The poor, explored majority violently overthrowing the rich minority

Sounds about right

the kurt vonnegut book the movie plagarized was better

also I think you are all forgetting the last 15 minutes of the movie
not really a socialist message

...

some how commies think this a good thing

I consider these things synonymous.

I do it all the time with anime

This is metaphorically a cold war scenario where porky holds a nuclear gun to the world's head and demands submission, except this time the commies choose the bullet and Joe McWorksHard blames the commies for refusing their children being literally sacrificed to the status quo engine.

is this (jew)?

the crucial difference is that the designer/conductor of the train saved humanity from annihilation, instead of artificially creating Armageddon and holding the proletariat hostage

I've seen it all at this point.

Bullshit.

The engineer was part of the elite that greedily brought upon the apocalypse. It's only by mere coincidence that his decadent super rich temper tantrum had him inside his train when the rest of the world collapsed.
After that, in the time the revolution happens, he(and the other elites) know that there is no need to stay inside the train and that the outside world is habitable, yet they choose to propagate the lies that keep them in control.

hmm, forgot about that part. I'll have to rewatch the movie.

If that wasn't the case though, he did nothing wrong.

But the conductor cannot comprehend an end to the trains operation and a future of taking back the frozen world. If you look at his stance from that of a capitalist, they both see that they are benefitting humanity through their actions, while simultaneously sacrificing people to Moloch. The decision to destroy the machine, even if it creates an immediate violence among the passengers, will ultimately bring humanity out of the continuous cycle of violence created by the train.

They hint it several times through the movie, then one character has a 15 minute monologue that's almost totally devoted to his beliefs that the world outside is inhabitable, then the two last survivors (a little boy and an older teen girl) spend several minutes outside the train not dying, and finally they meet some wild animals who are also not dead despite having never lived on a train, which implies conditions were never completely fatal to begin with. They really hammer that shit in by the end.

there's a pretty clear distinction between the train and real life. And no I do not fight for oligarchies, how presumptuous, fuck you!

the humans would have died had they left the train. at the end that bear was finna eat the niglet and gook

That's a namefag larping, not Holla Forums. You won't find a single Holla Forumslack who supports globalism.

disingenous larping namefags have better theory tbh. Also, I just noticed that the swastika on the nazi flag isn't quite centred.

Despite what you've been leant to believe, cult members are frequently mislead and emotionally manipulated by people with personal and not political agendas.

This is especially clear in Holla Forums.

I am a Holla Forumsack and I do not support globalism. Half of Holla Forums are capital collaberationists and reformists though. No judgement though :^)

lmfao. Nationalism is globalism

It would have been better if they had just stopped the train like they did in the graphic novel, instead of crashing it and potentially killing the last humans on earth.

...

Okja was better, tbh. I want more vegan kino.

The plot was so incredibly stupid:
Aside from being laughably bad SF, it also ruins the film's social themes by espousing a "feelz>reelz" justification as underlying revolution, rather than revolution being the most conservative and rational course of action long-term.

This film is just one more reason Worst Korea is worst korea.

there was an explanation - the train was a luxury train not a plan to save humanity. They just happened to be on the train when the World ended.

I know, that was still no explanation for why they didn't just park the train somewhere and use its reactor to start a settlement.

The reactor was a perpetual motion engine that would only operate while the train was moving… it's retarded I know…

While that would be pretty dumb, it would be something, but I don't remember them specifically saying that.

help me

it's just an inference. I also imagine getting off the train in the fucking (deathly) freezing cold to dig through k's of snow with no tools to get below the ice was probably out of the realm of possibilities. Let alone making new tools in the barren shithole. I don't think most would go for it

It was definitely left/marxist with the strong white guy sacrificing himself to stop another why guy and his majority white flunkies and then the survivors being the asian girl and that kid

are you high?

Because it's an analogy for the cycle of capital, faggot. Read Marx.

One of those YouTube essayists covered this. It's a train because the main story is supposed to be linear and people's ideas are confined to the axis/dimension of the hierarchy. The whole movie Chris Evans has to make the choice to keep moving forward or turn back. He's trapped by ideology and doesn't consider movement orthogonal to the hierarchy (derailing the train). It's metaphorical for Leninism vs. anarchism. The point is that leaving the power structures intact will just perpetuate the system, that revolution has been incorporated. People within the system fight each other instead of fighting the system. The only way to escape the brutal hierarchy is to destroy the underlying structure and derail the train.

not bad tbh
you sure its lenin x anarch tho?

this!

I put Lenin instead of Marx because iirc that was closer to the plan - organize and send a group to storm the front and take control for the sake of everyone. It's more about seize the state vs. smash the state.

I dont have a lot of of your guys perspective on this
is it cuz after lenin the mistakes were still perpetuated or am I just missing it?

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. I'd say that the point of the story is that for the revolution to succeed you must destroy Capital, symbolised by the train, and a revolution that does not destroy Capital is doomed to regress. But that's not necessarily an indictment of Leninism or an endorsement of Anarchism, since both seek to destroy Capital. After all, they had to take control of the train first in order to crash it (as far as I know, haven't watched it yet).

Using the institutions of a bourgeois state to bring about socialism isn't possible. Bourgeois institutions will always lead to a bourgeois state.
The problem isn't that the current people in power are evil, but that the whole way society is organized that is the problem. The only way out of capitalism is to destroy capitalism (the train) and build a new world from the ashes.

It's still retarded. They could have some kind of justification for being on a train like I suggested, they could put it somewhere else spatially confined like a space station (there's a [terrible, but for different reasons] show with this exact theme and premise called The 100), they could put it in a James Bond supervillain lair.

The flaws in Snowpiercer's premise are like The Matrix being "powered by human body heat" instead of run inside human brains, except the story of the film from start to finish is riddled with such flaws in a fractal of retardation, undermining its sociopolitical commentary in the process.

makes sense, could do with DC getting glassed tbh, what with how centralized and corrupt things are
I'm more for a more decentralized system since it's more difficult to co-opt and corrupt the whole

The train is not so much capital as it is the societal system as a whole, with particular emphasis on the superstructure. It's more like the fixed track or path is the base (which is why changes on the train amount to little). It's also pretty clever how the train wasn't really designed for this, just repurposed when the old world collapsed. That parallels the way capitalism existed within feudalism and when feudalism ended, capitalism picked up the pieces, recontextualizing itself and what remained of culture under feudalism. It's a chaotic system thrown together from the remains of something older and "greater" that was lost.

The idea is that the state and other power structures are fundamentally built to reinforce class and capitalism. If you seize control you haven't upended the system, you've just repositioned yourself within it. That's the anarchist (and some ultra) criticism in a nutshell.

You shouldn't take it so literally. The place has to move because capitalism is always moving. It's always driving forward under nobody's control because it's on the rails of profit. Capitalism can't be steered, just slowed or stopped.

Stop being so autistic. The logic of the setting doesn't matter. Its the story the setting allows to be told that matters. The Train setting allows for the class conflict, the progress of the revolution (from the left side of the screen to the right side, the last cart to the front of the Train) to be built into the setting itself.

well I suppose that makes sense, I think most people are adverse to that idea since the commons rely on said infrastructure for their daily lives and to go completely without is unthinkable

speaking of, logistically, how do you guys think society should be rebuilt, infrastructure wise

Lol, almost no one here can agree on how a socialist society should be like. You could get a thousand different answers.

I was actually you guys not having a post societal plan to be just my bias, that's a little disappointing

most of Holla Forums pretty much has the same goal centered around restoring traditional families and the strength and ingenuity of nations that host them, if I'm even articulating it right

here is a better version, Holla Forums just wants to be family men

It's not about infrastructure. Not about tearing down bridges and shit. It's about institutions - government, schools, etc. Factories and supply chain and would need to be repurposed to be less alienating but they shouldn't be physically destroyed. The part being torn down that matters isn't the brick and mortar (though some of that will happen as a consequence). What matters is the pattern of behavior, the social organization. The argument here is that if you preserve the organization but hand over control to The Workers' Party, you haven't had a real revolution, just painted shit red. The logic and internal pressures of capitalism don't require you to agree with capitalism or even be aware of what's going on, and masking that with notions of revolution can blind you to the presence and influence of capital. Capital isn't just the class conflict but the whole system of production from top to bottom. Engels even pointed out that the commodity form alone contains the "embryo" of capitalism.

B-b-but I thought all of us here, Holla Forums & Holla Forums alike, were united in just wanting to be the little girl?

You can't lay out a clear plan for a future based on bottom-up organizing. The whole point is that it's not in the hands of one person, a group of people, or an ideology. You can make general predictions, but even that is fairly limited.

Oh it shows, Holla Forums, it shows..

I get what you mean but its not the bridges I'm talking about but who maintains the bridges, the roads, the schools

who teaches being amongst the most important

makes total sense when you phrase it like that but to achieve it your revolution would have to instead be an institution set up over time along side the existing one, a new institution set up the day of revolution would not have the strength to stand on its own

kek I really do want kids and a daughteru

you could at least start by trying to agree on what's needed

nice shitpost man but Holla Forums does not associate with groups like stormfront, TRS, and Ironmarch for good reason, and seriously furries?

also post some non bullshots for the commie side

No, the point is you have to reboot everything. If a revolution goes international this would be easier, but at first we're talking about something like a natural disaster scenario where all social cohesion breaks down and then people start organizing from the ground up.

We're just a handful of people though. We can posit some things but whatever we say is needed will necessarily be overridden by the people in the new society. We're not going to know everyone's needs in advance. About as far as we can go is coming up with provisional schemes for organizing and decision making (the new "government") and there is plenty of theory on the subject with a whole lot of disagreement.

you can't rely on random chance man, you gotta be the force of change

but like Das Calital they could be looking back to those who have pontificated on such ideas, going in with no plan or knowledge of history would likely result in a similar but worse off society for not having knowledge of past attempts and ideas
you could at least float some ideas for taking care of roads, as fundamentally important as they are for any civilization

The whole point is that the people are in charge. Restricting control isn't going to achieve that. And what people need has fuck all to do with random chance. Their needs are their needs, and the point is for them to be in a position to have their needs addressed, rather than for some subset of the population to do what they think is best based on their limited knowledge.

There's plenty of stuff like this. If anything the left spends too much time on theory and not enough organizing and reaching out to the working class to prepare for collapse/revolution. My point is that you can't prescribe a correct course of action from on high, just present ideas and advice that the ultimate authorities (the people) will consider when running their world.
There isn't an issue here. People use roads all the time and when there's a maintenance issue they raise it with the city (currently). The bottleneck here is whether the city deems it necessary to keep the roads in working order, not whether people give enough of a shit. If resources are socially available, then someone will notice and raise the issue, and someone (maybe the same person) can organize a project to fix the road. There's no reason to sit around and wait because there's no state who's supposed to be fixing the road - everyone knows it's up to them so they might as well go do it.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am getting at man

I'm saying if you want the people to pick another path, they have to at least see the path before they can willingly chose it

ok

that doesn't sound realistic man
like somebody has to convince people that it needs doing
then someone needs to motivate people to gather the material needed for the concrete
and before that even you need people making tools like cement trucks, concrete pourers and tools for getting the materials in the first place

and the number one problem is organizing and movating people to do that, every few years if not every year for multiple areas

how do you propose to motivate them?

It doesn't matter what I want. The point is to make society beholdened to the people who compose it. It's not up to me what they choose. It's up to them. I'm not trying to tell them what "path" to pick. I'm trying to put the power to choose in their hands. It's a fundamentally different intent from fascism/nazism.

Go read some literature on the subject, literally anything. You seem to be laboring under a warped understanding of how motivation and psychology in general work. I even already explained how people get convinced and motivated to fix the problem.

why do you advocate for that if you do not want it
please don't assume I'm advocating for Not Socialism

I'll make sure to read some animal farm, they were highly motivated to build that wind mill, thanks for the advice
you mean this
I hope you don't mean that because if you do I'm afraid it's you that is laboring under a warped understanding of how motivation and psychology work

er, Not Socialism
please don't assume that I am advocating for it

oh, kek

Animal Farm is a satire of Stalinism. Orwell was a socialist you dip. He fought in the Spanish Civil War. Read Homage to Catalonia.

thanks fam I will, but I was being facetious

Alright, here. Just went and watched the movie and holy shit is it good, there's just so much material for analysis especially the school scene.
As for the ending:
My take on it - beyond the whole the train is capitalism and we must break capitalism - is that it is an indictment of lesser-evilism. Capitalism (any system, really) goes to incredible lengths to justify and perpetuate itself, to the point where it will create a system like the one described in the movie. The protagonist is constantly told that the train is the only system, and any rebellion against that system and any alternate system equals death. However, this only holds true because no alternative is ever presented, and every failed attempt at an alternative (themselves hampered by the ruling ideology) is held out as an example of why the ruling ideology is the only way (sound familiar?). And yet it is also made clear that the train itself is falling apart and will inevitably destroy itself. So the main argument of the film, as shown by the development of the protagonist, is that it is better to crash the train with (almost) no survivors than to perpetuate a corrupt, failing system that will inevitably eat itself. To put it in real life terms: better to cast humanity into an uncertain future than to remain slaves to Capital.
I am such a fucking nerd

lol what kind of insecurities lie underneath this do you think?

Its a very good film, thats for sure. Bong Joon-ho is absolutely /ourdirector/

it is a good thing because western civ deserve to be punished

no. globalists are literally nationalists in disguise, they're just pretending it's not about american imperialism

i'll ask different question. what tools will be available to oversee, shape and engineer society as a whole?

The first class passengers were decadent and kept around a bunch of lumpen so they could watch them starve and occasionally kill them.
There was no reason to keep around people to let them suffer, even the first class had plenty of children.

I'm not sure what message I was supposed to get from this? Gas the lumpen before they fuck everything up?

It's even worse. They could have very well had fully automated luxury communism and rode the entire thing out.
Everything was destroyed out of a spooked obsession with maintaining hierarchy, when all elements were present to make it obsolete.
That the first class insisted on keeping around a bunch of miserable lumpen is actually a pretty good example of contemporary capitalism. We could end the worst of poverty and starvation, or even accept a reducing human population. But instead think thans, capitalists and governments the world over insist on an ever growing influx of labor. Even if it's completely unnecessary and only condemns people to a life of poverty.

Here, let me fix your retardation.

The proles were kept around because the status quo would rather not send their children to be eventually minced by the unrelenting machinery of the engine, in compensation for its many solvable defects that the elite refuse to amend, knowing as they are of the habitable outside world, presumably ripe with similarly wondrous technology.Most of humanity can live in abject misery , or be eradicated in a crash altogether, just so a few get indulge in lavish decadence

Your "hurrd durr overpopulation" argument is entirely contrary to the reality depicted on the movie where actual population control is enforced, not because of scarcity, but to keep the proles under , to keep them malnourished, filthy and sick.The resources are withheld from the proles so that their status as human cattle can be passed off as charity and their survival at all , as a gift from the elite. All that while the engine ACTUALLY providing the resources runs on the literal consumption of the prole's children.

The environment in the movie and outside of it has more than enough resources,when combined with human ingenuity, to support the ever growing population,without lowering the standards of living of anyone but the insignificantly scarce wealthy elites.

meant to reply to

this movie is the founding manifesto of my ideology, anarcho-everyoneshouldfreezetodeath-leninism