perchalskigis4680-blog

[perchalskigis4680-blog]

Communism blog

Lenin is fanatical over Marx, hailing him as a genius in his article The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism. Rightfully so, he admires Marx on his views that social factors and economics should intermingle. Additionally, Lenin’s understanding of class struggle is spot on. However, without mentioning the Communist Manifesto or communism by name, he clearly presents himself as being swayed by it. Marx’s Manifesto is notorious for its loose ends; he never really describes how the proletariat will rise above the bourgeois upper class but simply prophesies that a revolution will take place and that the proletariat will reign supreme. At the end of his article, Lenin notes that a resistance is growing all over the world. As a reader, over 100 years in the future, it seems that he is eagerly anticipating the violent end of the upper class. Lenin post-revolution article The State and Revolution delves into class conflict. Specifically, his analysis of Engel and Marx on the bourgeois influence on the state leaves one questioning how he knows that the oppressed class would not be the same way once in power. It is problematic that he is fixated on this when Marx only examines the specific topic at hand. The context is all about what was happening historically at the time of Marx’s writing and isn’t necessarily applicable to every oppressor-oppressee relationship. Although subtle, it seems that even back in the early 20th century, “socialism” was a dirty word. Lenin denies that he and his fellow revolutionists are socialists, instead glamorizing democracy and wording it in such a twisted way that it is just a more acceptable way of saying socialism. Why avoid the word, when democracy is deep rooted in socialism just administered by the state rather than the people. It seems as though Lenin wants the power of the state, but wants it under a different name. Trotsky presents a much more compelling and reasonable depiction of a proletariat uprising. The points he uses to show what the Fourth International should be supporting are fair and helpful sounding. He attacks the beast from a much more tactical angle, in the true spirit of Marxism, by changing economics to get a different social result. The violence of the uprising is seen in the Battleship Potemkin in vivid detail. Hailed as a film that changed Hollywood, Potemkin uses cinematography to paint a picture of a gruesome standard of life that seemed totally normal to the oppressive state. It is perhaps the finer attention to detail like the maggot ridden meat or the trampled child on the steps of Odessa, but the film shows the tragedy taking place. One interpretation of the proletariat that Bogdanov had in his essays was that art played an important role in labor and their ability to organize. Since art could be seen as a collective endeavor, where the “new” artist was working for the entirety of the group instead of just his own individual expression, it was now collective and therefore could be a representation of communism. One takeaway from this could be that under a system like communism, not only is there is a change in society but a change in the individual; one that brings intertwines them with others. This approach would destroy the individualism that capitalism facilitated, by starting very small and expanding in to the group. Furthermore on his essays in Tektology, Bogdanov examines history and shows that the foundations of our society such as speech and social norms have spurred from collective interest. Collectivism is not only artistic but scientific as well. As mentioned in his essays featured in Molecular Red, Bogdanov feels that specialization is also critical to the advancement of the world as well. Overall, he breaks down society in such a way that is more levelheaded than Karl Marx’s initial words on it. The realizations of those that believed in collectivism extended into existential questions. In Platonov’s The Third Son, death is examined as a part of life as opposed to a loss of life. While the first two sons see the loss of their mother as something that was expected to happen, the third son is much more invested and understands the gravity of the situation in the sense that his mother will never return and that is the end of her being and time on earth. It shows a greater value of others instead of just an understanding of how someone else is impacting you. Overall, it continues to tie together the need for the individuals to change in order to spur a group change.

The material for the unit shows a progression of communism. While Marx presented a pretty unrefined idea, artists and scholars turned it in to a very workable model that is entirely achivable.

[perchalskigis4680-blog]

Blog 2

Internationally, the Paris Communes were a long time coming. The writings of those like Charles Fourier show that people were interested in a Utopian future or working towards something more equal than what was going on. Even several years prior, in a separate corner of the world, the war between the classes waged on in England, leading to gross injustices at Peterloo. Ode to the West Wind and The Masque of Anarchy’s created a contrast of the massacre of laboring people simply trying to rise up from oppression and get enough to eat. The Masque is much more animalistic and angry, almost propaganda-esque in its encouragement of the oppressed to rise up, while Ode to the West Wind was much more gentle in its pastoral themes. The use of autumn in the poem might suggest a change of thought in Shelley or just a change of social atmosphere in the world. While the world is dying and is about to under go a dark winter signifying that this is the end of all this life, there is an inevitable spring and rebirth right around the corner. It is also an indication that this may be cyclical. Centuries before, capitalism and industry must have seemed like a wonderful concept to those stuck in the feudal system, yet there it was, years later, proving to be oppressive and miserable. All spring and summer, people enjoyed the new freedom of different kinds of labor and more opportunity, however the flowers rotted and wasted away with autumn and eventually died with winter, giving way for the next spring of new ways of life. It’s unclear whether or not the Commune can be seen as a winter or just a particularly cold spring. Upon reading Communal Luxury, I was expecting at least an entire chapter devoted to gruesome slayings of radicals or the warfare involved, however she was much more focused on the social uprising that gives it that warm, spring feel. Her examination of new forms of schooling as well as a focus on teaching children trades and multiple useful skills showed that the Paris Commune was looking to breed future generations of artists and those with indispensable skill who would always have a shot at gainful employment. Aside from Elisabeth Dmitrieff’s push for gender equality and more rights for women, the concept of day care must have radically improved a mother’s ability to work or reversely, a laboring woman’s ability to have a family. This went far beyond simply trying to sustain your life with food, shelter, or employment. People were looking to the experience the entire spectrum of life and human emotion; they wanted to separate themselves from the animals. It was of course not only Paris, as this became an international issue as embodied by the “universal republic.” Why not band together when there is safety in numbers and people all over the world are in the exact same position? While outsiders resented the foreign influence, the Commune saw the utility in gaining new perspectives or intellect of different revolutionary leaders and participants from all over Europe. It also made it impossible to ignore for those like Marx and Reclus who could use their words to inspire and change the thoughts of academics everywhere. There was power in education and intelligence, as so clearly capitalized upon by the Parisians in their quest for better schooling. There were things to learn from other countries as shown by Kropotkin and his reporting from other countries that had been successful from trying other things. The meaning of the Paris Communes can be seen in simple instances. Ross’s small repeated mentions of the shoe maker, Napoleon Gaillard were particularly striking to me. It was strange to think that French Revolutionists had once hated the fashionable life style of those in Versailles, yet here they were years later, valuing fashion as an art form. Marie Antoinette’s fanfare and over-the-top dresses depicted in any media both historic and current, is totally gag-worthy and understandably would cause uproar in people who were living in squalor. Yet is arguable that fashion is perhaps one of the most luxurious communal luxuries, because of the intimate nature. Although Gaillard made shoes in styles that pleased him as opposed to pleasing the crowd, generally speaking something like a shoe or a dress is chosen and worn as a reflection of oneself. The wearer becomes the art. Gustave Courbet becomes the art in his self portraits. Understanding the Paris Commune put an entirely new spin on the French Revolution. It was not that revolutionists wanted the nobility to live as they did, in dismal poverty, but they wanted to live as the nobility did, with leisure and the ability to express themselves or enjoy the expression of others. Even drawing back to the ideas that Marx and other philosophers spurred about communism, it is not about forging perfect economy or government, it is about achieving the greatest possible happiness and freedom for the most amount of people. Although they’re actors, the anger of the Republicans and their inability to understand why the lower classes are acting the way they are, in La Commune is portrayed well. Perhaps why communism so strongly hated is that it forces people in privileged positions to examine why they have such hang ups with letting the oppressed live a good life too. Reading the Youtube comments on La Commune, user Simon Robinson said it best; “Truly we stand on the shoulders of giants.” The Commune paved the way for us to give life meaning and passion, rather than just working our days away until death; it was a great period of leaps and bounds in the direction of equality.

[perchalskigis4680-blog]

Blog # 1

J.M.W. Turner’s Slave Ship (Slavers Throwing Overboard the Dead and Dying, Typhoon Coming On) particularly piqued my interest.Turner explicitly mentions a setting sun in his accompanying poem Fallacies of Hope. Upon first glance and examination of the title, the white blast among a violently orange and red sky strikes me more as a godly figure than a sun. Its central position in the frame brings it to importance. Why would a simple sunset get to overshadow the atrocities being committed? The shape of the white figure is elongated and more representative of a humanoid figure rather than a descending sun. Secularly, the feature can be and was explicitly explained as the natural phenomenon, but given the context it seems possible that Turner was letting viewers know that god is watching their actions. As we mentioned in class, the painting’s dramatic features like limbs floating in the water and chains getting tossed around int he surf, give the impression that the painting is straight propaganda. What grabs attention and emotion more than god? At the very least, this flash of white seems more like a sunrise than a sunset. Technically speaking, if we were going with the artist’s intent that it is a sunset, the ship appears to be going in the opposite direction of the sun. Basically, that would mean that they were traveling eastward as the sun sets in the West. Why wouldn’t a SLAVE ship be traveling in the direction of the western world? Perhaps Turner is commenting on how the continuation of slavery ultimately means turning your back on the future and progress. It’s an old world concept. I’d also like to address the question of the chains. As we discussed with light amusement, the chains don’t even seem to be attached to the limbs of the slaves. It reminded me of Jean Jacques Rousseau's quote in the Social Contract. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are.” Rousseau wasn’t exactly commenting on slavery, rather than a slightly bitter view on the upper-class. Maybe Turner felt similarly in that these bodies in the water, were more free than those on the ship. The leg that is chained is suspiciously light skinned anyway. Perhaps this death has set these slaves free, while the people running the slave trade are the true prisoners. Not a justified murder but one that is warranted by the way society is. Very Toni Morrison’s Beloved-esque. Back to God, I found the comparison to David’s The Death of Marat to paintings of Christ to be relevant yet not in the same way. Quite frankly, the difference in lighting is too deliberate. All the paintings we examined that had similar poses, cast light over the figure’s chest, whereas Marat’s chest and part of his chest is shadowed. The lighting seems to come from behind instead of head on like the other ones. My guess is that David wasn’t painting from life or observing a model since he was rumored to have immediately started during a riot. Therefore, he could manipulate the shadowing in the painting however he wanted, within reason. Without knowing the context of his murder, at first I thought maybe this was illustrating an attack from behind, something that really blindsided this man who was already vulnerable in his bathtub. However he is clearly bleeding from the chest where he was actually stabbed. This choice to cast light from behind illuminates the letter, making it one of the brightest, most noticeable features in the painting. It also highlights this mysterious empty space. I don’t think this is a fanciful, crazy black mass of representation. I think it’s just a wall and point of reference for the room. I think the lighting on the wall is more important, because it is exposing who should be there or is maybe just slightly out of the picture. This would have been the area that Corday was standing in. If the frame were larger, she might literally be in the scene. Although most critics talk about Marat, I feel no type of way about him other than that I feel bad he’s dead. Corday, on the other hand, seems like a coward and punk. Originally I thought like every one else, that Marat was being was the focal point, but now I think it might have been Corday since she’s so present in the painting without even being in it. She definitely seems like the contextual focal point. Her bloody knife, her letter, the spooky sense that she is nearby. It’s so evident that’s she’s been there but she must have fled the scene. I have to question David though. For being part of a super violent political group, he seems like he’s pretty bent out of shape over the gruesome slaying. Maybe I’m bias because I’ve never liked the Jacobins or the way they acted, but it sure seems like the pot calling the kettle black.