garlic is such a threat to the American people, then why isn’t garlic (and other alliums) allergies covered by any overly priced health insurance plan I’ve seen?

My personal goal is to launch a webcomic/graphic novel project I’ve been contemplating for a while. A fun adventure story that isn’t infested with liberal ideology subtext for comrades to enjoy, but also is subtle enough that one can also show it to liberal friends and introduce them to some basic theory in the process.

There’s a quote from Huey Newton, “The first lesson a revolutionary must learn is that he is a doomed man.” You’re describing the stage/phase/step before the comrade has come to terms with that first lesson. And because it is the first step, we also see a big part of why the Western left is still learning to walk/baby steps.

I will second Brecht’s ON THEATRE. There’s some good gems in there.

Of a strictly ML nature, not many immediately come to mind. We have the Socialist Realism movement, but it is often examined through a western lens, which loses much of its nuance unless the audience is well-versed in art history. A few speeches by important figures touch on art and it’s purpose, but rarely in a way that would help us construct better, more engaging stories. But all this was also the problem identified. We don’t have a strong tradition to compete with capitalist media and their methods of confining stories to mere, and often shallow, entertainment. And what examples I have stumbled across, such as Han Qixiang, I’m not fluent enough in the language or culture to delve into their work as much as I’d want for contextual analysis to really comment or advocate from. And Western works, usually more hidden in history (pockets of French and German expression), such as Walter Benjamin’s DER ERZAHLER, I should probably re-visit before fully recommending since the last time I read through it I was only a baby commie.

There have been a couple of times my worldview has collapsed, and I took better/more accurate positions afterward.

1. That I was male, with a considerable amount of low-key sexism and not-so-low-key queerphobia thrown in. That was a hell of a shakeup, and probably responsible for the spark that started the rest.
2. I was raised an evangelical bible thumper and oooohhh boy, does that carry some hefty baggage—ranging from Isreal being -THE- holy land, Evolution is a lie, and those godless, evil queer commies have it coming. So much cringe. Karma is not without a sense of humor.
3. Was a right-wing Libertarian, very interested in military theory, military history, and was offered full scholarships to military colleges type. Was, unfortunately, definitely on the proto-fascist track politically. Although it did result in reading my first book on any kind of communist thinking in the form of SOVIET MILITARY STRATEGY by Vasiliĭ Sokolovskiĭ.
4. The Hollywood, mainstream Western storytelling methods are the best/key/correct/fundamentals of the craft. This happened around the time I started becoming a communist. With all the liberal assumptions modern storytelling makes/requires, I had to re-evaluate and relearn my career craft completely. This is the only one I openly talk about because it can be presented as a safe topic in all circles, isn’t as cringe to admit to, and ML Narrative Theory is unfortunately not touched on that much—especially here in the West. And I believe it’s one of our great weaknesses because we have little to challenge the subtle and constant torrent Hollywood and mainstream entertainment douses us with. This is a shame because storytelling is humanity’s evolved mechanism for sharing our experiences navigating life—we should have this tool in our toolbox. Maybe I should post some lecture/essay posts on narrative theory, how it relates and connects to ML theories, and how it breaks away from Hollywood’s simplistic formulas…

Hell yea! And I’ll be happy to offer up some of my art skills to the project if needed.

The ruling class try to not only rule altogether but to convince the masses of their legitimacy.

It might come from Engels, but I remember reading this line is straight out of the beginning of Lenin’s STATE AND REVOLUTION recently.

They are not incomparable/incompatible, but each religion will be vastly different in how it engages with socialism. I am what is called a scientific/naturalistic pantheist—which I once had someone sum up as atheism with pagan decor. There is nothing metaphysical in such a worldview, but certainly, there is a different way of looking at the world. You want Heaven? You have to build it. Justice? Again, you have to build it. And rituals are great at communicating with the subconscious—one of the best examples is the “hold your breath for x seconds and then take y gulps of water to get rid of hiccups.” The specifics and values shift based on who you ask, but the folk-idea behind it is widespread and the actions and symbols of the ritual can communicate to ourselves that we want to stop hiccuping. There is the practical safety aspect of taking the time to bow so you can observe the martial art mat, and the ‘spiritual’ aspect of quickly getting your mind in the right state to learn.

I think much of the incompatibility perceived comes from when religion mirrors our present class conditions. “God/s” as kings, rulers, as a grand bourgeoisie essentially. And that’s where the problem can come in because that aspect of more traditional religions is rarely challenged. “God/s” as a grand comrade is a far more interesting concept and one that has more back and forth—there is room to disagree/alter/adapt/learn from/etc with that authority instead of that authority always overwriting the believer’s own instincts (such as on moral issues). I forget where it’s from, but “beware the believer who has never disagreed with their God over anything for their God is an unchallenged mirror.”