The subject title says it all. To listen to some GOP'ers talk, you'd think socialism was Communism.

Tags: Communism, socialism

Views: 2038

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

lol... but you're doing a really good job of acting like you don't think there is great art today! Whether or not you think socialism should be kept at bay for fear there will no longer be great art is beside the point now! Haha Do you actually believe strife is a necessity for good art? You can believe that while still thinking socialism is best (if you do).

Do I think there's someone producing masterpieces like Cezanne or Duerer or Vermeer today. No and the "art" you showed me really qualifies more as really good craft than great art to me. 

Quite frankly, painting probably is a dead art. There may not be any more great paintings. Oh, people will continue to paint, but the public doesn't care about painting anymore. Today's serious painters are painting with collectors in mind more than anything else.

Great art probably is being made in the fields of literature and cinema and possibly architecture. 

Well, fair enough. First, I want it to be noted that the art I provided you (other than Goldsworthy) I just found by a random search on Google, sooo... I was never arguing that it was masterful, only skillful... which I maintain.

I simply disagree there are no masters today; they may be living in obscurity, but I don't think they've gone extinct.

Cara i think you are correct, there are many artists today who can easily equal any of those great masters. The problem is that there are actually too many great artists today which dilutes the field as a whole. If their art had been created 500 years ago and survived till today we would be praising them as masters while still complaining that no one today can equal them. It is basic human nature that we tend to value something more if it is rare  rather than common place.

Unseen- I dont see what the point of your argument is. Even if you are correct and only suffering produces great art i dont see how you can say that justifies all the suffering. i mean just how many millions of people suffering do you think is worth it to produce one great artist?

There is the other downside that that suffering is far more likely to turn the majority of  people hyper religious rather than into a great artist .which is something i think we here are not exactly too keen on.

I also think that it can be argued that stable more socialistic societies are far more likely to produce great thinkers ,scientists and be largely atheistic

@jason sadler

Unseen- I dont see what the point of your argument is. Even if you are correct and only suffering produces great art i dont see how you can say that justifies all the suffering. i mean just how many millions of people suffering do you think is worth it to produce one great artist?

My devil's advocate isn't maintaining that "only suffering produces great art" but that suffering and adversity are a more fertile environment for great art, because much great art has to do with great issues, righting wrongs, defying oppression, etc.

Unseen- The reason i dont consider this much of an argument is because even if i completely agree with you i still dont consider the cost worth it.

@jason sadler

Unseen- The reason i dont consider this much of an argument is because even if i completely agree with you i still dont consider the cost worth it.

But it's free. I'm not charging you!

More seriously, you don't think the cost of the past that gave us so many classic masterpieces was worth the suffering. You'd prefer to live in a culturally-deprived present?

No i dont think it was worth the suffering . I dont think it can come anywhere near being worth the suffering. Now i understand how it is easy for us to dismiss their suffering as it is not us experiencing it , but if it was happening to you and those you care about then  i think you may reconsider your current position.

This would be like going to Ethiopia and telling a crowd of them not to worry as  all their suffering from starvation, war  and disease  was  completely worth it because one of them has just created a great artistic masterpiece which is mainly only going to be appreciated by people who have a life the Ethiopians would consider one small step away  from heaven. Now i dont know about you but i doubt you will have much luck in convincing them to agree with your point of view.

Well there are a couple of components to what makes something a good piece of art.  There's the technical skill you've alluded to, where someone can use a crude instrument like a sharpie and do amazing things with it.  (It's a general rule of human endeavors in general, not just art:  a good man with crappy tools will do better than a crappy man with even the best tools.)  Call this "craftsmanship."

The other part is what it is the artist chooses to portray.  Everything in a work of art, unlike (say) a spontaneous photograph, is there by choice of the artist.  That's true whether it's a painting, sculpture, musical composition or novel. Call this "choice of theme"

It would be interesting to note if this study Unseen is referring to indicates an objective basis for judging craftsmanship (which would be pretty obvious if you think about it) or choice of theme.

It would be interesting to

How easy it would be if I could just sit back and have slaves...

Are you seriously suggesting that art is not a reasonable price to pay for world peace and freedom?

Art is nice, but it's no world peace and freedon.

No Matt, he's not seriously suggesting that; he was playing devil's advocate. It's all good.

What's so f***ing terrible about socialism?

Look around you.

What you see is not in fact a capitalist (i.e., free market) society!  It is already a mixed economy with a lot of socialism in it, in the form of extremely detailed regulation, discriminatory taxation, and wealth transfers.

What you see is a society where government dispenses favors and largesse.

You see a society where people get wealthy more often via political influence than by actually producing things of value, and as often as not anyone trying to produce something of value will have arbitrary roadblocks put in his way by the government--at the behest of his competitors!

The fact that businessmen are, as often as not, the ones lining up for favors and largesse, does not make it "capitalism," it is the antithesis of capitalism.  "Corporate welfare" and "crony capitalism" are in fact socialism--socialism where you aren't the beneficiary.  (Yes, ironically, businessmen are capitalism's worst enemy, when the government starts the business of handing out favors.)

Someone mentioned medical insurance, blaming the ills of the system on capitalism.  Well if the medical insurance market were free, anyone who wanted to could start an insurance company, that insurance company would be free to create insurance plans to suit more people, and anyone in the market for insurance would be able to pick their insurance company, and pick an insurance plan that suits them, at least better than the crap we have today, and covers what they need or want to have covered.  And that insurance plan would belong to you not your employer, so you wouldn't have to stick with a shitty job just to keep your insurance.

Instead, we have government requiring that insurance companies only sell within their own state, and requiring that plans include coverage that you might not want.  And now we are seeing more and more actual choice taken away.  But of course people will blame "capitalism"--not more and more government regulation--when they realize that what insurance companies have to offer is increasingly shitty.  They'll lay the blame on the free market simply because it is a private company selling the product.  But it never occurs to them that the health insurance market is already heavily controlled and that maybe, just maybe it's the already existing controls causing the problem.

It's true that in many cases the companies themselves push for this sort of regulation, but that does not somehow magically make it "free market."  A market is free when government interference is limited to enforcing laws against fraud, theft, rape, murder, etc., not when the government says it's illegal to sell medical insurance that doesn't cover treatment for alcoholism, whether the customer wants it or not.

But of course the private companies are also somewhat in bed with the government, and use the government to help restrain competition.  We see this all the time and bitch about it, we bitch about the lobbyists, we bitch about the big campaign contributions (but it never occurs to us that maybe that stuff would go away if the people in office couldn't use their power to benefit one party at the expense of another).

That's not capitalism, that's cronyism of the worst kind.  And such cronyism would be rampant in a fully socialist society.  Remember, some human being... a politician or a bureaucrat... would be deciding what to produce, what to offer in the "marketplace" and he will be doing so on the basis of whoever has the most political pull, not whether people actually want what he is proposing to mandate.  We see the results of political pull all the time in today's economy, but we blame it on capitalism and somehow imagine that it would disappear under socialism--when instead absolutely everything would be a political matter because politicians would control everything.

As soon as you give power to the government, that power becomes subject to whoever can peddle influence the best.  That's endemic to government and it's all over socialism.  We see it every day in our thoroughly mixed economy, and for some reason blame it on the free market, rather than the socialism.

If you don't like features of the current economy, dig a bit.  You'll find that the ultimate cause of the crap is usually, damn near always, government interference, government subsidies, or government taxation done in a way to  encourage something awful or discourage something beneficial (for example it's tax law that causes most medical insurance in the US today to belong to employers rather than the people covered by the insurance).  But that's OK because government will be happy to step in to "fix" the problems it has itself caused--by doing more of the same. 

And this will continue as long as we blame "capitalism" and "the free market" for all the things that government has done to interfere with it.

RSS

Blog Posts

My Dad and the Communist Spies

Posted by Brad Snowder on August 20, 2014 at 2:39pm 0 Comments

Breaking Free

Posted by A. T. Heist on August 20, 2014 at 9:56am 4 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service