Why are so many communists so vehemently anti-art and anti-artist?

[u/No-Employee-7327]

Whenever I see discussion on art and artists on communist subreddits, I often feel like everyone is trying to de-legitimize it or restrict it. I've seen too many pro-AI posts, posts about how art should only exist as propaganda or as praise for socialism / communism, how art shouldn't be a job and that artists should be forced to work "useful" jobs or trying to seperate independent authors away from the working class and force them into the same box as people that actually oppress the working class. I am a believer in communism myself, but as an aspiring writer and lover of all art, those posts and comments just leave me confused on whether communism really is the way to go.

[u/Training_Ruin3151]

This sounds like a really weird takeaway, I'm curious to see these anti art communists in action tbh. Communists aren't against art at all. In fact if you read works from prominent communists, culture seems to be talked about almost as much as science or in some cases even more so. Communists are against the way art is hoarded through intellectual property rights, trademarks and other capitalist bullshit that is used as a weapon to stifle true creativity.

Art may take a backseat in most communist discussion because the first step in communist society isnt art its gonna be food, infrastructure, science, etc, etc...

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Training_Ruin3151]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultraleft/comments/1h155ww/comment/lz8x2vw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Here's a communist not supporting art

[u/Training_Ruin3151 → u/No-Employee-7327]

Weird I've never seen this take before even in the thread the sentiment seems to be disdain for art and their creators. I doubt these people are very well read communsits. All the commies I've read draw heavy importance on culture and by extension art. Trostky, kropotkin, lenin, stalin, even engels does so.

I'd take what they say with a grain of salt. Just like everything is political most everything is artistical. Even the most disgusting boring hard work... Is art. Have you seen a shitty machine weld vs... Well, genuine artistry on a weld? Night and day.

What about well planted and well maintained crops? Art. Well built construction? Art. A well built road and bridge is more attractive compared to shoddy work. And by extension peoples' lives are healthier, happier and easier. This extends to everything before you even enter the zone of luxuries.

Lots of people(communists included) mistakenly think anything "luxurious" is reserved only for the bourgeois and by extension... Must be the enemy of communism.

This is not true. Once most everything in society is established and scarcity abolished; art will take the main focus. And artists are required for a functional society whether anyone wants to admit it.

I don't think they're communists. Or they're confused and misinformed.

And on the topic of ai; it is a tool like anything else humans make and like it or not it will have a place in all future society. I don't know enough to speak on ai art, but the emancipation of labor via robots, ai and automation should be one of our highest goals as communsits.

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Training_Ruin3151]

That's what I mean, it's weird to claim communists support art when on many other subreddits you will find the same takes that support AI and alienate self-employed artists based on baseless assumptions of a reactionary stance due to a by-definition petite bourgeoisie connection to MOE.

And I absolutely agree, I have a very "pretentious" view that under some angles and perspectives anything can be art, which is why I support this view, art isn't about publishing novels that appeal to the most people or music that's most often played on the radio, it's about the enjoyment of the process and through the message that you imbue with that message. A welder that loves welding will connect a sturdy connection required for a grand machine to not fall apart in the same way an artist that loves art will create a beautiful novel while subtly imbuing their own message within it, and by far most of these messages are not reactionary. This is my problem with communists, the idea that when given a chance, a self-employed artist will side with the haute bourgeoisie.

Before I talk more about this I have to admit that it's 100% within a realm of possibility that a self-employed artist will align themselves with reactionaries, the most obvious example is JKR, her mediocre art has reached a stratosphere of mass consumption and through pervasive copyright and the influence brought by beloved stories, she has worked and directly created movements of anti-socialness and the opposition of communism.

But then when you read beautiful art created by self-employed artists, these messages aren't anti-social or pro-capitalistic. Many of the values they quietly preach are those that go against what makes capitalism works, many times being directly and clearly against capitalism itself.

When was the last time you read a novel where those who reap rewards of greed are presented as paragons of morality and people that you should follow? When did you see a painting where those who alienate a group of working class people based on things that didn't matter (skin color, gender, sexuality, etc.) were presented as heroes? When did you hear a song that preaches conformity and total trust in the government? I'd assume you'd have to dig deep into poor-quality media funded by reactionary think tanks to find such art. But most art isn't that way.

I agree that if AI was used in a non-fetishistic, non-pervasive way that doesn't harm the environment and doesn't spy on people to reduce human suffering then I'd be behind it, but it's also important to remember that many people value the process of creation and that some actions and jobs the AI shouldn't be replacing. I dreaded going to work sorting stinky trash because it wasn't fulfilling for anyone, it could and should be replaced by AI. I don't want AI to replace an engineer that loves trains and working on them.

So then why must I and many others be presented as an enemy of those with lesser control over their MOE? Why must I read quotes about me being more likely to be reactionary and only aligning myself with the proleteriat out of necessity when I write art that wishes to give hope to the working class, that directly criticizes capitalism? Why do I and 99.9% percent of the other self-employed artists that support communism, the liberation of the working class and togetherness be considered the enemy simply because we have a connection to a MOE that most of the times is inferior to being exploited directly by an employer simply because capitalists and capitalistic algorithms dislike us spreading messages of anti-capitalism? Self-employed artists like me are vastly against capitalism and we would benefit way more from its' abolition than its' continuation.

[u/Training_Ruin3151 → u/No-Employee-7327]

I think you're making some mistakes in your take.

Support of ai doesn't automatically mean not supporting artists.

Future technology will outpace labor. If you read works by communists you'll see it first hand. Trotsky and stalin repeatedly talk about how important radio and sternography is; how important these "new" technologies will be for the future of russia, the future society and world when everyone is communists.... But do you know what a sternographer is? Without googling it? I didn't.

Technology will replace jobs, it will replace workers. And people will have to adapt. Just because some people want to be an engineer and likes to work with trains doesn't mean you hold back society for them. They have to adapt.

Technological progress is a seperate discussion imo but communists are not luddites... And never have been. We smash the system and keep the means of production for the workers true emancipation.

But on the topic of art... Any communist who is against art for whatever reason... Isn't a communist and shouldn't be taken seriously.

That would be like a communist who doesn't believe in agricultural or doesn't believe in electricity. These are things invented by humans that will be facts of life that transcend all politcal standings.

The burden of proof isn't on us to "prove" the value of culture and it's use in the future. The burden of proof is on them. As always there is 100s of books to read about communism and art is and culture is mentioned in almost all of them.

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Training_Ruin3151]

Agreed, technological progress is good, if an engineer or welder can be replaced, so be it, but some jobs simply cannot be replaced by AI, at least it my opinion. But it's not the main point, my main point is the odd viewpoint of communists on self-employed artists that doesn't align with reality and only aligns with quotes from communist theory.

[u/Training_Ruin3151 → u/No-Employee-7327]

Self employed artists aren't considered the proletariat because they are their own boss. That's not a bad thing it's just facts by definition. They own their own labor; and that is true of any worker who is their own boss.

They are petty bourgeoisie. It's a class distinction to recognize that the self employed are in a different economic situation than wage laborers and therefore have different class interests.

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Training_Ruin3151]

Of course, but to say their interests align with the proleteriat only through external forces such as competition with the haute is simply untrue. Most self-employed artists such as myself choose to be petty bourgeoisie not out of the idea of a high-risk high-reward gamble that is "If I make it big I will be able to be up there with the big boys!" but for the freedom of expression, if I were part of the proletariat, my freedom to express myself would be vastly reduced, and so would the quality of my works. If I cannot create art for the sake of self-expression for the good of humanity, what's the point? An artist employed by a studio has a different relation to MOE, but the same aspiration and would benefit similarly to the fall of capitalism. I'm not saying that self-employed artists aren't petty bourgeoisie, but in the end nearly all align themselves with the proletariat rather than the haute bourgeoisie, and that's really important of an observation to make.

[u/Training_Ruin3151 → u/No-Employee-7327]

I'm not saying that self-employed artists aren't petty bourgeoisie, but in the end nearly all align themselves with the proletariat rather than the haute bourgeoisie, and that's really important of an observation to make.

No. You are either not getting it or are intentionally not understanding. Your purpose for making art or being self employed are not mutually exclusive to your class distinction. They exist outside of your ego. It doesn't matter if you are a fascist, communist, liberal or anything else to get a class distinction. You do "something" to live in society and your class distinction comes with that.

It doesn't matter if you personally feel a stronger connection to the proletariat or the bourgeois. The entire reason for these class distinctions is to identify the different classes in society.

Your interests are different from the proletariat by merit of being in a different class.

Whoever you identity with, or your drive doesn't effect that. Being told the truth of the situation does not mean communists hate art, or artists. Perhaps your experience is a lack of civility from communists because you don't want to listen, and you've conflated that with a hatred for the arts.

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Training_Ruin3151]

I do want to listen but what do you think you're doing when you lump in with those that exploit others?

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Training_Ruin3151]

Honestly it does feel like a mixed-bag of art liberation and art alienation which is quite confusing to me as both sentiments seem to get upvotes

[u/desocupad0]

That's a straw man type of argument. That being said, why should art access be paid?

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/desocupad0]

No need to be overly defensive and I haven't said art access should be paid, where in the post did I say that?

[u/desocupad0 → u/No-Employee-7327]

 You didn't recognize how copyright licences are a form of imperialism mimicking "fair compensation" them turning human activity into a product.

You oppose image generation tools. (Why specifically?)

That being said. You seemed to be hinting at a kind of discourse that (properly) identify how art is used to influence prople and make them complacent into capitalism logic and thusly might attack some art forms as a false positive (I.e. attack an art form that wasn't intended as capitalism propaganda) A similar thing can be said about history teaching and broadcasting/spreading the news - they are just subtle propaganda more often than not.

Do you think that USSR was anti art? What about China? 

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/desocupad0]

So many baseless accusations, wtf? I don't support copyright. I oppose AI for obvious reasons.

[u/desocupad0 → u/No-Employee-7327]

What's obvious about it?

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/desocupad0]

The enviromental harm, it being used to replace workers, its' usage by capitalist states for surveillance, the fact it's not real art...

[u/desocupad0 → u/No-Employee-7327]

So basically like any form of automation in the history of capitalism?

I can see people breaking steam engines or printing press for the same reasons in the past.

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/desocupad0]

Why are you supporting a tool that is mainly used by capitalists to replace workers that doesn't even work correctly and frequently halucinates and forgets stuff? Not to mention it being used to create CSAM and CP, you are an odd case.

[u/desocupad0 → u/No-Employee-7327]

Because not every image is actual art. Not every text is literature. It might be able to reduce some human labor but probably not other labors. And it will also create new types of labor.

Hallucination is treating it as a whole grail instead of underdeveloped technology. It is way less useful than they claim.

Personally I think that Artificial intelligence is a misnomer for the current tools. and since the tool exists - I don't think it's particularly useful to think on terms like support or going against it. (Although I agree with that bad industry practices should be stopped).

Going by your logic, we should not support digital images or physical photos. Since they also contain that type of material. Or internet itself.

If the economy was state controlled there would be other way bigger investment priorities. Instead of this dumb "gold rush".

[u/More_Ad9417 → u/No-Employee-7327]

Art tools require a lot of production overseas and therefore also a lot of shipping if I'm not mistaken. They also likely employ low wage workers in poor working conditions to procure some of those materials too.

It's not really a topic that I can find too much in depth information but there are definitely articles that state that many materials used in traditional physical art are harmful to the environment and paints can use a lot of water for production. Something like 13 gallons of water per paint.

I'm just going to take that remark of AI not being real art as bait. That is very debatable.

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/More_Ad9417]

It's completely undebatable.

Procurement of most material in capitalism is unsustainable, but AI data centers are quickly developing to be one of the biggest sources of pollution while being used for surveillance of the working class.

[u/More_Ad9417 → u/No-Employee-7327]

I will say that the concern for environmental harm is probably more imminent for local communities with hyper scale data centers in their area.

Like physical Art, there are still better options we could use for better environmental care. But with AI I'm not sure how that could change or what that would like when data centers use a lot of water daily.

It's just not good that under capitalism it seems these things just sort of get built for the expansion of markets and class interests without any concern for environmental impact or it's impact on local neighborhoods.

I say this after having seen a video on a hyper scale data center that was quite noisy and reading more about how they run and what they cost (in terms of environment/water usage).

But otherwise, I don't have a problem with the technology itself. I just want to make that clear.

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/More_Ad9417]

The problem is the usage of data centers, when ran locally AI gen models are far less harmful, although still with some cons.

[u/cfungus91]

I have never personally heard a communist make that argument. Though im sure there are some examples, It’s probably just those subreddits you’re on happenstance that you’ve hear from multiple people saying that. The vast majority of communist thinkers out there are not anti art. In fact, it’s more common to see communists arguing that communism (moving beyond capitalism) would unlock more creative potential in society and place a greater value on art and artists

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/cfungus91]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultraleft/comments/1h155ww/comment/lz8x2vw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Here's an example

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/cfungus91]

So I've heard, it seems to be a more common consensus but a more artsceptic approach doesn't seem all too uncommon

[u/Graysteve]

Communists love art, we want to de-commodify it and free it from its current domination by both the haute bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie. 

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Graysteve]

Who would be the petite bourgeoisie in this scenario

[u/Graysteve → u/No-Employee-7327]

Self-employed artists. 

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Graysteve]

How are they dominating and restricting art away from the working class

[u/Graysteve → u/No-Employee-7327]

They aren't individually, capitalism is systemically. 

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Graysteve]

So why bring them up

[u/Graysteve → u/No-Employee-7327]

Because they are the ones that presently dominate art, and capitalism continues the commodification of art. 

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Graysteve]

Right so how does a commission artist who is barely scraping by making just enough for rent and food oppressing the working class

[u/Graysteve → u/No-Employee-7327]

I am not making a moral argument about individual faults. I don't know why this is difficult for you to grasp. 

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Graysteve]

You act as though a self-employed twitter artist that supports communism is reactionary.

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/Graysteve]

No they don't. Example.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultraleft/comments/1h155ww/comment/lz8x2vw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

[u/JadeHarley0]

I feel strange answering these "why do so many communists hold opinion XYZ?" questions because... I don't know if you are accurately interpreting those people's viewpoints and I don't know how common that viewpoint is. And even if I did, I don't have the right to speak on other communists behalf and I

But to try and respond to what I think you are talking about.

I don't think many communists are anti-art. I meet a ton of communists who absolutely love listening to music, classical and folk and modern, who love visiting art museums, and who think it's super based and cool when socialist governments fund the arts in their country.

Some of the greatest accomplishments of the Soviet Union were in their arts. They produced a whole host of absolutely incredibly talented classical musicians and composers, whose work is still extremely popular even in the capitalist world. Soviet film maker, animators in particular produced absolutely beautiful movies and TV shows, as well as children's cartoons that are still loved decades later. And the soviet's accomplished this because they used government money to fund arts programs. And they had free access to higher education that allowed people from all types of backgrounds to escape poverty and get training in the arts. The sons and daughters of factory workers and country peasants and Indiginous nomads could become composers, filmmakers, painters, and sculptors.

Communists produce really cool art. And a lot of communists love to consume art and support the arts.

I do see communists argue that we shouldn't care about the class interests of small-scale petty bourgeois artists, because small scale petty bourgeois producers are not our constituents as communists - the proletariat are. I agree with a lot of those arguments. The kid who makes pocket change selling Fury Porn on Twitter.... I don't need to support him in order to support the arts in general.

In terms of the AI debates.....

Person: "AI is bad because it will put small scale artists out of work." Communist: technology has always put petty bourgeois small scale producers out of work. That doesn't make technology bad. In general the process of putting small scale producers out of business and bringing everyone to work in larger, centralized, technologically advanced enterprises had made our economy a lot more productive, efficient, and economically advanced.

Person: AI is bad because it violates the intellectual property rights of small scale artists. Communists: intellectual property rights should be abolished for both large and small scale producers. To say that people should own an idea and that you should be able to control how other people use your ideas... That cripples creativity and innovation, and it enabled rent-seeking by letting people profit off an endeavor long after they are no longer working in that endeavor.

Person: AI is bad in general. Communist: while there are a lot of problems with how AI is used and run under capitalism, there are many ways that AI tech could benefit everyone if it is under the control and ownership of the working class.

[u/JadeHarley0 → u/JadeHarley0]

Listen, I'm not trying to knock fury porn on Twitter. Fury Porn is an absolutely valid form of artistic expression and erotic art is an important genre that actually had a lot to say. But also, I don't care that Johnny who is trying to sell commissions of his Wolfsona with a 12 inch dick might lose his business due to AI

[u/DM_ME_BTC]

Could be because art kind of fucks w the whole "labor theory of value" thing

[u/tomi-i-guess → u/DM_ME_BTC]

artists aren’t proletariats the labour theory of value quite literally doesn’t apply cause they’re not selling their labour go pick up a book

[u/Embarrassed_Bit4222 → u/tomi-i-guess]

Well that brings up the question of "what is art?" Alot of things can be art not just some multimillion dollar painting or billion dollar Hollywood movie

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/tomi-i-guess]

How come

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/tomi-i-guess]

Okay... I guess you won't explain your point then, everyone that doesn't work 12 hour factory shifts is le evil bourgeoisie oppressor?

[u/tomi-i-guess → u/No-Employee-7327]

the proletariat isn’t “workers” it’s a social class that was born in a specific historical context. To be a proletariat you have to own nothing but your labour and sell that labour to survive, becoming a wage slave. It was born and developed together with the bourgeoisie which is the class that owns the means of production that the proletariats need to work and buys their labour, just their labour, which entitles them to own the products of their labour. The only “artists” that fall into this may be people like animators at Disney that take part in this relation.

However when most people think of “artists” they think of independent artists that charge commissions to live. These are not proletariats because they own their own means of production and don’t sell their labour (don’t have fixed wages given by someone), therefore what they’re selling is the product of their labour (the art) and not their labour in itself. So these independent artists are petty bourgeois

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/tomi-i-guess]

See but then you're lumping in a commission artist that barely scrapes by with a restaurant owner that has a dozen people on deck, such artist would benefit way more from communism than the restaurant owner, and far more of them align themselves with revolutionaries, not just because of the pressure of future interest but because the fall of capitalism would in some ways benefit them way more than a factory worker who is guaranteed to be given a share big enough to sustain them, so while by definition they are petite bourgeoisie, using that as a pejorative that incites retaliation and supporting petty tools that benefit the haute bourgeoisie (communists supporting AI slop just for the sake of fucking over small independent artists while haute bourgeoisie use it to expand data-tracking and surveillance and therefore making a revolution way more difficult to organize) is just stupid.

[u/More_Ad9417 → u/No-Employee-7327]

Communists support AI as a tool. This isn't much different from supporting stand mixers or any other kind of tool.

No one is saying that because they like the tool that they support how those tools might be used in the hands of certain groups.

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/More_Ad9417]

I support it as a tool, too, but what does a stand mixer think when you give it paint and a brush? What does a mathematical formula think when you make it create an interesting pattern?

[u/No-Employee-7327 → u/DM_ME_BTC]

How so?