Socialism

808 readers

1 users here now

#Welcome to /c/socialism

Socialism as a political system is defined by democratic and social control of the means of production by the workers for the good of the community rather than capitalist profit, based fundamentally on the abolition of private property relations.

Socialism is also a sociopolitical movement dedicated to the critique and dismantling of exploitative structures, including economic, gendered, ethnic oppression.

Socialism, as a movement, confronts these different systems of oppression as mutually conditioning, intersectional, and/or dialectically related within the current hegemonic order. It seeks to overcome oppression in a holistic manner without neglecting any particular axis so that it might be eliminated and genuine social emancipation may be realized. We recognize that Socialism cannot be achieved while structural oppression continues and workers are divided.

We look forward to your participation in our sub, but please be mindful of our posting guidelines.

Are you new to socialist ideas? Wondering what alternatives to capitalism exist? Please check out our educational materials and wiki further down in this sidebar.

#Posting Guidelines

Keep meta posts constructive. Avoid shitposting. This is not a sub for sharing other users' post histories or for sharing screenshots of ridiculous things liberals say.

No linking to /c/Socialism in brigade subs or participating in subs that harass our users

/c/Socialism is a sub for socialists, and a certain level of knowledge about socialism is expected. If you are derailing discussions or promoting non-socialist positions, your comments may be removed, and you may receive a warning or a ban. If you are not a Socialist but are learning about it, be polite, or you will be banned for trolling. Low effort images: powerful expressions of socialism are always welcomed in r/socialism. Expressions may vary including pictures, cartoons, comics, illustrations, and even memes. However, those expressions which lack quality (does not clearly shows a socialistic construct), or has low-quality insights (possibly for karma and/or upvotes) may not be posted. Thus, those images that do not meet these quality standards will be removed.

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

Langston Hughes: Lenin (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/socialism@lemmygrad.ml

230 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pyromaiden@lemmygrad.ml -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The artists can appreciate their art but it is in that engagement that transforms it into art. If somebody who is not the creator appreciates something as art does it cease to be art because the artist has decided what they produced did have not love or had passion in it? If “death of the author” could have an individualist take then what does collective interpretation of a creation, even against the artist’s intention, do? Could that collectivist action nullify the individualist interpretation (of death of the author)?

That isn't how it works. Neither the artist nor the viewer's interpretation of something makes it artistic. The art itself comes from the time, energy, and labor poured into it. The investment of that time, energy, and labor is a reflection of the creator's passion even if the creator isn't aware of it or in denial of it.

Art is a relationship of the consumer (insert better term there) and the creation - that relation is real but is borne out of the material conditions of the class society as it stands today. The art of the artist does not exist in a vacuum and it is this relation to the world that dismantles any invidualist take of what is an artist and what is art. The objectivity is in that real relationship.

Completely disagree. Art, as a reflection of its creator, is defined by the passion of that creator in its production. The consumer and their interpretation of it is an irrelevant factor here. Art is not created to be consumed; it is created to express. That expression can occur without any consumption taking place. Art is not an economic transaction but the manifestation of a person's whole self through a different medium.

I would strongly recommend Georges Politzer’s Elementary Philosophy, not necessarily to convince you of dialectical materialism but at least understand convincingly what it is about. One understands relations but has an objective reality. It is not positivist.

Death of the Author does not negate the love and passion to create art but to understand why one must understand how one sublimates individualist takes without resorting to reaction; dialectical materialism is how one sublimates this - it is very much a collectivist understanding.

I am a Marxist. I know what dialectical materialism, thank you very much.

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 months ago

art itself comes from the time, energy, and labor poured into it.

Maybe consider if anything else had those three factors but would not be considered art. Could someone produce something with passion and still not be art? (If so, why?) Or is all passionate production art?

The consumer and their interpretation of it is an irrelevant factor here

By definition the artist has to consume their own art and is not excepted by this.

The consumer and their interpretation of it is an irrelevant factor here. Art is not created to be consumed; it is created to express. That expression can occur without any consumption taking place.

This is hyper-individualism. It is anti-social. Not withstanding the artist consumes their own art.

I am a Marxist. I know what dialectical materialism, thank you very much.

Cool.