Socialism and the arts

[Aqua Buddha]

Socialism is used like it's a bad word. It isn't. A socialist government makes it possible for people to explore new possibilities that aren't available in capitalism. In our system we've got starving artists. In a socialist system a person can dedicate their life to the arts and still feed their families.

Most of the artists that I know have to have day jobs. That includes writers. If our government valued the arts, creating art would be their day job. We need to have a public dialogue about this.

 

[Dwarven Gold]

You do know that in socialist nations people aren't free to express themselves?

 

[Aqua Buddha]

You're confusing socialism with fascism. Socialism is about equality and true freedom. In a really socialist society we are all free to express ourselves as we see fit. Much freer than we are in our so-called western democracies.

 

[Navchuk]

Socialism produces laziness. It is hard to "create" when one lives off the government dole. We were all created equal, but that does not mean we all equally get a piece of the pie.

Socialism also produces government propaganda. One has no true freedom of expression. If it is not something which "benefits society as a whole", it is deemed of no use.

The noted George Bernard Shaw called for proving one's self before a panel to maintain existence. If one was deemed to not make society better in some way, existence could no longer be justified. He actually had the nerve to call for execution of those who were considered "waste".

 

[Taree]

Hey Navchuck,

I was wondering if you were actually serious about Shaw. It looks as though you are "dead" on. In doing some quick research, your post seems completely accurate.

Arts are more fully successful and satisfying to the artist or author when there is a period of enlightenment and true freedom of expression. Neither of these exist in a socialist world.

 

[Legerdemain]

Though I do agree that many people take the stance that socialism is a communistic call to share everything and demand everything, I would argue equal power relations, self-management, and adhocracy are all what make creativity flow, and all of these concepts come from socialistic thinking.

It's frustrating when people think that socialism in practice is the same as philosophy, as nationalization of production and resource is in DIRECT CONFLICT with work-ownership cooperatives, which are also "Socialist".

The sad truth is that Aqua Buddha and Dwarven Gold/Navchuk/Taree are all correct, it's just their own definitions or the definitions of socialism they are ascribing present them in a way that make their arguments irrefutable.

Mo Tzu, an ancient Chinese philosopher, once argued that all people should care for all others, under the same familial bond as we would our parents and children, and while that part sounds great, allow all to foster each other's freedoms, he also argued musicians were a drain on society, as music instrument building was lavish when people were starving.

The problem with socialism is the devaluing of the perceived "value" of what make many of the wealthy upperclass rich. What I mean is, I have NO value for short-sellers or energy traders, and I would throw them in the pile of "those that would be put to better use planting trees and tilling earth". They see little economic value in fan-fiction writers, who often rewrite other people's work to make the main character gay or straight, depending on whatever they see as more sexy. Truth be told, as value is variable, the socialist system of wealth being distributed based on value would not work, as those that have wealth would lose it, and those that want wealth... well... they may not have the value they think they have if we all had to vote on it.

Socialism isn't the problem, neither is anarchical belief or totalitarianism. It's a lack of respect for the values of others that I believe most systems have. That said, saying "A socialist world doesn't work" is like saying "a fascist world doesn't work" or a "democratic world doesn't work" when it comes to expression. Artists are poor in all three, and have found a way to shine in most governments as well, either subversively or openly.

That's my two cents.