Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘cheap excuses to link to Maoist propoganda posters’

For the very special Maoist in your life:

“Maoart paintings integrate with virtuosity real people’s faces into faithfully reproduced propaganda posters. Based on a photograph provided by you and a poster of your choice, an artist renders you as a socialist hero.”

Seriously, check it out.  For 200 bucks, you pick a model poster and send in a headshot from a similar angle as your intended character.  Within three weeks, the artists will paint you a faithful revision of the original starring you as the proletarian hero.  The website notes that the paintings are done by “freelance professional Chinese artists selected for their portrait skills and their ability to reproduce the propaganda poster styles,” adding that they “do not commission “painting factories” and their salaried artists.”  Here are some samples of regular ol’ white folk rendered as Chinese Communist icons:

It’s all inclusive: Chinese-language slogans, industrial or agrarian background, etc.  But if it’s out of your proletarian price range, consider a simple movie or DVD.  Especially one reviewed by the Maoist International Movement (MIM).  They’re very sweet on Harry Potter…

“Harry Potter: The Prisoner of Azkaban” is almost the best we can expect from bourgeois liberalism’s films for children. It’s pointedly anti-fascist–giving the boot to eugenics in the opening scene, where Aunt Marge talks about the parents of Harry Potter in a disparaging way as reflecting on Harry…

…and give a limited endorsement to Star Wars:

“There was not much to complain about politically in the first installments of “Star Wars,” which was both anti-fascist and anti-imperialist. The role of Black characters and the “Red Guard” in the key battles did not go unnoticed at MIM. In this movie, we learn that democracy is the preferred government of the “good guys” of the Republic.  Although the characters’ endorsement of democracy is rather shallow like the current understanding of democracy in the united $tates, the movie itself offers slightly more analysis of democracy.”

(Yes, that’s “united $tates.” stet.)

Maoists, however, utterly hated Spider Man 2:

“There is a lot of confusing shit going on in this movie. By the NYSDCJS and NYPD’s own figures(1), grand larceny, grand larceny auto, and murder, will be about 20% of reported crimes in New York City in 2004, and the majority of these reports will not be due to the actions of the illegal bourgeois Mafia, who metaphorically figure prominently in the adventures of such comic action heroes as Spider-Man and Batman. MIM has said that “Spider-Man: The Motion Picture” (2002) has some redeeming value on the basis of its depiction of asexuality, but it cannot ignore the fact that “Spider-Man’s” Amerikan flag-waving fans are cheering for something that in the real world would be called “capitalist police repression.”

This is an important point. Communists do not support pig repression, much less the pig-wanna- be, labor-aristocrat vigilantes who think themselves heroes when they are gunning down the Third World proletariat at the Mexico-united $tates border, or the self-styled “community” pigs who “police” Asian, Black and Latino youth street organizations. If the bourgeoisie want to sic their thugs on each other, MIM would not get in the middle of this fight, but it does not support pig repression in the abstract when Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire) has his knee-jerk reaction every time he hears a police siren. If Spider-Man had any (spider-) “sense” at all, he would fight the police repression under which gold miners work in Azania and China to produce the gold coins stored in the vault of the bank that is robbed in the movie.”

Want more?  MIM has literally hundreds of these.  So this holiday season, “Smelt a lot of good steel and accelerate socialist construction.

*Preemptive note to rightist trolls:  None of the above represents an endorsement of Maoism.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Not, sadly, a cheerleader.  Unlike some.

In all seriousness, the only redeeming thing about Faithapalooza ’08 was McCain’s bizarre definition of “rich” as making “over $5 million.”  Our arugula-hating hero of the proletariat insisted that some people are rich because of their kids; some rich people are unhappy; I don’t care too much for money / Money can’t buy me love; and all manner of other pablum.  (Clearly, he’s never had the joy of a welfare Christmas.)

This was compounded by the subsequent housing gaffe.  Democrats are honing in and the press is actually picking it up.  However, as Ambinder points out in The Atlantic, we shouldn’t necessarily get our hopes up:

“…the word “John McCain” means a lot of different things, but rich isn’t one of them. So Obama and the Democrats must use this moment to convince Americans in real time to think differently about McCain.”

I worry that the McCain narrative is already pretty well set, and it may be too late to change it.  That said, anything the Democrats ever do is labeled “class warfare.”  Taxes, social programs, regulatory agencies, you name it.  So if they’re going to call it “class warfare” anyway, we might as well give them some for a change.

And how do Saint John’s legions retaliate? Rezko and this:

“This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years — in prison.”

Oh snap!  THAT’S WHAT SHE SAID!

Really though, we’ve been through the Rezko stuff somewhat in the primaries and it’s a little too indirect and convoluted to make a useful soundbite story.  (The Bill Ayers ad though could be this year’s Swiftboats, because it’s just so outrageous and fear-driven that I fully expect it to work.)  But…POW?  Obama raises McCain’s economic privilage and he counters with…POW?  For Christ’s sake someone dissed ABBA and McCain countered with POW. Over in the echo chamber, Hannity hits Edwards, Colmes brings up McCain, and Hannity…doubles-down on POW.  I swear, it’s like a comma for these people.

At least Obama seems to be figuring it out.

The McCain Campaign: More POWs than old-school Batman.

Read Full Post »