/lit/ - Literature

>>16477664
Yes, I can. But I'm not going to. It's because I hate you, and I want to cause you real, honest-to-God, emotional pain and distress.

>Why yes, I can tell a writer is a Marxist without needing them to explicitly say so, how could you tell?

marxism regards itself as scientific, or course it’s going to be less focused on being poetic. ansr to your dumb question, tard

Any Marxist worth his weight in salt would be an autistic rationalist approaches art like an engineer (Brecht is the perfect example, but you could also use Eisenstein or Godard too). There have been great artists who were socialists, but none of them were full-fledged Marxists.

>>16477802
>Brecht
>Eisenstein
>Godard
>not great

>>16477664
If i remember correctly Hemingway was explicitly marxist, but I can't name 4 other writers

>>16477808
Brecht made soulless, didactic crap. He's actually a bad artist. Godard and Esenstein were great ion the way that an engineers can be great, but not in the way that artists are.

Sartre's plays and novels are good

>>16477664
Breton, Gide, Sartre, Maiakovski, Victor Serge, Ehrenburg, Brecht, Bataille, Vallejo, Neruda, Juan Gelman, Pasolini, Cortázar, Alberti, García Lorca. I could go on...

>>16477802
Pasolini's literary writing is quite lyrical. Sholokhov likewise, who was also a realist. The focus on structural fuckery mentioned in the artists you note derives from the arguable importance of making a work aesthetically challenging so that it engages the audience intellectually rather than emotionally, though it isn't the sine qua non of Marxist art. (More challenging works, especially aesthetically, are less likely to be taken up into and appropriated for capitalist ends, as well, which is especially important in film where an aesthetic can easily be turned into a perfume commercial, e.g. Malick)

>>16477875
Muttered Anon from his mother's basement. Lmao

Simone de Beauvoir, Walter Benjamin, Bertolt Brecht, Maxim Gorky, Jean-Paul Sartre

>>16477726
How petty.

>>16477664
Nikolái Alekséievich Ostrovski

>>16477892
Where are you from?

Kafka probably read Marx and was a socialist.

>>16477998
shut the fuck up

>>16477664
Sally Rooney

>>16477892
>Neruda
Neruda's sentimental garbage is only praised because the left sees him as a martyr. Same goes for Lorca.

>>16478344
Not anon--I didn't even know he was Marxist--but I read a book of his once about living on some rocky shore... It was pretty good.

>>16478403
I can't imagine how much of a sap you need to be to like Neruda.
>>16477898
I can't imagine someone who enjoys propaganda because it's self-aware. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are for liking it.

Why do marxists shit out so much kitsch? Isnt it supposed to be the opposite?

>>16478433
Materialism is antithetical to artistic achievement. Some of the greatest writers in the western tradition were socialists, but Marxists tend to see kitsch as the greatest achievement. It likely comes from their fetishizing of labor and laborers.

>>16478344
Alt-kiddies are getting mad lmao

>>16478433
Any examples son?

>>16478791
Keep jerking off to your martyrs. I'm sure Neruda's sappy garbage absolutely melts your heart.

>>16478464
Good grief, idealism is fucking dead where it belongs. Now go larp as a good romantic and kys bitch, art doesn't give a shit about your posturing nonsense.
>>16478812
How salty can you alt-kiddies get, holy shit.

>>16478799
I assume he means socialist realist paintings.

>>16478252
/thread

>>16477726
If you killed yourself, that would cause me distress

>>16477772
>marxism regards itself as scientific
The same way Scientology regards itself as religious

>>16477882
They aren’t.

>>16477664
The "Angry Young Men" movement even though they mostly all became Fascists in their old age.

>>16477664
Does Bolaño count or are you asking for people writing on marxist theory (which I don't read)?

>>16477664
They have no soul

>>16477726
>muzzling himself to "hurt" other people who don't care to hear from him anyways
The power of the cuck

>>16478884
>Good grief, idealism is fucking dead where it belongs. Now go larp as a good romantic and kys bitch, art doesn't give a shit about your posturing nonsense.
The ability to Inuit ideas is what makes someone worthy of ethical consideration. You're literally nothing, and Stirner was the most wrong of any human being to have written, it's the spooks that enhance human existence the the point where it can be justifiable.
>How salty can you alt-kiddies get, holy shit.
I just feel bad for anyone willing fall for such banal sentimentalism, but Neruda's work is the exact type of emotional imitation that likely resonates with bete machine.

>>16477664
>Why is marxism so artistically sterile?

Because it's a purely materialists worldview. High Culture is also considered the product of the bourgeois, and treated with disdain.

A disdain for High Culture + Materialist worldview = a lack of artistry.

Non Marxist Socialists like Oscar Wilde produced great literature.

>>16477664
debord and vaneigem

>>16477892
>Bataille

Literally vehemently rejected Marxism,

All modern art and entertainment is based on Marxist PR theory and criticism
Eisenstein created cinema while others were drooling over 3 hour filmed stage play adaptations of /pol/ epics and frenchies doing circus tricks
I know you all want to be back eating shit and jacking off to jesus in the middle ages, but Marxism is fundamental to the creation of the modern world

>>16477875
Ivan Grozny is the most soulful cinema ever made, you burger maggot

I'm right wing but like the "proletariat school" type of the writer like Jack London or B Traven. I suppose they'd be considered right wing by now however.

>>16479704

OP asked for Literature.

>Hurr durr the only images that aren't bourgeois idealism are those directly produced by the photoreceptors.
DiaMat is pure autism.

>>16477772
>marxism regards itself as scientific
Just like believing in demons and ghosts is "nonsense" but believing in aliens with zero evidence is fine.

>No one mentioned Pynchon yet

>>16479704
Eisenstein's only real contribution was his camerawork. The technique which he is most famous for developing, the Soviet Montage, is the ultimate expression of the creative act as nothing more than a cynical expression of materialist nihilism. A milestone in aesthetic engineering, but as far from art as you can get. I can agree with you that Marxism is fundamental to the world as we know it insofar as many negative aspects of people living today are drawn from it.
>>16479712
It has as much soul as Yankee Doodle Dandy.

Gramsci is the only correct answer. In fact I'll go as far as saying he's the only marxist worth reading.

>>16477904
As an artist, Sartre was just a Céline ripoff, and Céline was obviously not a Marxist.

>>16477726
>not getting an answer to an arbitrary question
>emotional pain and distress
Marxist “intellectuals”.

>>16479704
>Marxism is fundamental to the creation of the modern world
Is this supposed to be an achievement?

>>16479445
>derides materialism
>cries and spouts mumbo-jumbo about spooks being his reason for being
>calls other people sentimentalists
You're providing me with great amusement, my alt-kiddie friend.

>>16477664
Because Marxism resents the idea of greatness and regards greatness as being based on theft from others. This extends to cultural and artistic matters, where maybe the best example of how Marxist mental gymnastics work is by looking at Barthes' hatred and resentment of the Author. Similar to "surplus value" and "historical materialism", Barthes basically interpreted authors as a sort of functional transcriber of the broader cultural and historical moment - to which they owed their success.

To Marxists, art is basically just another weapon in their arsenal to create revolution or advance socialism. It becomes a political instrument above all other possible interpretation, and therefore anything but the most banal social realism beating the drum of
>muh revolushun
Is worthless, bad, escapist, and all sorts of other nasty things. This is why there are essentially no Marxist masterpieces in art. For art to possess value in Marxist hermeneutics, it implicitly must be tied to the particular historical or social conflicts of a particular era or milieu. So you just end up with forgettable period pieces celebrating or critiquing things that nobody cares about after a certain point.

Notice that it is the same for the "Social Justice" crowd. They have no great artists and masterpieces to crown their political successes. Just a flood of forgettable shit from forgettable people whose merit comes from everywhere but the technique and honed talent of the art and artist...

>>16480630
Sentimentalism is ultimately phony emotions of the bete machine.

>>16477802
Actually this, quite frankly.

>>16480927
Based.

>>16480927
Based non-argument bait-poster

>>16480927
Depends

>>16480927
cope

>>16477664
Because it is fake Christianity.

GARDEN OF EDEN - PRIMITIVE COMMUNISM
THE DEVIL - SELF-INTEREST
THE APPLE - PRIVATE PROPERTY
THE FALL - AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY
CAPTIVITY IN EGYPT - SLAVE ECONOMICS
PERIOD BETWEEN MOSES AND CHRIST - SERFDOM
RISE OF ROME - INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
JESUS CHRIST - KARL MARX
THE APOSTLES - MARXIST PHILOSOPHERS
THE GOSPELS - DAS KAPITAL
THE CHURCH - THE PARTY
THE HOLY SPIRIT - MARXIST EDUCATION
CONVERSION - MEMBERSHIP OF THE PARTY
THE MARTYRS - GRAMSCI AND COMPANY
FESTIVITIES - WORKER'S DAY, PARADES ETC.
THE SHRINES - LENIN'S MUMMY
THE ANTI-POPE - TROTSKY
THE CONFUSION BEFORE THE FINAL JUDGEMENT - LATE STAGE CAPITALISM
THE FINAL JUDGEMENT - COMMUNIST REVOLUTION
HELL - PUNISHMENT OF THE CAPITALISTS (ROMANOV, KULAKS ETC.)
PURGATORY - THE TRANSITORY STATE BETWEEN THE REVOLUTION AND COMMUNISM
HEAVEN - COMMUNISM

"The first will be the last, and the last will be the first" - "The rich will be gulag'd, and the poor will be rich"

>>16477882
>>16479143
I liked the one in hell.

>>16477802
(((eisenstein)))

>>16481009
Is this the only thing you can mutter out when confronted with truth about your lack of fundamental humanity?

>>16480630
>alt-kiddie
u sound 40 bro close the tab

>>16481166
Is this the only thing you can mutter out when confronted with truth about your lack of fundamental humanity?

>>16477664
Marx is anti-aristocracy, that's why. He wants the workers to own themselves, which means he doesn't want there to be a distinction between workers and owners anymore (the more modern terms for slave and master). Art, literature, and all finer aspects of culture always come from the aristocracy.

>>16481617
That is part of the reason, but the major one is that Marxists are ideology-driven. They see everything through the very small lens of politics, which means their writings tend to be reductionistic, and therefore mediocre. True literature has to be open to a wide array of perspectives. Even Dante's Commedia and Milton's Paradise Lost, though written from the perspective of Christianity, still give a very powerful and sympathetic voice to the damned - the third most important character in the Commedia is a pagan, the most important one in Milton is arguably Satan. Indeed, some of the characters in the Inferno seem to mirror Dante's own experiences: Virgil, the epic poet; Paolo, the man who loved a married woman; Ugolino, the man who was punished by his city; Ulysses, the man who traveled towards the unknown. Not to mention the presence of the Purgatory in the Christian doctrine, which is a mythological recognition of the fact of moral ambiguity.
Communists don't tend to portray their enemies in a human light. At least they don't tend to do so in the books I've read/movies I've watched.
In one of Borges's last interviews (it's on YouTube, but in Spanish), he comments about this when discussing Eisenstein: he says that he, at first, really appreciated Battleship Potemkin when it was released. But then he gradually realized that it is a bad movie, because the enemy is always portrayed as something of a caricature, the enemy is always pure evil. I believe he is correct. Even though the technical aspects are marvelous and highly innovative, the philosophical, historical, and moral depth of the film are absolutely nonexistent - there are comic strips which reveal more philosophical depth than Eisenstein's movies, though he was perhaps the greatest technician of cinema.

I have had the same feeling when reading some of Saramago's books (such as A Caverna), or watching a film like Pasolini's Salò (though this one is intellectually deeper).
That doesn't mean there haven't been great Marxist writers. All rules have exceptions. Pasolini himself often presented a very rich and complex view of the world, as did Saramago in his best novels - and usually these views concern aspects of life which do not pertain to politics and economics (such as death, love, friendship, family).
However, whenever political Marxism shows up in a work of art, it tends to quickly descend into lamentable sequences of midwittery.

>>16478938
The same way you regard yourself as a functional human being.

>>16477664
Could you name 5 writers that are good? I don't know any. It's all so sterile insipid sentimentalist garbage to me.

>>16477897
>Sholokhov was a marxist
Anon, please.

>>16477664
>writes the best work of the 21st century thus far
heh, nothing personnel kid

>>16483175
Midwit.

>>16477802
>>16480765
>>16482196
great posts. thank you anons, you put my thoughts in your words.

>>16479712
Lol, pointing the obvious over and over again is soulful. Historical events and characters reduced to caricatures are soulful. Kindergarten tier symbolism is soulful (evil woman moves like a snake, wow).
Eisenstein isn't even influential, as he pioneered nothing actually useful, unlike say Griffith. If someone follows his retard montage rules, it's either and homage or a parody.
He can't direct actors either, his films are full of pathetic clowning. There is a bit in Ivan where a poisoned woman starts jumping in the background, as if to attract attention, it's beyond ridiculous

>>16477664
Ich sitze am Straßenhang.
Der Fahrer wechselt das Rad.
Ich bin nicht gern, wo ich herkomme.
Ich bin nicht gern, wo ich hinfahre.
Warum sehe ich den Radwechsel
mit ungedulum?

Sounds much better in German. So gloomy and forlorn.

>>16480765
>Because Marxism resents the idea of greatness and regards greatness as being based on theft from others.
What the fuck are you on?

>>16482196
imbecile

>>16477664
>marxism so artistically sterile?
Its a deceptive misanthropic cancerous virus. It stealthily infiltrates and corrupts until it takes over brutally.

>>16483508
>Because Marxism resents the idea of greatness and regards greatness as being based on theft from others
That is, nominally. Naturally, any movement is dependent on its leaders and will glorify greatness.

>>16479738
>Jack London
>considered right wing
Well yeah, he was a white supremacist who considered other races not only inferior but argued some of them ought to be exterminated.
Like we're not talking nice nativism like "I just want this land to continue to belong to us natives" but more along the lines of "we're so much better on every level why shouldn't we exterminate the chinks and blacks?" tier.

>>16483567
No arguments, as usual.
You sound like a typical monolingual American. Don't debase yourself like that. You can do better.

>>16483605
Not just the leaders. Many common folks became well known for their deeds, may they be civil or martial.

>>16477664
Just look at bolshevik propaganda, some are insanely good

>>16477772
Hmm
>>>16477777

>>16483668
I think this is also true for HG Wells and Engels hilarously enough. Marxists themselves really got subverted with this self-abasement crap.