/lit/ - Literature

>>19551347
Have you noticed how in stories (books or T.V. shows) that what starts out promising all have endings that seem to come out of nowhere, as if they’re imposed from without rather than obeying the story’s inner logic? It's like yanking the football like Lucy yanking the football. That's like art under capitalism. To get you to buy into it, what they do is give you some emotional identification with the real desire for change, justice, virtue, freedom, resolution to the major conflicts etc. -- in other words, a taste of communism -- but then when they don't need your emotional buy-in anymore (because the series is wrapping up), they discard all of that and betray their own audience.

A consistent working-out of problems tends towards communism, but pop culture in capitalism can't go all the way because it would be too threatening to the reigning social order, so the creators have to thwart their own instincts no matter how tacked-on or unconvincing the false "resolution" is. The ending tends to be a restoration of the status quo, or some plot twist where the revolutionary becomes the villain. In other words, the restoration of the status quo is the best we can hope for. But that's cynicism and everyone in the world realizes it's a lie, which is why they're constantly disappointed at these betrayals. But it keeps happening over and over again.

There's also a dichotomy between being a "rational" person and being a communist, which is wrapped up in the concept of struggle. "I'm a rational, scientific free thinker and not like those bleeding hearts." But I think the people who start reading Marx and stick with it realize that's a false dichotomy, and that if you want to be earnest about struggling for justice, the communism becomes the only reasonable and logical conclusion to the most reliable explanation for the state of the world.

https://youtu.be/yh5XNmkOXME