Are socialism and antinatalism ideologically connected?

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by wingsofwax

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp I think that one reason many artists and writers instinctively distrust capitalism is that they know it doesn't favour real art and literature. This is a subject that could be expanded on at some length. My views here are what many people very oddly call 'elitist' (I don't think of them that way myself, but am conscious of this odd tension); I think the artist/writer should 'educate' the reader/viewer. That is, the artist/writer is not a 'tap-dancer' for whom the punter should be calling the shots. This connection between artists and socialism is very interesting, and I think it's an apt observation. In my experience, artists tend to lean left, and this is the reason why, I believe. I don't see how you can't see this view as elitist, however; if artists are educators and should be calling the shots, how are they not the elite? (And the next question, naturally, is who determines which artists are the best educators? Who determines which art is "real"?)

I don't have time to answer these properly, but these are good questions. On the elitist question, although I used the word 'educate' hastily, and am actually ambivalent about it, perhaps you can, in fact, draw a useful comparison with teachers. That is, pose the same question about them: Are they elitist because they stand at the front of the class and decide what is taught, or at least represent decisions about what is taught that are not the students' decisions?

I would suggest they're not elitist, though I know some people disagree even with this.

The question of what is real art is a difficult one. These days, artists find themselves in a kind of Catch-22 situation. Artists have become heavily invested in the idea that 'it's all subjective', and then, when they want to defend what they do even though it doesn't sell, they find they can't. I used to be of this ilk, but I am tending now more towards thinking that there is objectivity about art. But it's not simple. I've encountered people who seem to think that merely recognising (or declaring) there is objectivity in art suddenly makes you objective. I don't think this is the case at all. Any objectivity that is possible must necessarily be worked hard for, I would say. So, as far as I'm aware, there is no quick answer here (as in much of human life), but I, for one, am interested in trying to learn more and clarify things in this area, if only for my own benefit.

[qcrisp]

Alain de Botton can come across as glib and patronising (not to mention simplistic), but here's something that's quite relevant:

Who are you to say that? - YouTube

Let's say for a moment that we think intelligent discussion is a better thing than everyone simply refusing to talk about their views because they have a right to them. Let's also assume we know what intelligent discussion is. If we actually knew these things, rather than just assuming them, we'd already be on the road to objectivity.

Anyway, even if we don't know exactly which works of art are 'better' than which others (and I don't think objectivity would function in quite this way in art, anyway - you couldn't really say, 'This painting is a 73 and this is a 62.'), under the above assumptions, it would still be objectively better to promote art about which people can have intelligent discussions, or, even more fundamentally, intelligent discussion about art would be objectively good, and through that discussion, what 'good art' means could be negotiated and explored.

What we tend to have at the moment is no discussion, because, in the name of anti-elitism (or in its spirit, shall we say), any such discussion gets shut down. You might even take this as evidence of objectivity in art, as people who defend something by criticising elitism often can't defend it on any other grounds. "It's good because it's not elitist. I like it and that's good enough, and by asserting that I am also negating all that intellectual rubbish that you will never get me to watch even if you point a gun at my head!"

Etc.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

under the above assumptions, it would still be objectively better to promote art about which people can have intelligent discussions

Firstly, please don't think I'm seizing upon this as if it's summing up your whole argument, it doesn't and I'm sympathetic to what you're saying in your post.

But I've quoted this because in my view, the best art is incredibly difficult to discuss and suffers because of that. I can easily relate to the fear of not being able to justify what I like to the intelligentsia, or even if I do a good job, they won't have it because their values are so different.

My favourite art often has a mysterious elusive power. If you're talking about lots of this art, it's very difficult to get much further than to describe the feelings it gives you and keep saying the same things, very easy to be reductive and attribute it's power to the aspects that are easier to talk about.

Hence art filled with clear issues and themes being more academic friendly.

Like attributing the success of the Dracula mythology to immigration fears and repressed homosexuality while ignoring the influence of the aesthetic that has had a powerful hold on horror, fantasy, goth culture and Halloween imagery.

Mischaracterizing things to ingratiate them to cultural authority can end up corrupting the tradition of this type of mysteriously powerful art.

Although I don't like complete relativism about what is good, I also don't like one linear ordered hierarchy for everyone.

One current thing annoying me is this weird mixture of objectivity and relavitism that states "that artistic technique was good in the past and might be good in other countries but is not currently good in ours"

When I was younger, I tried to support a 'fairer' type of capitalism as the best compromise, but the more research I did, the more it seemed to me that there is no form of capitalism that doesn't hideously exploit large amounts of people to an unnecessary degree, so now I'm pretty firmly on what would be considered the 'far-left', although I don't see why not wanting to hurt people is considered an extremist ideology and that 'far-left' tag is just a label people give me because I despise capitalism.

Capitalism does seem like a tough beast to slay, but I do suspect it shall be overthrown some day. I doubt we'll see revolution in the next few decades, but to me it seems inevitable on our current track. People's information is no longer solely dictated by the rich who want people to dislike the idea of socialism, and with this greater education is coming a wider support for socialism in the west. It is becoming more and more impossible for the public to ignore that the system has failed them.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by With Strength I Burn

Finally, with the growth of neoliberalism and expanding multinational corporations, we are at least assured the destruction of man and the world, which isn't so bad. Regardless, it's far more realistic for something like social market economy to be implemented for the reasons I enumerated a few posts up.

This ties in, I think, with what Justin was saying about capitalism and antinatalism, in tone, if nothing else. I'm also reminded of the drunken man in The Little Prince. When asked why he drinks, he says to forget his shame. When asked what he is ashamed of, he says of being drunk.

[qcrisp]

I find this kind of thing intensely demotivating:

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/a...change/422166/

Oddly enough - and I realise that this is probably largely irrational - I do find it comforting that humans will probably destroy themselves before they totally destroy the biosphere. Or maybe it's not irrational. Maybe it's just non-anthropocentric or something.

I wonder, though, returning again to the thread's initial themes, is the actual destruction of the human race in line with antinatalism?

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by With Strength I Burn

You need something like communitarian traditionalism to push for pure socialism, which has a huge risk of fascism, and I do not see how global socialism could work given the differing values of all civilizations or so forth.

This point caught my attention. It might relate to the thing I wrote about flags earlier.

It certainly relates, in my mind, to the following:

I've been a bit concerned about TTIP recently. Here's an article with the kind of headline I dislike, though I admit it scares me, too:

What is TTIP? And six reasons why the answer should scare you | Comment | Voices | The Independent

Quote:

Quote

As a bi-lateral trade agreement, TTIP is about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations. It is, as John Hilary, Executive Director of campaign group War on Want, said: “An assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations.”

Basically, it means corporations can sue governments.

This reminded me of something Ligotti said in an interview a while back:

Work Not Done? (Interview)

Quote

TW: Apart from Dilbert: There are also strong kafkaesque elements and even echoes of George Orwell's "1984", e.g. the total control, the manipulation, the whole sick corporate system as the symbol of a paranoid totalitarian state... TL: That's somewhat reductionist, but one would have to be contemptibly naive to deny that the corporation and the state are now inextricably allied. In English, people often say the word "company" when they mean to say "country." What more needs to be said?

It was the association of "company" and "country" that stuck in my head in relation to TTIP, and I thought there is something there, some kind of knot to investigate. But if companies can sue countries, this means that they are not interchangeable, but the substitution of the word "company" for "country" comes about because the company is usurping the country, superceding it. It occurred to me that perhaps the country is needed in order to resist the company. I'm not an ardent fan of globalisation anyway, and in many cases, people unthinkingly accept decentralisation as good, but there are reasons that people are wary of patriotism and nationalism these days. With the advent of TTIP and related aspects of global capitalism, it's possible we'll see some kind of reassessment of this suspicion.

At the very least, I think it's a complication of our problems rather than simply an association by which socialism can be dismissed (and I am not - yet? - a partisan socialist).

[wingsofwax]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

I wonder, though, returning again to the thread's initial themes, is the actual destruction of the human race in line with antinatalism?

I admit that I have a hard time getting worked up by all the predictions of doom that are going around these days. There have been many doomsday prophets throughout the ages and the one thing they all have in common is being wrong. The world is not going to blow up any time soon.

That's not to say that climate change isn't a real issue. I agree with Matt Ridley, who says that climate change isn't fast and intense, but slow and manageable. He goes into detail in the following talk:

A New Perspective on Climate Change By Matt Ridley - YouTube

[Ibrahim]

"Would be interested to hear from anyone here who actually has children and how they managed to pull it off financially..."

Father of two, here. Manage? Hardly, but that is beside the point.
I remember when discussing the philosophical ramifications of having children with a good friend who was at the time already a dad while i wasn't, yet, he said something along the lines of "What? So we let only the rich have children? Simply let them breed us out of existence?"
While i do not advocate using your children as ideological weapons, i must admit that in the abstract, there is some sense to his remark.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by wingsofwax

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp I wonder, though, returning again to the thread's initial themes, is the actual destruction of the human race in line with antinatalism? I admit that I have a hard time getting worked up by all the predictions of doom that are going around these days. There have been many doomsday prophets throughout the ages and the one thing they all have in common is being wrong. The world is not going to blow up any time soon. That's not to say that climate change isn't a real issue. I agree with Matt Ridley, who says that climate change isn't fast and intense, but slow and manageable. He goes into detail in the following talk: A New Perspective on Climate Change By Matt Ridley - YouTube

Interesting. Unless I zoned out, I don't think he mentioned peak oil and fracking, but I would be interested to know how they fit into this picture.