Juice

It's not like his daughter isn't the VP , and the president is BongBong Marcos, the son of the previous dictator.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." --Samuel Johnson

I guess it depends which side of the float you are standing on, like is the writing only on one side, or both? But digging into the comparison is interesting because both leaders are Hitler/Stalin in their own ways.

no comparison of current events with past events can be fully accurate

Right, but I criticize on the basis that its not clear what abstraction is even being used to make the comparison. A common method of propaganda that confuses is comparing two things but not establishing a basis for the comparison. It is an empty signifier, to be filled with whatever political meaning one chooses.

I see it all the time, among political allies and opponents. I've never seen it deliver a greater degree of understanding or engagement. I think we use abstraction unconsciously so much, so seamlessly in our conception of meaning, that we can't tell if an abstraction is faulty or valid. Our brains just go "sure seems right" and we go along with it, but dont consider in what ways the abstraction is faulty or valid. Art has a way of revealing hidden connections or meanings, propaganda has a way of obscuring.

I appreciate other posters helping me to recognize the connection between Poland in Molotov-Ribbentrop and Ukraine in our current day. But I still dont see the connection being made here and I dont like obscurative or vibe-based political messaging.

Any artist knows that you can't just depict a feminine form and call it art. There is like 10000 years of history in that depiction, and it is taken very seriously, referenced very carefully. Why can't a similar level of care be taken when considering a political subject? I think I might be a little obstinate on this point, but I'm really just trying to engage with the subject from my own perspective

I honestly hadn't first considered the Ukraine similarity when I wrote the first comment. That tracks tbh. I'm probably reacting to how much confusion there is generally about the Nazis and the USSR, where most people don't have their own developed views but have appropriated some posture through hegemony, which has its own biases and incentives to confuse understanding. I also didn't see i was posting in a Euro comm or i would have probably stopped myself.

Tbh the Ukraine similarities track, but the issues around that war are very confused as well. In general, I'd say people dont understand how western forces destabilized and used Ukraine to agitate Putin into invasion and war, likely to draw them into a protracted , draining, no-win conflict like Viet Nam. Then people who are aware of that tend to think of Ukraine as US imperialist puppets, and end up buying much of the Russian framing of the issues. Germany was more than happy to keep burning Russian natural gas before the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up, although I think its probably disingenuous to flatten this artist's protest message into the geopolitical maneuvering of German establishment.

I guess I would prefer something more explicit toward acknowledging the incredible hardship this war has created in a country that has known nothing but hardship and exploitation, if that is the intention of the work. By my account, taking all of that and framing it as Trump+Putin=Stalin+Hitler (seriously who is Hitler and who is Stalin in this formula) misses the mark, but I appreciate the challenge and engagement.

Okay, i have adhd and often miss things. You got me. Now can you answer my question? I dont mean to be defensive and I want to be educated.

What is the modern "pakt" between Trump and Putin that this refers to? In what ways does this supposed pact differ from the historic one? How are they similar?

Sure I get the reference. Do you think it is a reference to the proposed peace plan for Ukraine that cedes areas occupied by Russia to the Russians? So that Ukraine is Poland in this example? Specifically what is the connection to Molotov-Ribbentrop? I'm against confusing these complex issues more than they already are.

Trump creates chaos in political discourse by confusing people using false comparisons. I dont think doing the same dance with a different outfit actually changes anything, inaccuracy in abstraction leads to authoritarianism, full stop. Being inaccurate against the guys we dont like is not progress, it is stuck in the mud of the past. Political art should educate and stimulate real reflection on the part of the viewer. If it confuses an issue I dont think its art, I think its propaganda. Personally, I am not for propaganda, even if it is for causes I believe in and work toward. And different people have different views toward that, lots of people I work with consider themselves "propagandists," clinging to the word Lenin used in the early 1900's. I'm not even against Lenin's definition of the word, since Bolshevik demands were reflective of actual political conditions, and Lenin was explicit on how and why Bolshevik messaging was composed and to whom it was directed. It wasn't propaganda like we think of it now.

But now, after decades of developed critical theory and reflection of the 20th century i think we have to have a higher standard. Naming two contemporary villains after two historic villains (that people dont understand anyway) isnt educating, it is confusing. It is agitating but where does that agitation lead? If it changes nothing then it means nothing.

This old canard of "USA (bad thing) vs USSR (good thing)" is so flat and devoid of meaning, it is qualitatively no different from blanket statements that the USSR is all bad or USA is all good.

And I understand the methodology here, trying to use "cognitive dissonance" in order to stimulate reflection within a subject (the subject being a thinking person). Stimulating reflection and critical thought in people is the aim of socialist education, it is a precondition to unlearning views we have been "propagandized" to accept. These same tactics of flattening and abstracting a history in order to lead people to certain conclusions is exactly how we have been propagandized. But to just do it in reverse is wrongheaded. It shows that the propagandist hasn't developed a method of education beyond the bourgeois propaganda they are trying to unlearn. Using the same method of propaganda as an enemy with roles reversed isn't liberating, it is replacing one set of illusions for another set. Engels called it "unity of opposites" and it is shocking to hear people cite "Dialectical Materialism" still miss this.

Practically, this method of propaganda has mixed results. If the individual is moved to take action, and somehow resists falling into sectarianism, then the propaganda could have actually shaken loose the subject from their illusions. Through discussion and personal development they might overcome the propaganda and become critical thinkers rather than simple followers of an ideology. Unfortunately sects are usually pretty good at managing critical thought through social acceptance. Since people abandoning the status quo often find difficulty sharing their ideas in most places, the sect becomes the only place where a person can feel accepted, which if you've ever engaged in recruiting or onboarding into resistance actions, you know this feeling can be extremely powerful. Its always amazing to me how sectarians can be so close to myself in principle and imperative, but practically seethe with disdain if I mention where my own socialist education came from, or if they hear me frame an issue a certain way, or principally acriticize the bureaucracy of a country that receives uncritical support from the sect.

The most effective sectarian propaganda is always half-true. It sorts people into camps, there becomes a camp that stresses the truth in the propaganda, and a camp that stresses the lie. Both camps engage only in opposition to one another, deepening their differences, both moving further away from real conditions in the here and now as they dig in deeper to this or that idealist version of history.

A meme about gun control and education might stimulate discussion about how the USSR educated people from a young age how to handle arms and conceive of gun rights (I'm not an expert on this part of Soviet history, just extrapolating from what little meaning is actually contained in the meme); whereas in the USA, the discourse around 2A is so poisoned, practically no one can come to any agreement except the people who are 100% for and 100% against, even though both groups when surveyed, often show individual support for common sense reforms and especially education. Rather than provide even a glancing analysis of real conditions, or dig into any actual phenomenon, two distorted abstractions are placed next to each other so the viewer is sorted into their camp.

Fortunately for my point, this meme is clunky AF, and the dynamics within the discourse are easier to suss out because of it.

Ideas only exist in practice, and the presentation of these ideas have only led to catastrophe and disaster. Not to say, USSR bad or good or whatever, only that getting people to agree with you isnt revolutionary. Only the self aware, critical subject is capable of revolutionary praxis. Turning people or movements into objects to be "educated" or struggled against is just bourgeois idealism flying a socialist flag, which is no kind of socialism at all.

The system isnt rational, if something is good for business and good for workers, then it is a threat to the oligarchy. This is why a class analysis is so important.

During covid, wages went up, unemployment went down, profitability soared, business was pretty good in many sectors. What was the response? Raise interest rates, increase unemployment, drive down wages, increase prices.

Once you realise that unemployment and inflation are really one metric, it demonstrates how imprisoned the "free market" actually is. Good for business means little, only a society where workers own their time and produce is capable of being rational and fair

I write everywhere all the time. I have a sketchbook where I doodle, I have a small notebook for notes, songs, poems and ideas. I have comp books for drafting, designing and longer form working things out. I use grapheme notepad and have like 15 different folders for organizing all different ideas, from recipes and meal prep, to quotes from authors that I like, article ideas, social media posts ive written I want to repurposed, all sorts of shit. I also have a fuck load of google docs, I do a lot of formal writing, like proposals, analysis, sometimes I just brain dump 15-20 pages, edit it down to like 9-12, and then never share it.

I had a friend who kept one of those little moleskine books and I thought it was cool so I got one and started writing ideas in it. My ideas were bad, but I was trying to learn and develop myself. Years later I'm still jotting and journaling, and my ideas have gotten better, I'm more successful, I taught myself how to write articles, and I can always go back and read old notebooks for ideas and old insights. Its also neat to see me trying to put the pieces together on something I feel like I have a good grasp of now, sometimes the way I'm framing questions or notions and attitudes was pretty insightful.