Thanks. The historical context is helpful. I’m actually less concerned with the official designation of “leftist” and more interested in readings of media that you provided here. At the very least, I think it’s certainly “left wing” as you describe it.
Also, I’m glad you brought up newtypes. I was going to bring that up in my original post, but I forgot. It seems like that’s real fascist aesthetic, especially seeing as how it’s formulated by Zeon to justify racial superiority. It’s interesting, though, that a newtype’s superpower is empathy, which is decidedly not fascist. Regardless of the political messaging, I think the stories would be better without newtypes anyway.
Hey, no worries, it was fun to write all that. I just asked about your definitions to get a baseline and so I don’t waste my time arguing with an ultra who wouldn’t be satisfied by any answer I’d provide (this is from experience haha).
I think the stories would be better without newtypes anyway.
In some ways, I think this is kinda the original sin of Gundam. Tomino certainly meant it in one way, as a sort-of sci-fi extrapolation of the kind of person needed to bring about the Revolution, but the way he did it left open the door to an interpretation that presupposes a technological/evolutionary solution to all war and conflict, where humanity can only move on/establish peace/do the Revolution once humans have created the technology/evolved enough to do so, and subsequent authors kinda took that theme and abandoned the socialism from it so you end up with a kinda muddled techno liberalism, in something like Gundam Seed. I sorta get why Tomino did it the way he did, as a sci-fi allegory for the political awakening of the youth into a new way of thinking (especially in light of the failure of the New Left), but I think in sorta glomming onto that sci-fi framework of espers and human evolution he abandoned the idea that socialism was something that had to be worked on towards by ordinary people.
You know, with that description, I’m reminded of the idea of the New Soviet Man.
From wikipedia:
a New Man and New Woman would develop with qualities reflecting surrounding circumstances of post-scarcity and unprecedented scientific development.[3] For example, Leon Trotsky wrote in 1924 in Literature and Revolution about the “Communist man”, “man of the future”:[4]
Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman.
Of course, Tomino’s take is kind of in reverse. He has this idea that the awakened people will lead us to revolution rather than revolution leading to awakened people.
Right, exactly! And this is a rather common theme of sci-fi of the preceding era, so of course it’ll get this particular spin from survivors of a scattered leftist movement. And then as you follow Tomino’s work you kinda get to see in realtime his disillusionment with both this particular conception (as the youth failed to take up the mantle of social change and instead turned their struggles inwards e.g. Evangelion) and socialism in general, until you get to Turn A Gundam which is a work about the question of whether or not humanity can ever move past the need for violence.
Thanks. The historical context is helpful. I’m actually less concerned with the official designation of “leftist” and more interested in readings of media that you provided here. At the very least, I think it’s certainly “left wing” as you describe it.
Also, I’m glad you brought up newtypes. I was going to bring that up in my original post, but I forgot. It seems like that’s real fascist aesthetic, especially seeing as how it’s formulated by Zeon to justify racial superiority. It’s interesting, though, that a newtype’s superpower is empathy, which is decidedly not fascist. Regardless of the political messaging, I think the stories would be better without newtypes anyway.
Hey, no worries, it was fun to write all that. I just asked about your definitions to get a baseline and so I don’t waste my time arguing with an ultra who wouldn’t be satisfied by any answer I’d provide (this is from experience haha).
In some ways, I think this is kinda the original sin of Gundam. Tomino certainly meant it in one way, as a sort-of sci-fi extrapolation of the kind of person needed to bring about the Revolution, but the way he did it left open the door to an interpretation that presupposes a technological/evolutionary solution to all war and conflict, where humanity can only move on/establish peace/do the Revolution once humans have created the technology/evolved enough to do so, and subsequent authors kinda took that theme and abandoned the socialism from it so you end up with a kinda muddled techno liberalism, in something like Gundam Seed. I sorta get why Tomino did it the way he did, as a sci-fi allegory for the political awakening of the youth into a new way of thinking (especially in light of the failure of the New Left), but I think in sorta glomming onto that sci-fi framework of espers and human evolution he abandoned the idea that socialism was something that had to be worked on towards by ordinary people.
You know, with that description, I’m reminded of the idea of the New Soviet Man.
From wikipedia:
Of course, Tomino’s take is kind of in reverse. He has this idea that the awakened people will lead us to revolution rather than revolution leading to awakened people.
Right, exactly! And this is a rather common theme of sci-fi of the preceding era, so of course it’ll get this particular spin from survivors of a scattered leftist movement. And then as you follow Tomino’s work you kinda get to see in realtime his disillusionment with both this particular conception (as the youth failed to take up the mantle of social change and instead turned their struggles inwards e.g. Evangelion) and socialism in general, until you get to Turn A Gundam which is a work about the question of whether or not humanity can ever move past the need for violence.