Which is better for art (specifically literature), capitalism or communism?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
marxists.org
twitter.com
Go back tranny
Faggot, im not looking for confirmation bias its an honest question.
In practice or in theory?
they're both against art. now go back and dilate
Id be interested to hear both perspectives
I don't know man what do you think?
Fuck off and leave me alone. Whatever that is in political terms.
not seeing everything in only black and white
...
Communism:
>books are censored (by a ministry or by the artist) to adhere to a policy that benefits the betterment of the population
Capitalism:
>books are censored (by the market or the artists themselves) to adhere to maximum profitability
Both are shitty systems for art. But there is no good solution for the problem. Art has and always will be only flowering in the dark and between the cracks.
>Art has and always will be only flowering in the dark and between the cracks.
Ah yes, I spy a fellow Germane.
Aristocracy.
Neither really do anything to assist or promote literature, since capitalism favors mass appeal (marvel movies) and communism is usually hostile to anything that somewhat criticises it. Both are also based in materialism, which isn't helpful for literature. I guess capitalism is better, as if there is a profit incentive for quality literature a capitalist system would actively work to promote it.
based
That's just capitalism with less books written and surviving through the ages.
exactly, if those books were bad they wouldn't have lasted that long.
Also, with aristocracy less people are literate, less books get printed, more books hoarded in large houses = one fire destroys a huge chunk of literature.
neither but if you don't care about profit then i guess whichever one gives you the most freedom of expression
Capitalism as it allows for more freedom of opinion.
>While serving as a captain in theRed ArmyduringWorld War II, Solzhenitsyn was arrested by theSMERSHand sentenced to eight years in the Gulag and theninternal exilefor criticizing Soviet leaderJoseph Stalinin a private letter
Capitalism, clearly. Good literature is born in deep suffering as an awakening to humanity and to ask the questions that have plagued us since the divine spark entered the first golem; for all the positives communism would bring us, the uplifting of humanity out of the shackles of poverty and ensuring our survival makes for very poor source material to anything worth reading.
>Solzhenitsyn
Discarded
>Both are also based in materialism, which isn't helpful for literature.
This.
>I guess capitalism is better, as if there is a profit incentive for quality literature a capitalist system would actively work to promote it.
Wildly wrong. Interesting how people this wrong can have a good insight earlier, though.
Well this is a tricky one, quality v quantity so to speak (not to imply that capitalism can’t make art of quality). But the removal of the profit motive may be a greatly freeing force for artists. George Lucas even once said about his Soviet contemporaries that they had far greater freedom of expression (so long as they weren’t criticising the state) than even he did, as he had to make his consumable by the masses to make money. I think he described it as “following the narrow line of corporate consumerism”. Now this is just one example, but often much of the problems that anons on Yea Forums complain about (SJWs & liberal policies etc etc) are caused by seeking out new demographics to exploit for profit. Remove the profit incentive and I doubt it would be so big as it is, or at least it would feel less false.
I guess it would also come down to how you feel about criticising the state (assuming communism to be totalitarian system, which it doesn’t (necessarily) have to be, but often is for reasons we won’t go into here - want to know more, it’s Yea Forums read a book). I don't think that criticising the state is a fundamental part of art, although it can be a stifling factor - look at China right now, unlike the USSR we aren’t seeing an explosion of creativity there (which personally has me concerned), it raises the question, how much meddling are they doing over there in the affairs of art? To really cope, I would argue that the best art will run up against some issues and find creative ways of getting around them, even censorship by a meddlesome state (the number of people that think Atlantis is real and not a metaphor for Athens is quite unbelievable).
Call me (incredibly) biased but I’d think it would be better under Communism, simply because that profit motive removal is a great force for good than government censorship is a force for evil.
This, actually.
Communists tend to repress artists, other than boring propagandists, but with that said there were a lot of really high-quality pieces of rebellious art that resurfaced after the fall of communism, suggesting that the repression of the system served as some sort of artistic catalyst. Even so, I'd say many more artists just dropped their projects altogether or made it conformist rather than risk censure. Of course, there was a fair bit of approved art that was great, too, though most of it was either abstract, or jingoistic or architectural (ie not capable of provoking dissenting opinion), so that's kind of a mixed bag but ultimately still worse for the arts than capitalism.
>inb4 you can't make good art if you're stuck in the wage cage
Most of the soviet population were menial laborers as well. To my knowledge the soviet machine shops were not full of poets anyhow.
>inb4 capitalist monoculture sucks
Yes, it sure does. What serious art has north korea contributed to the world?
>inb4 iphone venezuela 100 million
I don't really give a shit about any of that.
Yeah I meant to add that capitalism can easily be damaging to literature
>the narrow line of corporate consumerism
I don't really disagree with what you said at all but I think artists afraid that they won't make as much money if they don't appeal to the masses versus artists afraid they'll get disappeared for not appealing to the state is a pretty large difference, eh?
Maybe, I mean if you’re not able to make money doing art you’ll starve (or give up and become a wagie more likely), most artists weren’t pressured into making propaganda (past WW2 anyway), and only ‘disappeared’ if you critiqued the state.
Let’s take a quick detour and look at how the US government censors art (although it doesn’t generally disappear it’s citizens). If you are a filmmaker, and want to make use of footage of the military, or their equipment etc - say like the schlock Captain Marvel film - the military has final say over the film being published and can edit it (or at least force edits) to make it represent them how they want to be seen. This is happening under capitalism too (albeit maybe a little more specifically), and worth considering when talking about which system is better for art. Ultimately neither is perfect for art, but I would think the destruction of the current monoculture built by the US and particularly Disney would be a big plus.
>with aristocracy less people are literate
A non-issue.
>But the removal of the profit motive may be a greatly freeing force for artists.
A lot of the best authors were reluctantly pushed into writing to make a living.
feudalism > communism > capitalism
assuming the government is otherwise pretty much similar, boring, not too competent or incompetent, the system under communism would be dependent on how much the government or the influential care about literature, because it would be a system of absolute patronage-- the author would have to keep their direct benefactor happy enough, but wouldn't have to tailor their works to the masses, while under the capitalist system they would have to keep the industry and the audience satisfied. i'd prefer to be a career writer under socialism, but i'd probably be less likely to do so. it's a small difference either way
Oh, yes, I'm aware of that practice, which generally isn't good for art but it also isn't censorship. I mean, you want to make a movie about tanks and warfare while critiquing the U.S.? You totally can. Just not on the military's dime. You can't get away with that at all in any communist state.
>if you’re not able to make money doing art you’ll starve
Yeah, that is a legitimate hindrance. But the same is more or less true in communist states. If you don't get the patronage of the state (ie money) and try to run underground artists collectives or whatever then you will starve just as well. There's a reason most of the best soviet literature went unpublished for decades -- it was more lucrative not to pursue art. Only, in capitalist states, you at least don't have to fear for your life or safety. I guess the way I see it is that there are more direct and tangible hindrances to art in communist states, and the hindrances are much more severe, than in capitalist states.
>versus artists afraid they'll get disappeared for not appealing to the state
If you think we in the west don't live in a horribly coercive society, you're mistaken. You don't hear about silencing of critics in other states because of a humanitarian drive to eradicate oppression, you hear about it because our enemies did it. Julian Assange has had multiple assassination plots against him, by the CIA no less, but Peng Shuai not posting on weibo for 2 weeks received both longer and farther reaching media coverage. The content you receive has gone through a multitude of stages of amplification, dampening, manipulation and curation.
Hmm, I agree with what you are saying. I’m surprised to hear you think it is not censorship - as the anount of money then required to get the footage has increased by what most would consider to be an insurmountable amount which likely means it cannot be made (although I suppose not impossible or a truly brilliant artist could do with out it or what have you).
I think that it comes down to a more personal value for us both, I can argue removal of profit and you can argue state censorship all day, but personally I think that our differences in argumentation is deeper than that (well duh?). Capitalism is a coercive force (mostly) and Communism is force (mostly). Starving v A Gun To Your Head. And I think I prefer the gun to my head, at least it’s honest, I have not been lied to, it’s always there, everyone knows it, everyone can see it. So an artist held at gun point for criticising the government will at least be something that can be fought, something that can be looked upon as innately wrong and stood up to in the name of freedom. Capitalism machinations are less immediate or obviously forceful but as they are obfuscated in a system so large it’s tough to fight or discuss, it ‘kills’ or silences more like a rube goldberg machine, far tougher to fight and not everyone will see that it began at the starting point, and will only see the axe drop.
In this approach I would prefer art and artists under a Communist Regime than The NeoLiberal Regime we currently live under (inb4 move to China, as disclosed above I don’t really know what is happening there, and I don’t trust it). I hope I’ve made sense here rather than just exclusively being a schizo dump.
This thread is about art and artists. If you want to talk about how capitalism sucks because julian assange go to /pol/. He was not exiled for writing a novel.
The thread is about two different systems of governance, you can eat my rancid shit-smeared ass if you don't see the relevance of my post
>footage has increased by what most would consider to be an insurmountable amount
I was thinking CGI, which is dirt cheap, or some sort of more impressionistic style to convey the same critique.
>I think I prefer the gun to my head, at least it’s honest
Capitalism is in many ways the invisible gun, so I can see where you're coming from. And, in a lot of ways, there are benefits to the communist patronage of art. An artist whose sole job is to create without worrying about market forces is empowered in a very real sense to dedicate themselves to their work, even if that comes at the cost of scope of expression.
Communism on paper sounds best since artists are ideally more able to dedicate time to their craft but that system is materially supposed to have way less suffering which is a pretty big well for "inspiration" Makes me think most art will be very sentimental or aesthetic wank, which can be neat but often becomes gimmicky not to long after
>which is better for art, capitalism or communism?
>well, you see, julian assange was exiled for publishing classified security information, which means communism is better for art.
Please take your meds user we are all worried for you.
I find it amusing people think consumerism and mass appeal will somehow disappear under communism.
The answer is capitalism, your “masterpiece” has a better chance of being discovered and finding an audience even if it isn’t initially successful.
Neither, really. Art manifests in spite of whatever economic system exists.
I want to argue my case, but you got quads
>Which is better for art (specifically literature), capitalism or communism?
Capitalism by far. Art in communist countries is reduced to a propaganda tool, and so artists are restricted to exactly one patron that forces everything to conform to the whims and restrictions of centralised power at that specific moment in time. This turns most art into a mere period piece with no lasting value outside of that context. There is a reason that communist countries are good at certain artistic pursuits but not others. Censorship of dance or film does not control the entire work, and there is still a lot of room to move creatively that can be at worst inoffensive and at best ornamental and glorifying for a centralised power.
False equivalence. Capitalist countries allow for a diversity of patronage, and have a mostly laissez faire attitude toward creative work so that it can be created or funded by anyone ranging from a motivated individual, to a wealthy oligarch, to a public/private/nonprofit/religious organisation, to governments of various scales, or - yes - a market... not just in mass appeal, but profitable niches as well. As a consequence, art of almost any kind can be created and displayed in private or public. There is nothing stopping an individual from spending their time or money to create or fund art that is not driven by profit, whereas making art transgressing against censorship in a communist country is a significant personal risk that could lead to rebuke, ruin, jail, torture, death depending on severity. Whether making unprofitable art allows a person to sustain a career as a professional artist, and whether a person should feel entitled to have their art appreciated, is a completely different question that again raises the topic of patrons and perhaps of broader cultural attitudes and values. Artists who are not independently wealthy will always need a patron of some sort to support them, or at least a means to personally fund their own artistic work.
ANARCHISM
>What serious art has north korea contributed to the world?
youtu.be
>Honourable, Dead or Alive, When Following the Revolutionary Road is based on an aria from the classic North Korean revolutionary opera "Tell, O Forest"(1972), written and produced under the guidance of the Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. "Tell, O Forest" is one of the five famous revolutionary operas in the DPRK. It vividly represents the steel-strong faith and steadfast will of a revolutionary. The opera is highly regarded as a masterpiece of eternal value. (Korean Central News Agency)
socialist realism was pretty gay, communism did have some good art though, most of it was dissident though, so perhaps not qualified under it .Waiting for china to begin to produce great works and then can let you know.
All literature produced by the Western world since the early 17th century has been the result of capitalism. Meanwhile, all attempts at communism over the last century have produced 0, and I do mean precisely 0, works of literary merit.
Agreed.
Sorry, I thought I specified 'serious.' Also, that guy is Slovenian.
I think it's inspiring and beautiful :-)
How is this fucking even a question, in gommunism people with artistic talents are forced to make propaganda bullshit (no freedom of expression whatsoever) or end up being some menial manual workers their whole lives (as humanities cannot into hard science) - possibly in gulags if they throw a fit.
In gapitalism they at least have the freedom and resources to create whatever the fuck they want afterhours - they can compromise a bit and sustain themselves from this activity alone if they mix in some commercial bullshit.
Plenty of best paid (commercial) actors engage in some low-budget projects (or do it for free) if they see some artistic appeal in them for example. Check out Stallone's "Cop Land" - it's absolutely, materialistically impossible that such movie could be made in commieland.
Communism, in capitalism the geist of art is found in marvel super hero trash, blaring and obnoxious niggertunes, ""abstract"" art made for money laundering and video games to keep children addicted, the profit motive reduce proud men from lions to sheep with one singular purpose; consume.
Yeah comrade, you tell them. Under communism you can make multipurpose art of lions, such as:
>propaganda for revolution/party
and
>propaganda for revolution/party
and also
>propaganda for revolution/party
>SOVIET UNION BAD SOVIET UNION BAD SOVIET UNION BAD
Discussing politics with Americans just isn't worth it.
the soviet union literally forced writers to write pro-leftist socialist realism material. even commodification of culture under capitalism hasn't done that much damage
If the Soviets had won you would be talking about how at the same time as that was happening, blacks weren't even allowed to be in movies or other types of entertainment.
It's inept government policy by the soviet Union but if literally any discussion of a change of the political structure required us to look to the past then we would go nowhere. Democracy itself would never have been a thing if we kept mocking the democracy in ancient Greece.
It's all Hegelian dialectics really.
China has a weak art scene b/c of the culture industry and political intervention—as Mao said, following Lenin:
>We should take over the rich legacy and the good traditions in literature and art that have been handed down from past ages in China and foreign countries, but the aim must still be to serve the masses of the people.
Chinese artistic culture was already stifled, then, when mass production of cultural commodities started in the 1990s. In that way China was already prepared for the massification of art.
marxists.org
>the number of people that think Atlantis is real and not a metaphor for Athens is quite unbelievable.
Atlantis appears in Plato's Timaeus as a mythical aggressor state which is prevented from conquering all of Europe because of the resistence of Athens. The function of the myth is to connect the Timaeus with the (ostensibly) previous dialogue, the Republic. Athens as depicted in the myth is the ideal city, a practical implementation of the city Socrates describes in the Republic.
It should be noted that many ancient authors, due to the insistence in the dialogue that the myth is absolutely true, believed that Atlantis existed, including erudite scholars such as Proclus. It is not altogether surprising that belief in the truth of the myth rebounded upon the rediscovery of Plato.
>False equivalence. Capitalist countries allow for a diversity of patronage
And yet patronage is virtually non-existent in the advanced Western countries today (to say nothing of fine art). Even forgetting the inevitable debasement of art made expressly for commercial exchange (art as commodity), perhaps in deference to artistic integrity, the social effects of a pure capitalist organization are that of a solvent. The tradition and culture that capitalism demolishes leave art debased or self-aware because of that fact (see Gaddis and the postmodern movement). The sorry husk of culture in its stead makes all other art directionless or hollow.
>China has a weak art scene b/c of the culture industry and political intervention
What are you guys actually basing this on? Do you have even a basic overview of their contemporary artistic scene?
I'm not trying to be a dick, but in my experience, most people who make this point are really substituting their lack of knowledge about China in place of evidence that China's artistic output is poor.
I'm far from an expert myself but of what I have read and of what I have scene, there's plenty of interesting commentary coming from their literature and film circles, including social critique. Attacking the CCP outright is never going to happen, but how many Western novels explicitly go after the government anyway?
why would you need propaganda for revolution/party in a communist society when revolution is a concluded event and the class party has dissolved into social-wide self-government?
A monarchy