One could argue that the undermining and destroying of said structures must be presaged by truly creative works of art. :very-intelligent:
I, personally, don't believe that creative arts are meaningfully restrained by social structures. I'm more of the opinion that creative arts are simply crowded out by industrially manufactured and mass-media saturated slop. You can find roses growing in a landfill, but you'll have to hike through a mile of shit to see them and good luck enjoying the smell.
Socialist society will have structures that aim to create a superstructure that reinforces socialist ideology. Communist society too, presumably?
Socialism and Communism are clearly not static or monocultural ideas. They are, of necessity, organizational structures that breed multi-polarity and continuous change. No Hegelian could seriously expect otherwise.
The challenge of the Socialist visionary is to join in building a society that can endure - even prosper - alongside neighbors with divergent foundations and directions. The social agents that can weave disparate social structures together will inevitably employ compelling artistic traditions. And as we have not seen an international social force capable of such a feat, this implies a future approach to art more creative than what we've seen to date.
Yeah I'm not really saying that getting art to this point is a bad thing, merely that I struggle to imagine it because I struggle to imagine a societal system that isn't repressing one form of art or another with the goal of reinforcing the ideology of the system and undermining art that threatens the system.
It's a rather silly example but I don't imagine any bourgeoise art will be particularly "free" under socialism, not that I want it to be but you get my general thought process.
I struggle to imagine a societal system that isn’t repressing one form of art or another with the goal of reinforcing the ideology of the system
Some systems are self-reinforcing in a way that doesn't require a direct social hierarchy. Capitalists, particularly Libertarians, love to disparage this kind of organization as "hive-mind" mentality. Liberals like to define it as Ludditism, particularly when it gets in the way of their Brave New World neoliberal fantasies. But people can and do act collectively in their self-interest without asking a guy like Stalin for permission. Arguably, the sharpest distinction between Russian Soviet model and the Chinese Mass Line is the degree to which the Maoists accommodated localized self-determination. Also, incidentally, what makes the Chinese system cleaner at the upper echelons but dirtier down below.
It’s a rather silly example but I don’t imagine any bourgeoise art will be particularly “free” under socialism
I think that a great deal of the appeal of bourgeois liberalism is the distance between the proletariat and the elites. Who wouldn't want to be in Elon Musk's position (prior to buying Twitter)? By contrast, I'm not enormously envious of the guy that runs a mid-sized boat dealership. If that mid-sized boat dealership guy wants to cosplay as Harry Potter or write neo-confederate fan fiction, even less so.
One is inevitably going generate more emulation than the other.
One could argue that the undermining and destroying of said structures must be presaged by truly creative works of art. :very-intelligent:
I, personally, don't believe that creative arts are meaningfully restrained by social structures. I'm more of the opinion that creative arts are simply crowded out by industrially manufactured and mass-media saturated slop. You can find roses growing in a landfill, but you'll have to hike through a mile of shit to see them and good luck enjoying the smell.
Socialism and Communism are clearly not static or monocultural ideas. They are, of necessity, organizational structures that breed multi-polarity and continuous change. No Hegelian could seriously expect otherwise.
The challenge of the Socialist visionary is to join in building a society that can endure - even prosper - alongside neighbors with divergent foundations and directions. The social agents that can weave disparate social structures together will inevitably employ compelling artistic traditions. And as we have not seen an international social force capable of such a feat, this implies a future approach to art more creative than what we've seen to date.
Yeah I'm not really saying that getting art to this point is a bad thing, merely that I struggle to imagine it because I struggle to imagine a societal system that isn't repressing one form of art or another with the goal of reinforcing the ideology of the system and undermining art that threatens the system.
It's a rather silly example but I don't imagine any bourgeoise art will be particularly "free" under socialism, not that I want it to be but you get my general thought process.
Some systems are self-reinforcing in a way that doesn't require a direct social hierarchy. Capitalists, particularly Libertarians, love to disparage this kind of organization as "hive-mind" mentality. Liberals like to define it as Ludditism, particularly when it gets in the way of their Brave New World neoliberal fantasies. But people can and do act collectively in their self-interest without asking a guy like Stalin for permission. Arguably, the sharpest distinction between Russian Soviet model and the Chinese Mass Line is the degree to which the Maoists accommodated localized self-determination. Also, incidentally, what makes the Chinese system cleaner at the upper echelons but dirtier down below.
I think that a great deal of the appeal of bourgeois liberalism is the distance between the proletariat and the elites. Who wouldn't want to be in Elon Musk's position (prior to buying Twitter)? By contrast, I'm not enormously envious of the guy that runs a mid-sized boat dealership. If that mid-sized boat dealership guy wants to cosplay as Harry Potter or write neo-confederate fan fiction, even less so.
One is inevitably going generate more emulation than the other.