HEADCANONS about Tarre Vizsla, my favorite nerdy Mand’alor edge lord
For Reasons™, Tarre Vizsla is unequivocally black/asian, with … I want to say 3c hair? possibly part Mirialan tho he’s not really green so much as some manner of mixed appearance w/ dark skin
an epic’s worth of tattoos. listen. listen to me. so many tattoos. several epics worth. he’s had a complicated life.
the story of his life, all of his failures, all of his successes, all the powerful moments and important people, converted into art on his skin. Mandalorian Mirialans w/ their elaborate architecture of Force traditions expressed through body art, and Tarre continued in keeping with the tradition.
Tarre Vizsla is Sabine Wren’s distant, distant, distant granddaddy on her mom’s side.
he’s so motivated by JUSTICE and seeking out and ensuring JUSTICE is had
he’s fought in the 1000 Years War, or at the very least was involved in the final Battle of Ruusan (which make up a good portion of his elaborate tattoos. I’d like to say half his chest-to-half-his-back along the left side)
he’s Soft™ when he doesn’t have to be Hard™, and he’s somehow learned how to maintain that balance when most find it impossibly difficult, or just outright impossible.
his ability to be soft and kind and compassionate sometimes surprises many when they learn what his life was like leading up to the man he becomes
the Vizslas never held any love for anyone with any inkling of the Force, and they drove Tarre from the clan under threat of violence (and actual violence) when he showed even the slightest ability. He had kept it secret for most of his life, but an incident in early puberty spelled his downfall. he fled.
Though “too old” was a thing to the Jedi, the 1000 Years War drained so many resources, they could not say no to another recruit when they so desperately needed as many hands as they could find to fight the fight. and he performed far beyond expectations, even when other Jedi never could accept him fully (what with him being a mandalorian, and all the horrible reputation that comes with that word).
strong proponent of rebellion — of overthrowing the oppression of an unfair government body.
strong proponent of uniting Mandalore, of bringing the clans together under a common banner once more, instead of perpetually fighting one another for the scraps left to them after what the 1000 Years War left them — and after what the Republic did to them to keep mando’ade in that position.
but he’s also a strong proponent of self care and community service — and agriculture as rebellion. gardening. planting. sustaining one’s self and family, and community. (strongly, emphatically, anti-capitalist is what I’m leading up to here)
no one could say he was loved by politics or political powers, but the common person adored him. he was an icon of justice, one that was snuffed out too early for political gains and for his position in empowering mando’ade to rise up from the ashes of what they once were.
because he was both a Jedi and a Mandalorian, he was rejected by both worlds by those who say “you can only be one, not both.” even facing isolation and ostracized by what he couldn’t control, he still found support in the most unlikely places — and him and his saber became an icon, a hero, a Mand’alor worth following … up until he was Separated from his life, and his Symbol (the darksaber) was Removed by Force for “safe keeping” in the Jedi Temple.
no one wants to see mandalorians recognize their potential and shrug recognition of the Republic that failed to assist them as surely as it failed itself.
he had one daughter. he didn’t live to see her grow up.
I am a young Marxist interested in communist theory, but I can't seem to get a straight answers about some questions. How are goods produced collectively and distributed in a communist society? How have figures such as Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and Kim Sung-Il been misrepresented in Western capitalist media? Also, are nationalism and militarism accepted in communist societies? You seem knowledgeable about this, so I hope you will point me in the right direction.
1- How are goods produced collectively and distributed in a communist society?
”From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” - Louis Blanc
Marx believed that in a socialist society unhindered by capitalism, the workers will produce an adequate amount of goods, and being free from capitalist vices, they will take only as they need.
“A communist society establishes, in the form of the distributive organisations, those organs which give collective expression to individual needs and wishes.” [x]
"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.” [x]
2- How have figures such as Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and Kim Il-Sung been misrepresented in Western capitalist media?
A. Joseph Stalin
"Have you ever stopped to think, comrades, why such a bitter hatred is expressed for Stalin, why the whole glorious period of the soviet people and it’s Party, when Stalin was at the head, is blackened so shamefully?
Don’t you see a logical connection between attacks and slanders against Stalin and songs of praise for the leaders of imperialism, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and others whom N. Khrushchev has called “reasonable men” who “enjoy the absolute trust of their people” who are “earnestly concerned with the preservation of peace”, the death of whom, as in the case of Kennedy he described as a “great loss for mankind” and proclaimed a day of mourning even for the communists?…”
- Enver Hoxha, in an open letter to the members of the communist party of the Soviet Union, October 5, 1964
Generally, Stalin is criticized because he was brutal. The people fail to recognize that revolutions are not made with silk gloves (I believe Stalin said a version of that).
We are taught that Stalin was the USSR’s version of Hitler because he was a dictator. Those who do so have little understanding of the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat”.
I don’t think Lenin is misrepresented nearly as much as Stalin, but nevertheless, the misrepresentation still exists.
Go through your history textbooks and school curriculum. In Barron’s 4th Edition World History textbook, one DBQ (or at least I think it was DBQ question) asked for the students to write a critique on the USSR. The majority of the documents provided for the students to cite consists of negative criticisms, which, if the student does not have an inkling of marxism, marxism-leninism, marxism-leninism-maoism and the like, the student will not question why Barron’s chose the documents.
I think most of the misrepresentation of Lenin centers around his position on the Kulaks.
On the other hand, Lenin’s actions are sometimes whitewashed. In his writing “The State in Revolution”, he points out that “After the death of revolutionaries, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it.” [x]
C. Kim Il-Sung
Kim is criticized mostly because he founded the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) or North Korea, and the current North Korean government’s actions are unjustly tied to Kim Il-Sung’s name. It is important to note, however, that Kim was a revisionist and did not adhere to Marxist-Leninist guidelines.
People fail to acknowledge that the anticommunist Syngman Rhee, founder of the People’s Republic of Korea of South Korea, committed atrocities as well.
The misrepresentation stems from Kim’s role in founding North Korea.
Also, are nationalism and militarism accepted in communist societies?
Nationalism (when referring to pride in one’s country) is not accepted in communist societies because nationalism does not consider global and united struggles.
"It is evident that a serious and comprehensive discussion of the national question is required. Consistent Social-Democrats must work solidly and indefatigably against the fog of nationalism, no matter from what quarter it proceeds.” [x]
Definition: the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.
Communism is opposed to imperialist militarism, such as Japan’s imperialist militarism during WWII.
I’m not sure about communism’s stance on nonimperialist militarism.