Are socialism and antinatalism ideologically connected?

[wingsofwax]

I am new on this forum, so bear with me if this is somehow inappropriate.

Thomas Ligotti is a self-proclaimed socialist and, obviously, an anti-natalist, but are those two sets of ideas somehow related? I am not taking sides here, but I am interested in speculation on the kind of socialism Mr. Ligotti envisions. I don't see Ligotti as a political man as such, but nevertheless, the connection interests me.

Some political viewpoints seem pro-natalist; American conservatism is mostly religious, as far as I know (I am not an American), and therefore pro-life.

Socialism can be viewed as an ideology that seeks to reduce human suffering through the redistribution of wealth. Whether it works that way in practice is another discussion.

But are there other reasons why anti-natalism and socialism are a good fit? Why is Ligotti a socialist when he really wished no one had ever been born?

Is it based on the idea that if the human race indeed were to go instinct now through choice, fiscal responsibility is irrelevant?

[Arthur Staaz]

I can't identify the specific interviews where I saw this, but I know Ligotti has expressed a view along these lines - since we are all in the same boat of existing as conscious beings who suffer horrifyingly because of that consciousness we possess, we can at least try to make it easier on each other. I think if he is socialist-oriented, this has something to do with it. Perhaps the antinatalism isn't directly connected with socialism but also flows from the premise that human consciousness inevitably creates horrifying suffering and therefore we would all be better off ending it at the earliest possible opportunity. An act of compassion toward humanity, so to speak, as well as a finger to the cosmos that generated us.

[Druidic]

Personally, I don't see much, if any, common ground between Socialism and antinatalism.
The 'progressive' political systems, Communism, Socialism, all share the same flaw: believing in the perfectibility of man. It's a fatal flaw. As Durrenmatt writes, nothing could be more fair, more just than communism...on paper. But it doesn't correspond to anything real in human nature which isn't rational or self-sacrificing. The old folkish definition of insanity was doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. In the Twentieth Century we've see Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot inflict communism on their people-- and the results are always the same. You would have to be a saint to live that philosophy and people aren't saints; and when they finally rebel against a system like communism, fascist methods, intimidation, bullying, prison, murder, are always employed to force them into line.
Socialism is also an optimistic system (on Billy Bragg's fine album Tooth and Nail he mocks the gloomy pessimists who won't tow the party line). Antinatalism is, of course, a pessimistic philosophy.
I suspect many intellectuals embrace socialism because of a deep hatred of Christianity. Today's Christianity is a domesticated tabby cat; Islam, on the other hand, is still the fierce Tiger of a thousand years ago...so I don't find that a particularly compelling reason.

I think it would make no sense for somebody like Ligotti, whose worldview hinges on mitigating suffering for as many people as possible, to support a capitalist model of society, as capitalism is built on not only exploiting but increasing the suffering of the many for the comfort of the few. His corporate horror stories are ingenious pieces of socialist art that utterly skewer capitalism for the unjustifiable atrocity it is and it's only a matter of time before political academics latch on to him for this.

Quote Originally Posted by Druidic

The 'progressive' political systems, Communism, Socialism, all share the same flaw: believing in the perfectibility of man.

It's capitalism that can only possibly work if people are instinctively not going to screw other people over when given the power and opportunity to do so with impunity, as happens every single time with big business. It's capitalism that hands the power to unelected Trump-esque millionaires and billionaires or faceless corporations and gives them the responsibility to not ruin countless lives for their own profit, with no reason to behave otherwise. Capitalism places the entire well being of society in to the hands of the super wealthy, who have to act with moral conscience that works against their own goals in order for the system not to destroy large amounts of lives. How is this not the idealistic, unrealistic philosophy that romanticises human nature?

This is the system that gives us giant corporations we place blind faith in not to actively destroy the planet and its environment (bit warm this winter, wasn't it?) for profit. Eliminating completely pointless social hierarchies that offer nothing of value to our culture and making people co-operate on a more equitable level comes from a pragmatic view of society based on calm reason and historical evidence. Capitalism is the philosophy built on blind optimism that things will somehow work out if everybody is fighting each other for limited scraps, despite all evidence to the contrary and it all collapsing around us.

The arguments against socialism are dead now that we live in a capitalist society of mass unemployment, starvation (the food bank figures in my country are terrifying) and little social mobility of the people. Every right-wing scare tactic against the horror of sharing (!) has come to pass through capitalist doctrine, which is why people like Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders are gaining traction now. Capitalism is expediting the destruction of our world at an alarming rate and this truth can no longer be buried.

Quote

I suspect many intellectuals embrace socialism because of a deep hatred of Christianity.

The values of Jesus correspond more with socialism than capitalism, as he did not believe in social class on this planet. I'm sure he would have found more affinity with the idea of distributing wealth equally as we were all made equal, rather than giving more and more and more money to the powerful whilst more and more and more people suffer in abject poverty.

[Piranesi]

Ligotti on socialism - a couple of quotes from Born to Fear:

"These days I don’t mind being called a nihilist, because what people usually mean by this word is someone who is anti-life, and that definition fits me just fine, at least in principle. In practical terms, I have all kinds of values that are not in accord with nihilism. For example, I politically self-identify as a socialist. I want everyone to be as comfortable as they can be while they’re waiting to die. Unfortunately, the major part of Western civilization consists of capitalists, whom I regard as unadulterated savages. As long as we have to live in this world, what could be more sensible than to want yourself and others to suffer as little as possible? This will never happen because too many people are unadulterated savages. They’re brutal and inhuman. Case in point: Why is euthanasia so despised? Answer: Because too many people are barbaric sons of bitches. And even in those places where euthanasia is allowed, you can’t be assisted in dying until you’re suffering to the brink of madness. (...) If euthanasia were decriminalized, it would demonstrate that we had made the greatest evolutionary leap in world history. If we could only arrange society so that we didn’t have to fear every one of us, the throes of agony that routinely precede death, I would be proud to call myself a human being."
(Interview with Tina Hall, The Damned Interviews, 2011, p. 177 in Born to Fear).

"I didn’t consciously try to convey any particular social or political views in the works you mention [My Work is Not Yet Done, and the stories that deal with the Quine Organization]. Nevertheless, if someone concluded from these works that I’m not an avid capitalist or corporalist, I would understand. My allegiance is to the many and not the few. In my opinion, the tragedy of capitalism and its corporations, as I said more colorfully in My Work is Not Yet Done, is that they are forced to give the least for the most.”
(Interview with Pål Flakk, Gateavisa, 2012, p. 215 in Born to Fear).

[wingsofwax]

Thank you for those interesting replies. I am not sure going into a huge capitalism vs. socialism debate is worthwhile, but nevertheless, one thing struck me...

Quote Originally Posted by James Sucellus

Capitalism is the philosophy built on blind optimism that things will somehow work out if everybody is fighting each other for limited scraps, despite all evidence to the contrary and it all collapsing around us.

In the last 10 years or so, some really interesting statistics have been made available about the global situation. The data is particularly relevant to the idea that the world is somehow a worse place to live in than previously.

It turns out that while the world may still be part of the galactic sewage system, it's better than ever. That may not be saying much, but still.

War is less frequent than ever before. We're killing each other on a smaller scale than ever before. I know, this boggles the mind when you think about what's going on in the Middle East right now. I recommend reading Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of our Nature:Why Violence Has Declined (2011).

Here's a TED talk where Pinker talks about the statistics:

Steven Pinker: The surprising decline in violence - YouTube

Regarding poverty, it turns out that globally, it's going down, not up. Nobody's saying that poverty is non-existent, just that the numbers are looking up. I recommend reading Abundance:The Future Is Better Than You Think (2012) and Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (2010).

Talk about the decline of global poverty:

Matt Ridley: When ideas have sex - YouTube

Interview with Matt Ridley about doom and gloom:

Rational Optimism about Planet Earth (Matt Ridley) - YouTube

Quote Originally Posted by wingsofwax

In the last 10 years or so, some really interesting statistics have been made available about the global situation. The data is particularly relevant to the idea that the world is somehow a worse place to live in than previously.

I think in many areas the world is a better place to live in than previously, and I dislike nostalgia, but capitalism is destroying the planet and the gap between the rich and poor continues to increase exponentially.

Poverty in my country (Britain) is on the increase and food bank statistics are at record levels, whilst the Tories continue to cut away at the health service, education and of course the arts in the name of aggressive capitalism, where anything not working for the goal of profit is seen as extraneous. The capitalist philosophy operates fundamentally on everything that is cruel or illogical about human nature and must be fought.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by wingsofwax

War is less frequent than ever before. We're killing each other on a smaller scale than ever before. I know, this boggles the mind when you think about what's going on in the Middle East right now. I recommend reading Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of our Nature:Why Violence Has Declined (2011). Here's a TED talk where Pinker talks about the statistics: Steven Pinker: The surprising decline in violence - YouTube

I've just watched it. It directly challenges one of the premises of the book I was talking about (Fields of Blood). As it happens, it does so partly by citing statistics about tribespeople in New Guinea. Another book I received at Christmas was The World Until Yesterday by Jared Diamond. This contains an account of the author's sojourn with tribespeople in New Guinea, and a rather interesting description of how neighbouring, enemy tribes nonetheless interact with each other in a friendly manner apart from the fact of being feuding enemies.

Anyway, as the video challenges the point I mentioned about violence becoming endemic with agriculture, I'll copy out here one part of the introduction that I read that deals with the subject:

Quote

Our relationship to warfare is, therefore, complex, possibly because it is a relatively recent human development. Hunter-gatherers could not afford the organised violence that we call war, because warfare requires large armies, sustained leadership and economic resources that were far beyond their reach.* Archaeologists have found mass graves from this period that suggest some kind of massacre,** yet there is little evidence that early humans regularly fought one another.*** But human life changed for ever in about 9000 BCE when pioneering farmers in the Levant learned to grow and store wild grain.

* Peter Jay, Road to Riches or The Wealth of Man (London, 2000), pp. 35 - 36
** K.J. Wenke, Patterns of Prehistory: Humankind's First Three Million Years (New York, 1961) . p.130; John Keegan, A History of Warfare (London, 1993), pp. 120 - 21; O'Connell, Ride of Second Horseman, p.35.
*** M.H. Fried, The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology (New York, 1967), pp. 101 -102; C. McCalley, 'Conference Archives', in J. Harris, ed., The Anthropology of War (Cambridge, UK, 1990), p.11.

I wonder which picture is more accurate.

[qcrisp]

I was given this book for Christmas:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/bo...rong.html?_r=0

I've only read the introduction so far, but I found it extremely interesting. Whether the evidence backs up the argument or not, the argument itself, on paper, looks pretty strong, and this is basically that violence (that is, human to human violence, rather than human to animal violence) became integral to human society with the development of agriculture, which brought about social stratification, production of surplus (which had to be protected), unequal sharing and so on. It looks as if, unless we wanted to continue as hunter-gatherers forever, this was inevitable. The question - mine, I presume the book's, and I would hope most people's - is whether we can get past this inherently violent way of life. Life might just be more interesting without violence.

I'm not sure that there is a logical connection between socialism and antinatalism, though there might be. I would agree that socialism seems at least partly at odds with antinatalism, though, in the sense that Druidic suggested, that there appears to be an assumption in socialism that, either a) we can get past the problems that Armstrong depicts as arising with agriculture to a utopian society, or b) that even if utopia itself is not attainable, life is worth continuing indefinitely and socialist goals are worth pursuing, the suffering that can't be eliminated being, by definition, inevitable and a price worth paying.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

Just wanted to pick up on this.

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

Life might just be more interesting without violence.

I believe that peace (or however much we could muster) would be more interesting but I think there's a lot of resistance to it. I'm fairly confident that despite most people saying they want peace, that living for conflict and rebellion is extremely common.

So many people seem to feel that conflict (because it's usually necessary for drama) is the only interesting thing in the universe, that sex is better because of our hangups and taboos, comedy and art are made better by miserable times. I don't agree with any of this.