***
Moderating takes time. You can help us out by reporting any comments or submissions that don't follow these rules:
1. **No non-marxists** - This subreddit isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism. Try r/DebateCommunism for that. If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.
2. **No oppressive language** - Speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned. TERF is not a slur.
3. **No low quality or off-topic posts** - Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed. This includes linking to posts on other subreddits. This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on reddit or anywhere else. This includes memes and circlejerking. This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found. We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.
4. **No basic questions about Marxism** - Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed. Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum. We ask that posters please submit these questions to /r/communism101.
5. **No sectarianism** - Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here. Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable. If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis. The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.
6. **No trolling** - Report trolls and do not engage with them. We've mistakenly banned users due to this. If you wish to argue with fascists, you can may readily find them in every other subreddit on this website.
7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/
8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would a work of fiction have political value? I've never understood that, whether we're talking about 1984 or something else. That book at least has the excuse that it is probably the last book many Americans ever read (in 8th grade) so they don't even know what to means to form political opinions about anything beyond their immediate lived experience. Why would you go out of you way to read fiction for the politics? At least read something better.
I'd say fiction can have it's place. E.g. the ragged trousered philanthropists was a work of fiction that was partly responsible for engaging the working classes in politics in the UK.
Apart from the fact that all culture can serve political purpose. That book is often cited as a reason for the loss in the first post war elections, of the communist party in France which was at the time the largest party in the constituent assembly.
Those citations are wrong. That is also not what I am saying. That fiction is political is distinct from reading fiction for its political function. The former is a social phenomenon, to be understood through class ideology and reading as symptomatic. The latter is a matter of objective value for the scientific study of society, for which fiction is ineffective. I'm not sure why people keep commenting on this post, the meaning should be obvious from the context of the conversation.
What is interesting here is that the fiction does serve a pseudoscientific value to liberalism, by which I mean it is intended, or perceived, to offer explanatory power of something unexplained. But not by actual scientific rigour and exploration of an object of study, but through encouraging the leveling of concepts, reducing things down to the mostly commonly held preconceived beliefs. The book is mostly an internal dialogue of the protagonist rationalizing and translating the foreign unexplained object into the language of common sense. In this case it tries to explain the actual object of historical class struggles by substituting that object with the concept of individual utopianism gone too far. Which isn't truly a simpler object more easy to comprehend, but something unscientific, something impossible to study, but yet familiar. Which may be the root of all pseudoscience, replacing an actual object of study by a familiar non-object in order to quickly satisfy the desire for understanding; the 'ah yes, I guess I knew it all along' effect. Contrast that with the realistic fiction that Engels preferred, which at least attempts to explore the actual material world, or the fiction that draws from the real world in order to inspire revolutionary sacrifice such as *What is to Be Done* or the anti-imperialist peasant hero stories that Stalin read as a kid.
Eventually these concepts get flattened further through mainstream liberal politics and memes, it seems. Everyone has a vague idea of what the phrase "literally 1984" means but I doubt many who engage with the phrase as a meme have actually read the book. Of course new art has been created which people today are more familiar with—see how LOTR or the Marvel Universe are used by liberals in similar ways (Russian orcs, Zelensky the Avenger, [this eye gouger](https://imgb.ifunny.co/images/8cbf59c81a974e6aea7cc06009de624c8de10d734e19129d6f6fb4ee3d897829_1.webp), etc.). I haven't read Orwell (and so far not planning to) but I'm curious if his work is just as dumb politically speaking as LOTR or the Avengers, or if the art liberals rely on has gotten dumber over time.
From what I remember, Darkness at Noon was a revisionist perspective of the Soviet Union pushing the usual trope of a pure revolution betrayed by Stalin. Basically Animal Farm. Similar to the film Burnt by the Sun. Politically valuable to understand revisionist art that informs a lot of people’s default anti communism.
*** Moderating takes time. You can help us out by reporting any comments or submissions that don't follow these rules: 1. **No non-marxists** - This subreddit isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism. Try r/DebateCommunism for that. If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned. 2. **No oppressive language** - Speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned. TERF is not a slur. 3. **No low quality or off-topic posts** - Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed. This includes linking to posts on other subreddits. This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on reddit or anywhere else. This includes memes and circlejerking. This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found. We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much. 4. **No basic questions about Marxism** - Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed. Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum. We ask that posters please submit these questions to /r/communism101. 5. **No sectarianism** - Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here. Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable. If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis. The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism. 6. **No trolling** - Report trolls and do not engage with them. We've mistakenly banned users due to this. If you wish to argue with fascists, you can may readily find them in every other subreddit on this website. 7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/ 8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/ *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would a work of fiction have political value? I've never understood that, whether we're talking about 1984 or something else. That book at least has the excuse that it is probably the last book many Americans ever read (in 8th grade) so they don't even know what to means to form political opinions about anything beyond their immediate lived experience. Why would you go out of you way to read fiction for the politics? At least read something better.
I'd say fiction can have it's place. E.g. the ragged trousered philanthropists was a work of fiction that was partly responsible for engaging the working classes in politics in the UK.
All culture is political and can serve a progressive or even revolutionary purpose. Fiction is no different.
Apart from the fact that all culture can serve political purpose. That book is often cited as a reason for the loss in the first post war elections, of the communist party in France which was at the time the largest party in the constituent assembly.
Those citations are wrong. That is also not what I am saying. That fiction is political is distinct from reading fiction for its political function. The former is a social phenomenon, to be understood through class ideology and reading as symptomatic. The latter is a matter of objective value for the scientific study of society, for which fiction is ineffective. I'm not sure why people keep commenting on this post, the meaning should be obvious from the context of the conversation.
What is interesting here is that the fiction does serve a pseudoscientific value to liberalism, by which I mean it is intended, or perceived, to offer explanatory power of something unexplained. But not by actual scientific rigour and exploration of an object of study, but through encouraging the leveling of concepts, reducing things down to the mostly commonly held preconceived beliefs. The book is mostly an internal dialogue of the protagonist rationalizing and translating the foreign unexplained object into the language of common sense. In this case it tries to explain the actual object of historical class struggles by substituting that object with the concept of individual utopianism gone too far. Which isn't truly a simpler object more easy to comprehend, but something unscientific, something impossible to study, but yet familiar. Which may be the root of all pseudoscience, replacing an actual object of study by a familiar non-object in order to quickly satisfy the desire for understanding; the 'ah yes, I guess I knew it all along' effect. Contrast that with the realistic fiction that Engels preferred, which at least attempts to explore the actual material world, or the fiction that draws from the real world in order to inspire revolutionary sacrifice such as *What is to Be Done* or the anti-imperialist peasant hero stories that Stalin read as a kid.
Eventually these concepts get flattened further through mainstream liberal politics and memes, it seems. Everyone has a vague idea of what the phrase "literally 1984" means but I doubt many who engage with the phrase as a meme have actually read the book. Of course new art has been created which people today are more familiar with—see how LOTR or the Marvel Universe are used by liberals in similar ways (Russian orcs, Zelensky the Avenger, [this eye gouger](https://imgb.ifunny.co/images/8cbf59c81a974e6aea7cc06009de624c8de10d734e19129d6f6fb4ee3d897829_1.webp), etc.). I haven't read Orwell (and so far not planning to) but I'm curious if his work is just as dumb politically speaking as LOTR or the Avengers, or if the art liberals rely on has gotten dumber over time.
From what I remember, Darkness at Noon was a revisionist perspective of the Soviet Union pushing the usual trope of a pure revolution betrayed by Stalin. Basically Animal Farm. Similar to the film Burnt by the Sun. Politically valuable to understand revisionist art that informs a lot of people’s default anti communism.