Tfw too smart for bourgeois Hollywood propaganda

its not supposed to be art its supposed to be entertainment you really need to broaden your horizans instead of defineing your life from the kind of entertainemtn you engoy

>its not supposed to be art its supposed to be entertainment
the idea that you need to make mass appeal entertainment all the time is cancer tho
sure if people want to make popcorn flicks for lots of people to just sit back and enjoy there isn't anything wrong with that but Creators shouldn't be stifled in order to appeal to porkies demographic analysis of what you can and can't put in a movie.

leftypol is fucking dead m8 pop on over there

they couldnt even come up with their own memes though so im not surprised

>mfw reading the prince

wtf i hate communists now

what?
The Prince is based it's basically a how to go guide on how to be a piece of shit and that fits with the material conditions it's written in. Machiavelli understood the nature of power in hierarchy there's nothing anti commie about it.

i know i just wanted to trigger somebody hence the meme text and and memes

>Hollywood propaganda is bad
>just leave me with my Communist propaganda like Eisenstein

it's bigger than ever, actually.

>implying all art and entertainment isn't inherently ideological and soft propaganda

yes, commiekino is best kino.

Well of course he's not stupid, he pretty much single-handedly won the civil war for the Red Army. But on the other hand winning the war for the Red Army was an incredibly stupid thing to do.

I don't think I've ever heard of a man with more intelligence and less sense than Leon Trotsky.

>unironic communists
>mfw

>Agusto "Just cuck my country up" Pinochet
**The whites deserved it and I'm glad they lost**

Some of the whites were assholes but most of the factions seemed to have more legitimate claims to controlling Russia than Lenin. The Octobrists, Social-Democrats and Mensheviks mostly seemed like sane and decent people who were willing to work together for the sake of Russia.

>The Octobrists, Social-Democrats and Mensheviks
Soc Dems and Octobrists would've been purged by the nationalists and Royalists and the Mensheviks would've been current China tier

I thought the Octobrists were nationalists and royalists, at least to a decent extent. And a China-like Russia would probably not be as bad as the mafia-run state Russia has devolved into now.

>I thought the Octobrists were nationalists and royalists, at least to a decent extent.
yup I meant they would purge the moderates in the faction as they like to do
and soc dems are fucking pussies who lose every single time.
>a China-like Russia would probably not be as bad as the mafia-run state Russia has devolved into now.
>implying that's the OG Bolsheviks fault
should be blaming Yeltsin and Gorbachev for that

The USSR's breakup was poorly handled but the creation of the Cheka seems to me to pretty clearly be the root of the problem.

The Tsars oppressed their own people with terror and then the revolution came and nothing changed. The Tsars and their police were replaced by the party and then the party was replaced by the KGB remnants and it's still the same. The revolution was the best chance of ending Russia's fucked politics but because the Bolsheviks weren't the right option for Russia they had to use force to establish themselves and defend their position from the start.

Probably a fair point about the purging though. There were some sketchy characters among the moderate factions.

>the Cheka seems to me to pretty clearly be the root of the problem.
Terror within revolution is necessary
t. Cromwell, Robespierre etc.
it's an inevitable part of the turmoil and changes within a radical revolution. I agree they far overstayed their use and welcome once Stalin was in charge and they became the NKVD
>The Tsars oppressed their own people with terror and then the revolution came and nothing changed.
boy there were massive changes within Russian society. Literacy, Housing, Industry, Soviet workers councils, civil rights, legal rights, Art, Literature etc. to say nothing changed is a bit hyperbolic

>Hillary
>austerity

>tfw nobody will believe you that it's state capitalism when the actual leaders of the movement described it as such

>implying shillary isn't the archetypal neo-liberal

uh yes
thenation.com/article/why-it-matters-that-hillary-clinton-championed-welfare-reform/

>Tfw the USSR was destined to fail at achieving socialism the second the German revolution failed

graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/

>Mrs. Clinton has unveiled a raft of policy proposals detailing increased spending on everything from job training and community college education to broadband networks, infrastructure, and clean energy. She has backed efforts to raise the federal minimum wage, to overhaul immigration laws, and to boost women’s workforce participation by backing efforts to improve paid leave and access to child care.

thebalance.com/hillary-clinton-2016-economic-plan-3305767

>The National Infrastructure Plan would allocate $27.5 billion annually to improve roads, bridges, public transit, rail, airports, the Internet, and water systems. The Expanded Childcare Plan and the Early Education Plan would spend $27.5 billion a year for states to make preschool available to all 4-year-olds and expand Early Head Start. Expanded Funding for IDEA would spend $16.6 billion a year to identify and treat children with disabilities. The Energy Plan would pay $9 billion annually to repair oil pipelines, reduce carbon emissions, and fund health and retirements for coal workers. (Source: "The Clinton Tax Hike Plan Revealed," GOP Research, January 26, 2016.)

money.cnn.com/2016/06/26/news/economy/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debt/

>Clinton wants to increase spending, but taxes too

>Clinton's proposals, by contrast, would increase debt by $250 billion, pushing it to 87% of GDP at the end of the decade, very close to where it would be absent any changes.

>Here's why: She proposes spending $1.4 trillion more than is currently projected -- for everything from college education to infrastructure to paid family leave and other initiatives.

>But Clinton has also proposed to pay for that new spending with $1.2 trillion in tax increases, primarily on high-income taxpayers and businesses.

Just page 1 google results on "Hillary Clinton public spending".

That's what Trotsky and Lenin said.

>all art is propganda

wew lad

>mfw these plebs have probably never watched a film by Barbara Meter, Peggy Ahwesh, Trịnh Thị Minh Hà [T. Minh-ha Trinh], Monika Treut, Ulrike Ottinger, Su Friedrich, Cecelia Condit or Márta Mészáros

It is
Unless you honestly believe artists have no ideology as individuals

Note all the dates, 2016, all political fanfare to win over the bernie people. Actions speak louder than words tho. Not to mention, that paltry bit of stimulus wouldn't do shit to jumpstart the economy during a recession. The problem of the US economy is systemic, and she is clearly not prepared to deal with it.

All your links are bullshit for one simple reason: Hillary is a liar who was running against Bernie Sanders and trying to convince Bernie supporters that she was "progressive" too. The reality of the future Clinton administration is that she will work with Republicans entirely:
She will openly work with them on regime change, TPP, fracking, etc.
She will tacitly work with them to create an illusion of "deadlock," just like Obama's deadlock, where she is "unable to do the good things she promised" because the Republicans in the House "won't let her."

are they like Adam Curtis?
Are there any that you specifically recommend?

There is a trench between "she won't really spend so much as she claims" to "she's Thatcher 2.0". Thatcher was far more liberal on the economic side, like Reagan or Pinochet.

>Hillary "Nafta was great" Clinton
>not a liberal

>Hillary "More TPP For My Bunghole" Clinton

Except thatcher was in the 80's. They could afford to loosen regulations, privatize and lower taxes so much they create a deficit. Now everyone is so over-leveraged thanks to decades of relative stagnating wages and now several years of under consumption and we're one market crash from an even longer economic downturn. Even social democracy in good faith is insufficient to fix our problems.

wew

Real quick, name one GOOD liberal meme.

You can't.

Agreed. We need communism to smash liberalism.

Communism is a spook.

Anonymou-HAHAHAHAHA

this

A union of egoists is basically anarcho-syndicalism, so...
Regardless, unless we're talking about ML's communism is far less spooky than capitalism.

I've never said Hillary opposed free trade. I said that she wasn't an austerity defender, implying that the comparison with Thatcher was a bit far-fecthed if based on that point.
For the record, I'm not even a Hillary supporter.

If she's not going to be able to do Thatchernomics, she won't be a new Thatcher but something different.
>Even social democracy in good faith is insufficient to fix our problems.
Sure, the intermediate step towards communism has been proven to be a failure (look at western Europe), so let's skip it!
Come to Europe and take a good taste of higher taxes, even higher public spending, more bureaucracy and tell me whether it helps the economy.

Besides, isn't it funny how you left-wing pals tend to agree more with Trump's policies than Hillary's? I first mentioned public spending and you came with "free trade is bad" arguments. Think of opposing illegal immigration as some new labour regulation and you won't need much more mental gymnastics.

The positive changes were inevitable. The creation of a corrupt totalitarian-state wasn't.

And Robespierre was completely different to Lenin. Robespierre died because he was autistically devoted to his ideals where Lenin survived because he was willing to betray them. Allowing pockets of capitalism to form and selling off food-aid to foreign powers while 'his' people starved are things Robespierre would have killed Lenin for were he a Bolshevik.

Using force to ensure the survival of a new order is understandable but Lenin's creation wasn't a French Revolution. It wasn't a long-needed and widely popular movement, it was him and his goons hijacking a failed state.

>Trump's policies
These were radical labor positions long before Trump even considered running for office, I don't know what point you're trying to make. I even defended Trump to a limited extent at the start of the election when he was focusing more on things that weren't meme issues and sex scandals.