u/ProtoLimbPosting

At its foundation, Zaheer's worldview echoes Heraclitus--the universe exists in a constant state of flux, and conflict between opposites is the engine of reality. Human authority is therefore not merely unjust; it is metaphysically illegitimate, because it seeks to deny the bloody womb from which it emerged--conflict. If this is where Zaheer's philosophy ended, he would be remarkably coherent in his opposition to the Avatar as an unaccountable cosmic authority figure.

Yet despite knowing of Unalaq's plans and the cosmology surrounding Vaatu, Zaheer never treats the prospect of spirits reclaiming the mortal world as a form of domination. He instead interprets it as a desirable restoration of nature's proper balance. There is a hidden premise smuggled in from the white lotus here--the notion that the spirit world possesses intrinsic legitimacy unavailable to the human civilization. So without realizing it, Zaheer is working to construct the exact sort cosmic hierarchy envisioned by Korra and the White Lotus. A society configured around the diktats of mercurial, inscrutable spirits. His disagreement with Korra ultimately boils down to which spiritual order should govern, not whether spirits constitute a legitimacy source of authority.

So philosophically, Admiral Zhao is more radical than Zaheer. Zaheer merely transfers authority from despots to spirits. Zhao denies that spirit possess any sovereignty at all and treats them like strategic assets. So while the Fire Nation and Zhao might have failed politically, their historical mission in spreading the industrial revolution, scientific inquiry and human mastery over nature succeeded. For a brief, shining moment, Admiral Zhao was the World Spirit astride an Ironclad.

Banned from posting this on the official Hazbin sub so I figured I may as well drop it here. Hazbin Hotel is generally allergic to philosophical stakes but given the fact that it got green-lit for 5 seasons I think it's worth examining why exactly it's broken in terms of its ostensible central premise--redemption.

Heaven essentially has a limited view of salvation in the show--some people are saved and the others "boil in the pot" for their sins. It's a harsh worldview that is ostensibly bad because it is oppressive and ignores real suffering in favor of being "black and white".

Charlie's innovation is to democratize heaven's admission policy by claiming anyone who sincerely attends enough gothic-themed therapy sessions can achieve salvation by their own merits. There's a name for this belief--it's called Pelagianism and it was condemned as a heresy by Saint Augustine because it's crueler than it looks. If salvation is purely a matter of effort and sincerity, then anyone who fails has nobody to blame but themselves. So here's the trap Charlie built for herself: if something like Pelagianism is true and sinners can redeem themselves through effort alone, then those who haven't just weren't trying hard enough. And if that's the case the Extermination is really just quality control--anyone still stuck in hell when it rolls around objectively failed to meet the grading curve and is being justly punished.

Now I'm sure many Hazbin fans would counter that the show raises a lot of questions that aren't answered yet and that we don't know the actual mechanics of redemption. Fair enough. But the show has spent two seasons treating redemption as a foregone conclusion while deliberately avoiding any questions that would make the premise interesting. Charlie herself is extremely reactive to the point where she tries to give the literal dictionary definition of redemption when pressed on the subject on top of the fact that her primary motivation for the hotel to make her mother proud. I see no reason to believe that Hazbin Hotel will abruptly change course and start treating redemption as something more than just a vibe.

Chancellor Hegel, the Arcasian agent in Haelm, outright denies that socialism means a democratically administered centrally planned economy. Instead he claims that the fragmentation of socialist state property into property of individual groups of workers, so called "enterprise self-management" is the true road to socialism.

But what is "self-management" in reality? It is nothing more than the old bourgeois principles of competition and so-called market discipline dressed in red paint. Each enterprise is encouraged to pursue its own narrow interests, to bargain against the interests of of other enterprises, to behave as petty proprietors. In short, they are encouraged to behave like capitalists.

Yet the responsibility for this revisionist degeneration does not rest upon Chancellor Hegel alone. The greater guilt belongs to those who, while claiming fidelity to the teachings of Karlos Marcia, tolerate and even celebrate these deviations in the name of "pragmatism" or "anti-imperialist unity."

I am speaking of course of Leon Malenyev, who remains conspicuously silent as the Haelmic revisonists dismantle socialist planning piece by piece. He calls it the "Valgslandian Socialism". In reality it is a complete and utter capitulation to bourgeois economics.

Criticize Malenyev and counterattack the Right-Deviationist Reversal-of-Verdicts Trend!