#soviet realist

[justablix]

WAIT wait I figured it out. the reason every single modern adaptation fucks up irene adler by giving her romantic feelings for holmes (and vice versa) even though SCAN is about her trying to live a quiet live with the (non-holmes) man she loves and acd basically put a giant NO HETERO HE ADMIRED HER SKILL HE DIDNT LOVE HER warning sign at the beginning of SCAN is that not a single male director could imagine a man respecting a woman for her intelligence and skill without having romantic feelings for her. In this essay I will SCREAM

[stanford-photography]

Portrait of Olena 04 By Jeff Stanford, 2023

Buy prints at: https://jeff-stanford.pixels.com/

[07043012]

A short meta:

Alucard is a warlord no matter what, after all these years he still thinks like one. In modern words we could use the terms "military commander, "politician", "diplomat" to describe his past position. I, personally, don't want to protray him going full insanity mindless blood thrist. Don't get me wrong, this man is still insane and blood thirst but he has a sharp strategy mind, as well as, the knowledge of art of war and commerce.

For example, he cares about human resources of the country he served (human resources undoubtedly one of the key factor to the develop of a country). Also, he understands the reason behind British empire decline, which is interesting since we could see his acknowledges of modern world politics [hcs: he frequently has dicussions with Integra on current politics]. And don't forget Vlad is one of the Romanian national heroes, even Romania Marxist historians in the 60-70s rehabilitated his status as "a cruel leader but he was motivated by the need to protect the state from internal and external threats".

Perhaps, he has learnt International relations before due to the Coldwar plus what was happened in the UK during the 20th century.

He's a vampire, yes but before that he's a ruler so politics!

[hcs: His favorite classic works are "The Prince" by Machiavelli, "Leviathan" by Hobbes & "The Tragedy of Great power politics" by Mearsheimer ]

[vasfasan]

its hard 2 juggle work and life (for tatiana)

tw: sw*stika, smoking, alcohol, guns, bc its spies are forever lmao

HAVE YALL SEEN THAT BARON VON NAZI'S SWASTIKA IS BEDAZZLED LMAO????

[realspaceships]

Soviet Union's other Moon Rocket: UR-700A

[cs300]

having the urge to make my story set in a different country than mine be as accurate to that country as possible and then finding out that it doesnt have the weird little corrupt things that my country has and thus would make a more boring setting . horrible .

[gregor-samsung]

The Orphanage [Parwareshghah] (Shahrbanoo Sadat - 2019)

[cuteniaarts]

The face you make when your best friend sings a song about how the woman who killed your gf is actually his ex wife:

This is from like, October, and I waited so long on posting bc originally I was planning to draw all four of them but looking at my current state of mind... yeah that ain’t gonna happen like ever

ANYWAYS I’ve been in love with this man since I was 2 and I’m not ashamed to admit it

[tenth-sentence]

This realistic assessment of Soviet atomic development was not made until 1956.

"Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists" - Robert Jungk, translated by James Cleugh

[haggishlyhagging]

It took about two hours for Daina Taimina to find the solution that had eluded mathematicians for over a century. It was 1997, and the Latvian mathematician was participating in a geometry workshop at Cornell University. David Henderson, the professor leading the workshop, was modelling a hyperbolic plane constructed out of thin, circular strips of paper taped together. 'It was disgusting,' laughed Taimina in an interview.

A hyperbolic plane is 'the geometric opposite' of a sphere, explains Henderson in an interview with arts and culture magazine Cabinet. 'On a sphere, the surface curves in on itself and is closed. A hyperbolic plane is a surface in which the space curves away from itself at every point.' It exists in nature in ruffled lettuce leaves, in coral leaf, in sea slugs, in cancer cells. Hyperbolic geometry is used by statisticians when they work with multidimensional data, by Pixar animators when they want to simulate realistic cloth, by auto-industry engineers to design aerodynamic cars, by acoustic engineers to design concert halls. It's the foundation of the theory of relativity, and thus the closest thing we have to an understanding of the shape of the universe. In short, hyperbolic space is a pretty big deal.

But for thousands of years, hyperbolic space didn't exist. At least it didn't according to mathematicians, who believed that there were only two types of space: Euclidean, or flat space, like a table, and spherical space, like a ball. In the nineteenth century, hyperbolic space was discovered - but only in principle. And although mathematicians tried for over a century to find a way to successfully represent this space physically, no one managed it - until Taimina attended that workshop at Cornell. Because as well as being a professor of mathematics, Taimina also liked to crochet.

Taimina learnt to crochet as a schoolgirl. Growing up in Latvia, part of the former Soviet Union, 'you fix your own car, you fix your own faucet - anything', she explains. 'When I was growing up, knitting or any other handiwork meant you could make a dress or a sweater different from everybody else's.' But while she had always seen patterns and algorithms in knitting and crochet, Taimina had never connected this traditional, domestic, feminine skill with her professional work in maths. Until that workshop in 1997. When she saw the battered paper approximation Henderson was using to explain hyperbolic space, she realised: I can make this out of crochet.

And so that's what she did. She spent her summer 'crocheting a classroom set of hyperbolic forms' by the swimming pool. 'People walked by, and they asked me, "What are you doing?" And I answered, "Oh, I'm crocheting the hyperbolic plane."' She has now created hundreds of models and explains that in the process of making them 'you get a very concrete sense of the space expanding exponentially. The first rows take no time but the later rows can take literally hours, they have so many stitches. You get a visceral sense of what "hyperbolic" really means.' Just looking at her models did the same for others: in an interview with the New York Times Taimina recalled a professor who had taught hyperbolic space for years seeing one and saying, 'Oh, so that's how they look.' Now her creations are the standard model for explaining hyperbolic space.

-Caroline Criado Perez, Invisible Women

Photo credit

[txttletale]

yo i really like your content and agree with you on most things but i don't really know what you mean with that last one. my friends from ukraine both oppose the war's existence but would rather not be violently annexed by an imperial power so of course they, with little other options, support resistance efforts.

it's really hard for me to understand what you're going for because if ukraine stopped fighting back it'd just get taken by russia. maybe i just have bad brainfog, but it's hard to understand what you're asking us to do and believe. should we try and take out both the russian and american imperialist powers at once? but that's unrealistic and unlikely to happen in the near future, no matter how much i personally support it, which i do.

i guess my question is, what's an actual realistic thing we should support in the meantime? we can't just pretend that somehow revolution will take out both american and russian imperialist interests immediately, so. it's like, well yes we should have a better world playing by better rules, but how do we do the right thing when we are bound by the rules now.

i have friends who have family who died in the war, and sometimes it feels like bloggers i otherwise trust say things that sound suspiciously close to "ukraine should stop this pointless fighting and give up." which i am aware isn't your intention, and i want to be an effective anti imperialist and have the correct and informed opinions on stuff like this, but i am having a very hard time understanding what you are trying to say.

i really promise i am not a concern troll or nato apologist or anything, i just also have personally been struggling with what to support and how to save innocent lives. i hate war and i wish we could magically create a situation in which ukraine didn't have to rely on horrible things for self defense. i just don't know what to do or believe because my friends would rightfully hate me if i said ukraine should stop defending itself.

i mean, first off: don't worry, you obviously don't sound like a concern troll or a nato apologist. this is an eminently reasonable question -- healed's law strikes again. & i certainly don't blame you for worrying that marxist-leninists are apologists for russian imperialism, because unfortunately many self-proclaimed marxist-leninists have been deceived by the frankly paper-thin figleaf of 'denazificaiton'--even as putin, puppet of the russian bourgeoisie denounces lenin & the bolsheviks & the soviet union with every speech he makes. it sucks!

first of all, i think the important thing here and the central point of disagreement is on what constitutes 'ukraine'. liberals and nationalists alike consider nations to be fundamentally one whole: that all the people of ukraine together constitute 'ukraine', and so 'ukraine as a whole' has consistent interests, and acts as a one--the ukrainian government represents this unitary ukraine armed forces of ukraine fight for this ukraine.

but the marxist analysis of the nation is completely different. from the marxist perspective, the nation is split across class lines. ukraine is not 'ukrainians', but in fact 'the ukrainian working class' and 'the ukrainian bourgeoisie'. now, of course, there are further contradictions even within these classes--there is a faction of pro-Russian bourgeoisie, and a faction of pro-Western bourgeoisie. but remember, we must apply the same analysis to these countries too: the 'pro-Russian' Ukrainian bourgeoisie do not wish to submit to Russia's working class, but to their oligarchs. the 'pro-Western' Ukrainian bourgeoisie are not opening the nation's economy to the European and USAmerican working class, but to their bourgeoisie. so the bourgeoisie are, in every case--even when split among themselves--only ever in league with other sectors of the bourgeoisie.

so, through this lens, how do we see the war in ukraine? well, i think that the union of communists in ukraine must have a far better handle on this than i, because they're living through it: so i will quote their analysis and then elucidate on it in relation to your question.

The puppet regime in Ukraine participates in this war in the interests of Ukrainian oligarchs, who have made themselves completely dependent on big capital of the West and NATO, who have turned the Ukrainian army into an advanced military unit of the Western bourgeoisie. The war is not about "the Ukrainian nation," not about "the Ukrainian language and culture," not even about "European values". It is a war for the united interests of the Ukrainian and international bourgeoisie, which coincide in their desire to destroy the economic and political power of the Russian bourgeoisie. No interests or rights of Ukrainian workers are protected by this war. Both Ukrainian and Russian workers in this war have only the right and obligation to go to the front and die so that one group of the world bourgeoisie defeats the other and gains more monopoly rights to oppress the workers, both in their own country and in the defeated countries. […] For the working class of Ukraine, this imperialist war has the most tragic consequences. It lies on the shoulders of the workers the role of "cannon fodder" and the inevitable deaths in the fighting, mass impoverishment, unemployment, complete restrictions of rights and freedoms for the sake of protecting the interests of the Ukrainian big bourgeoisie, the oligarchs and the interests of the Western bourgeoisie in destroying and robbing Russia and seizing its natural resources. This will inevitably be accompanied by the destruction and seizure of Ukrainian industrial and natural resources, including in the case of Russia's success. The same fate awaits the vast majority of the Ukrainian petty bourgeoisie. The big bourgeoisie has already bought its children out of the war and taken them abroad, just as it took its capitals out. But that is not the main point: the big bourgeoisie is profiting from the war under Zelensky, just as it profited under Poroshenko: stealing finances, making money from reselling weapons, supplying the army with uniforms, food, repair work, humanitarian aid, etc. In war the bourgeoisie makes billions of dollars, while the mobilized people have to be equipped and fed by relatives, friends and volunteers – which is clearly not enough. As in peacetime, but even more brazenly, the bourgeoisie is getting rich off the bones of the working class!

—Union of Communists of Ukraine, On the War and the tasks of the working class

that is to say--the russian army, which is funded by the russian bourgeoisie, is fighting to establish the exclusive right of that russian bourgeoisie to oppress and exploit the ukrainian people. meanwhile, the ukrainian army, funded by the ukrainian and western bourgeoisie more broadly, are fighting to maintain the exclusive right of the ukrainian and western to oppress and exploit the ukrainian people. already, ukrainian public assets are being put up in a fire sale for western buyers--(and of course, should russia's offensive have been as succesful as they'd hoped and this war already over, they'd be doing much the same thing for the benefit of buyers among the russian bourgeoisie).

this is what is meant by 'inter-imperialist' war. it's easy to say 'well, the ukrainian army isn't imperialist--it's fighting for the nation's independence!' but in terms of real economic interests there is no 'the nation'. the ukrainian army isn't fighting for the ukrainian working class (which of course includes themselves!)--the government that pays them and the states that equip them wouldn't do so out of any sense of interest in the well-being of the working class. we can see this clearly as the western imperialist powers now start to equip the ukrainian army with depleted uranium shells, which will poison swathes of ukrainian land and cause sickness and death among the people this army purports to be fighting for. the goal of the ukrainian state and army isn't to protect any working class people--only to protect its total right to the economic exploitation of those people.

it's this that the ukrainian state is afraid of when it fights not to cede territory, not the (surely real, to be clear!) brutality from the russian state that would face the inhabitants of any such ceded territory. in fact, funding nazi groups that operated in those areas before the war and will surely continue to operate afterwards, the ukrainian govenrment makes it clear that brutality against the inhabitants of its eastern provinces alone does not phase it, so long as the ukrainian bourgeoisie (& their western bourgeoisie patrons) continue to be the ones profiting off the region's people and resources.

elsewhere in the article the UCU observe the same thing that can be observed by those outside of ukraine by listening to the words of zelenskyy and the ukrainian government's allies--that even the goal of 'protecting its people' [read: protecting exclusive economic/extractive access to those people] has been sidelined by the dream of a total or partial obliteration of the russian bourgeoisie entirely--not for any moral or anti-imperialist reason, but simply so that the ukrainian/western bourgeoisie no longer have competition.

[...] the goals of warfare are changing. If at the first stage of the civil conflict the Ukrainian regime aimed to restore state control over the Ukrainian territories, where this control was lost, then at the second stage it aimed to destroy Russia as a condition for the existence of Ukraine.

—ibid.

so--now that i've really dug into the precise nature of this war and why it's being waged on both sides, i'll answer some of your points directly:

if ukraine stopped fighting back it'd just get taken by russia "ukraine should stop this pointless fighting and give up."

both of these positions, both the one you hold yourself and the one you worry about others expressing, assume that what the ukrainian armed forces with NATO backing and full-throated embrace of fascist paramilitaries is doing constitutes 'ukraine' 'fighting back' against 'russia'. but it doesn't--it represents the ukrainian bourgeoisie fighting back against the russian bourgeoisie.

so, the big question--do i think that the ukrainian proletariat should abandon armed resistance against the russian invasion? absolutely not!

genuine popular resistance against the russian invasion is heroic and commendable--i am under no belief whatsoever that in the face of imperialist war the ukrainian people should not arm themselves and fight against the imperialists. i just reject the framing of the actual war as prosecuted as constituting this, because, to go back to what i've already established, there is not in fact one 'ukraine' but two--only one of which constitutes in a mieaningful sense the ukrainian people. i don't believe (and neither do the UCU, whose analysis i base mine on somewhat) that 'the war' as you ponder 'supporting' constitutes the ukrainian proletariat arming themselves or fighting against imperialism on their own behalf, but rather being armed by the bourgeoisie and fighting on their behalf.

and obviously i'm not an idiot who's blind to the actual numerial and material realities. the communist, anti-imperialist movement in ukraine, just like in most of the world, is completely dwarfed by imperialism and its footsoldiers. 'the ukrainian proletariat as self-armed acting organization rising up and challenging both imperialisms and freeing itself from both sets of bourgeoisie' is not something that's gonna happen tomorrow, and it's not an immediately actionable plan--no ukrainian communist can wake up tomorrow and say 'well, today i shall hit the big proletarian revolution button'.

the realities are that as the meeting ground between two imperialisms, ukrainian communists have to make decisions about which one they can most ably fight, might need to temporarily align themselves with or allow themselves to benefit from the ukrainian bourgeoise state--but never support it. like any bourgeoise state, a communist should know the ukrainian state is an enemy of the proletariat. yes, the pressing material realities on the ground might well make cooperation with that bourgeoise state the best temporary option--but 'cooperation' should never mean 'support' or 'loyalty', and should be done only tactically with ultimately loyalties remaining above all else with the working class.

in fact, refusing to offer the government and army a show of support and valorization is a key element of creating the conditions--radicalization, agitation--that would allow the proletariat to effectively rise up and truly combat imperialism, rather than choose under which imperialist heel they would rather be ground into dust. don't support an end to the war on either imperialist bloc's terms, but rather on proletarian terms--understand that the state of ukraine is not on the side of the ukrainian people, except tangentially, in individual moments of necessary alliance. raise awareness of the true war, the class war, and resist the ukrainian state's claims to stand with the people when it pursues the interests of the bourgeoisie.

tldr: the anti-imperialist position is not that the ukrainian proletariat should not be fighting, or that their fight is not worth supporting. the anti-imperialist action, therefore, is to draw the most awareness possible to this division within 'ukraine' among the working class themselves, make them aware of the realities of the economic condition. this is of course the foremost anti-imperialist and communist task across the entire world, because it is only through creating organizations of the working class that will fight for the working class can international imperialism be dfeated.

i'll leave this answer off by adding what the UCU said about this very topic in the same statement i've been quoting:

We understand the complexity and danger of these tasks, which inevitably cause repression on the part of the bourgeois political regimes. That is why workers' and communist organizations will need to develop illegal forms of class struggle along with legal ones in order to set and implement such tasks. The UCU has been forced to conduct its work in illegal forms since 2014. Many workers' and communist organizations may consider these antiwar tasks impossible because of their organizational weakness and lack of influence on the working class. However, historical experience shows that a correct and honest formulation of the tasks of the working class in conditions of war – real, not momentary tasks – may not yield success immediately, but will yield gains as the revolutionary situation intensifies. Since the task of destroying capitalist social relations is an international task, the international coordination of workers' and communist parties' actions, including the joint elaboration of tasks for the struggle against the imperialist war of the twenty-first century for the sake of uniting the international struggle against this war, for a communist reorganization of society and world peace, is becoming increasingly important. Proletarians of all countries, unite! 

[normal-horoscopes]

As an aspiring hobbyist fantasy author, what books do you recommend I read?

I offer an old note from a friend, and a buffalo nickel

It's IMPERATIVE that you read LOTR and then copy it almost exactly, change very little except make the elves even cooler and more badass and make the humans more racist towards the other races. Really hamfist some original lukewarm social commentary that wasn't in LOTR. Also make all the hobbits human they're lame.

Next, read Robert Jordans Wheel of Time series and take these specific lessons from it: Skilled editors are a waste, and REAL fantasy series don't get good till book 11. Take several pages to explain the history of every song the barkeep regularly hums in exquisite detail, right down to the ethnoreligious conflicts that prompted the creation of the song and then never mention any of those things again. Make up a dictionary worth of fantasy nouns with no consistent rules of pronunciation.

Next, read all of Game of Thrones. Remember: realistic and intimate political uberviolence makes a story good. Be sure to absorb none of the underlying themes or learn anything about narrative pacing or tension and just add more graphic incest to your story.

Now that you've read GOT, read Discworld. By this time you should be an expert in the fantasy genre, so be sure to RIGOROUSLY critique every possible element of Pratchett's worldbuilding like you're high fantasy cinemasins. Make sure you compare it to GOT as often as possible and talk about how much better and cooler and more realistic GOT's magic is. Post about this on Twitter as much as possible.

Also, remember that none of what weve talked about so far is REAL fantasy writing. Everyone knows that the true elites of the fantasy world read nothing but poorly translated Soviet-era LOTR knockoffs with an original print run of 2,500 copies. Find yourself something like that so you can obnoxiously look down on people for not having read it.

Hope this helps.

[theoppositeofprofound]

Everyone’s trying to make Goncharov a realistic, nuanced depiction of Russian culture, trying to put Scorsese and co. on a pedestal. Part of the point of Goncharov is what they missed! It’s a film made at the height of the Cold War, with a fundamentally silly premise (the evil commies are releasing hardened criminals to infiltrate the European underworld and… undermine good old Mom’n’Pop mafias?) and yet the delivery, the pathos the actors bring, the attention to detail of the production team, take a ridiculous idea and make it human. In a classic Scorsese move, Goncharov, the ostensible villain, is made the focal character, we watch the entire movie through his eyes. We sympathize with his fears of returning to prison, his marital troubles, his love of classic watches. The way the film predicts the aesthetic fixations of the Russian Mafia after the fall of the Soviet Union is also remarkable—the scene with the Neapolitan shoemaker, the famous boat scene. It’s not, as some people like to pretend, a film immune to the foibles of its time. But it is remarkably empathetic and prescient despite them.

[yibocheeks]

War of Faith Translated excerpts from the livestream where the cast watches ep 28-29 (spoilers under the cut)

Director Yao says that Wang Yang added this gesture of straightening Wei Ruolai's clothes in this scene (unscripted)

They get to the part where Wei Ruolai is being taken to the execution grounds. The MC asks Yibo: At that time was Wei Ruolai preparing to meet his death or did he think that he was going to be saved? Yibo: Who would think that there would be someone that would save him?

They watch Wei Ruolai run away from Lin Qiaosong Director Yao says about Yibo: He could join the Olympics sprint! He performed so well here.

Wang Yang (on when Shen Tunan realizes that Shen Jinzhen is the sniper who saved Wei Ruolai): [Tunan] is very conflicted, because on one hand, Wei Ruolai still lives, on the other hand, the person who saved him is Shen Jinzhen. So this was really difficult for him. Director Yao: He was always guessing that maybe his sister was a communist, a part of him had already prepared for this, but he didn't want to face the reality.

They watch Ruolai, after he has escaped from Lin Qiaosong and is alone with Niu Chunmiao. MC: At this time, director, do you think that Wei Ruolai is in a perplexed state of mind? Director Yao: Yes, because right now he is at a dead end. He has already given up his previous set of beliefs, but he has not yet found a new set of beliefs. He followed what his parents believed in, but he was unfamiliar with the communist set of values, which were different from what he knew. He had never met a communist, the only one he knew was his brother, but his brother passed away. So he didn't know the theories behind it. He wouldn't easily accept a new worldview that he was completely unfamiliar with. At this point, the two female characters helped to push him in that direction. The MC then asks Yibo to share what his thoughts are on Wei Ruolai's state of mind at this time. Yibo: I think the director's analysis is very well said. (gives a thumbs up)

Director Yao: Yibo is very good, he will immerse himself in his own imagined scenario, a certain atmosphere, in which he will then think about how the character will respond.

On Wei Ruolai's character development Director Yao: I think [the way Wei Ruolai's character develops] is more of a realistic take. A person will not think, I want to join the communists and immediately convert to that side. It's not realistic. We want the audience to believe in this process. His change happens one step at a time. Even when he arrives in Soviet Jiangxi, he didn't immediately join the Red Army. He wanted to see a bit more. Then after another incident happens, in his heart he holds a lot of resentment and hatred, there were things that he felt were unresolved in Shanghai; he met a group of lousy people and this made him angry, but there was nowhere to direct this anger. Then when he went to Soviet Jiangxi, he found the same thing that happened, but that the Red Army really seemed to treat those who are poor well. He thought, this is what I want, what he couldn't get where his shifu was, so this excited him.

Director Yao says that the little motorcycle that Yibo rode was vintage, and that it broke after Yibo rode it once.

They talk about the scene where Shen Tunan slaps Shen Jinzhen Director Yao: That day, Wang Yang's biggest dilemma was whether he should really slap her, while Li Qin was thinking about how she should respond to the slap. Wang Yang is quite softhearted. He had quite good control, he didn't actually hit her and his tears also came out. This is very difficult to control. That day Li Qin also said to him, "Ge, just go for it." But he never actually hit her. He's too softhearted. (jokingly) Once we got the scene I yelled cut right away. It was a difficult scene to film. The mentioned scene starts to play. The MC asks Yibo a question about Wei Ruolai but Yibo points to the screen and says (with a gremlin smirk): Let's continue to watch this scene Li Qin: The audience has already seen this. Yibo: Oh I haven't seen it yet Director Yao and Li Qin: Oh then watch!

The MC brings up that netizens discovered that Wei Ruolai, Shen Jinzhen, and Niu Chunmiao used the same red swallow cup, and that this was an easter egg that showed that they were all on the same side. The director clarifies that this was a coincidence.

The MC then asks: Did the actors themselves notice this detail? Yibo: I also only realized after it was pointed out.

[stirringwinds]

do you like rochu?

sorry anon, but it's personally in the notp corner for me. presently, i find his relationships with other asians like kiku, yong-soo, taiwan, india/aditya, vietnam/lien, hk, singapore etc—or rome, alfred and arthur more interesting to explore. as a chinese person, i'm a little burned out on ro//chu mainly because when i first joined the fandom there were a lot of orientalist depictions reducing yao to this delicate, blushing and sexually-inexperienced character next to ivan. another issue i had generally was the tendency to simplify or completely sever yao's far more deep and important relationships with people like yong-soo, kiku and india to prioritise whiteness, rather than like, inserting russia-china into that context of intra-asian histories.

i think the fandom has improved somewhat in this regard in that I do see more realistic Yao depictions, and i definitely wouldn't generalise all shippers, but that's the reason i couldn't quite 'get' into this ship. also because the perspective i take is the fact that china and the soviet union were competing for leadership of the communist bloc, so yeah, ro//chu as romantic communists for me is kind of...overblown and if anything my take on it is a fairly calculating and at times antagonistic relationship that can be interesting to dig into, but isn't very sentimental. no offense if you ship it; i will be honest that my blog just wouldn't be the right place for that.

[realspaceships]

Soviet Moon Landing an Alternative History