I'm starting to think that the reason egalitarian systems are failing to gain traction is because we spend too much...

I'm starting to think that the reason egalitarian systems are failing to gain traction is because we spend too much time focusing on the scientific aspect of the creation of social systems while neglecting the utopian, fantastical, idealized side of it.

For a while now, Socialism no longer means a system (because, after all, "no one knows what it will look like") and it has become instead a codeword for a certain worldview regarding the malleability of the human spirit and the socio-historical conditioning of the social structures that surround us, and a general class attitude characterized by opposition to the projects of the bourgeoisie.

This is all fair and good, but I think that without a picture of what the endgoal is, these two are incomplete.

Let's take conservatism as a frame of reference of what a complete idea looks like. Conservatives have their worldview and they have their ethic, their values and collective attitude, but to complement this they have an utopian idea of the traditional society, free of corrupting influences: the traditional family, the two kids, the dog, the suburban house, the homogeny of ideas, the small property or business owner, the common moral code. A connective tissue between individuals made out of ideas, faith, respect. They create in people's mind a subconscious idea that many grow attached to, and trying to recreate this fictionalized lost past is a goal for many of them.

Fascists replace this by a more militarized version. Service, struggle, a certain degree of equality, the corny imperial-classical architecture, the statues extolling the athletic body, all that nonsense. Liberals, on the other hand, go for the multicultural, diverse, rational and secular universe, although they too suck at inciting people's imagination through imagery.

Now, I challenge you to think about what the Socialist horizon is. There isn't one. People have a fictionalized lost past to look for in conservative and reactionary ideas, and a slightly improved and more technocratic present to look for in centrist and progressive ideas, but they don't have an egalitarian future to think about. And before saying I'm full of shit, remember that Socialism was more popular when the egalitarian society was a common trope in science fiction.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MNVKoX40ZAo
gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=59BF50B9C0FB98F8FDA03CAA28902AED
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No. It's because you over-complicate shit. Nazis offer a simple solutiuon. Kick out the brown folk, become self sufficient and all will be good.

You people collectively can't even offer a step one, never mind an image of what the world will look like when you're done with it.

What I am saying is just fucking lie. Picture your perfect system possible with current technology and sell that as what you're aiming for.

But we do have an image of what we want to see. Worker autonomy, planned economy, democracy in the state and the workplace, production geared towards satisfying needs rather than profit, an end to racism/sexism. Most socialists don't just offer a critical analysis of capitalism, they offer solutions too.

...

Thanks for that, friend.

I'm having problem conveying my point here.

It's true, we have proposed policies. But policies alone, particularly when they drift too much from what the general population is accostumed to, can seem alien to the average person and not inspire enough confidence for him or her to seek it. Sometimes, people may need a fictionalized version of it here and there, conveyed bit by bit through art and propaganda, that help them picture a world where these policies exist and feel comfortable in working towards creating it.

Fascism, for example, was creating an entire new system, so it had to come up with an entire new imagery. Reduce to fixed abstraction, like nationalism, cult of personality, militarization of society and so on, Fascism is about as attractive as ebola. But Mussolini managed to convey these ideas in an appealing manner to mass audiences. The roman imperial-classical architecture, art and statues gave them some confidence in feeling that they weren't jumping into the unknown, but restoring their previous grandiosity. The leader's authority was enhanced by his clothing, his attitude, his place in propaganda, making it easier to grasp the idea that instead of a mere bureaucrat, he was an extraordinary person, and so an extraordinary role of dictator was suitable for him and therefore desirable for them. The militarization was made attractive by changes in their uniforms, by new parades and rituals, a change in popular culture that exalted traits of strength, loyalty, bravery. Bit by bit, they could "see the picture". If he tried to do that within the aesthetic guidelines that american policy is accostumed to, for example, he wouldn't be able to establish his Fascist system, because the public wouldn't be able to imagine it.

More timid, moderate and pragmatic conservative force make use of other cultural artifacts, but they too create a similar psychological proximity to a fictionalized society that people may feel attracted to. The Left, because it doesn't prey on the past, can't make use of these historical and cultural artifacts to build our "Socialist horizon". So we need more imagination.

It's an interesting read. Part political program, part utopian vision, fully neither. Do yourself a favor and skip Frank Ruda's essay. 90% nonsense. Kathi Weeks was pretty gud, as was Agon Hazma.

Also: youtube.com/watch?v=MNVKoX40ZAo

This lecture actually referenced by Ruda and I think Zizek as well, plus it offers something of a summary.

That "step one" is what is holding us back, not the supposed lack of clarity about an end goal. I do believe that at this point the materialists and the idealists must seperate from one another. The idealists must pick an aspect of culture to attack, and the materialists need to present an economic action that people can take right now. For all of its flaws, the co-ops that syndicalists favor are an easy starting point. They are something that people can do now that will serve as a qunatitative change. Forming unions, both tennants unions and labor unions, are another good step one, no matter their immediate efficacy.

...

Anyone got a PDF download of that book?

Best i can do is a epub on libgen
gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=59BF50B9C0FB98F8FDA03CAA28902AED

OK so basically you want to revive ideal art and create a utopia which people can dream about, where socialism promises to fight for that utopia.

I cry everytime

You are correct from a sympathetic standpoint, but this literally cannot end well as real life politics. It's overly simplistic emotional nonsense.

...

Man, WHAT HAS HAPPENED to science fiction? Where is it? You know something is weird with a genre when there are more parodies of it than non-parodies. How many examples of SF do you guys know that is neither
?
And what percentage of the media pile tagged science-fiction would be that other stuff? I have come to hate the third type the most.
Happy ending in post-apocalyptic stories is just a code word for cool-guy genocide.

I'd love to see some socialist anime that's basically a chill soap/comedy, where nothing dark and "realistic" (in the sense of Batman and Coldsteel) ever happens, and where the glorious gommie future is just the backdrop of that, with micro factoids about that society steadily trickling into the subconscious of the viewers, like our satanic Frankfurt School Overgaylords would have wanted ;_;

So what you're basically talking about is a political aesthetic, one that paints an idealized picture of the world we want to build? Well I would imagine it would be one that promotes an image of freedom, democracy, industry, co-operation, selflessness, and above all, the freedom from a power that sits on high and commands the masses. Typically socialist movements in the past have use four images in particular: militancy, industry, prosperity, and co-operation. This are traits that are emphasized in most socialist art.

Pic related is a perfect example. Workers, soldiers, farmers, engineers, scientists, students. All moving together in unison for mutual benefit, surrounded by the prosperity that their co-operation and industriousness has built.

What I find interesting is how dystopia has become the norm for science fiction. It really proves that what Zizek saying about the end of the world being easier to imagine than the end of capitalism.

Egalitarian futuristic societies are now, weirdly, all militaristic societies. People can only imagine egalitarianism within the only more-or-less egalitarian institution they know, the army. The idea of mankind rejecting hierarchy and classes through reason and technological progress, which was once everywhere, would seem corny af now, because no one would be able to project themselves in it.

Yes, but what I'm really trying to convey here is that this imaginary utopia is not constructed only through straight up fictional stories, it's everywhere. Our language, our symbols, our aesthetic preferences, the art we produce and share.

I really like this greentext.