artists and other "unnessasary" occupations in a communist socity

[senorsassycat]

in a communist society someone should be able to eat and live if they are contributing to the general wellbeing. this is easy to quantify for a steel worker or farmer but much harder to for an artist, filmmaker, or other form of "nonsurvival" job, especially ones where a good job is a matter of opinion.

how do you say who is and artists and is contributing to socity and one who is not?


the only thing i can think of is tickets you spend on art type items and if an artist doesnt get enought tickets they must find another job, but that is mearly capitalism

artist are important in a thriving society and this isse is pretty important

[which doctor]

I don't think there will be any centralized decision making body that decides things like this, or at least I hope there won't be. The nature of work will be vastly different in a communist society and it is important to keep this in mind when thinking about how "work" will be conducted in a stateless, classless society. Unfortunately, I'm not the best person to verbalize just how these concepts might be put into action, but I'm just reminding you that work as you know now is not what work will be like in a communist society.

[Hyacinth]

If we are speaking of communism as a post-scarcity society, then then the issue you raise doesn't arise, as there would be no need for compensation. People would be free to consume in accord with their needs and wants.

But if we are still operating under conditions of scarcity, at least with respect to some things, then I would suggest that art, and other cultural activities which have no use-value (which isn't to say that they have no value whatsoever, of course they have aesthetic value), not be counted as productive labour. Everyone would be required to put in a certain amount of labour into the production of things which have use-value, and in return they would have consumption rights. Thus, our artist, for instance, would be free to pursue art in their leisure time, but would also, along with everyone else, partake in the production of products with use-value, including things which have use-value to the artist: brushes, paint, instruments, etc. In effect, art would be removed from the economic sphere altogether.

[Bilan]

It's a bit of a non-issue, but to suggest that cultural activities will become unnecessary or outlawed in a communist society is pretty silly.

[apathy maybe]

"artists and other "unnessasary" occupations in a communist socity"

When you say "unnecessary" occupations, I think of things like clerks in banks, share traders, government bureaucrats and similar. Jobs that don't produce anything useful, and that simply would not exist in a future perfect society.

Artists do produce useful things, they produce enjoyment and entertainment. In a post-scarcity society, anyone can do anything they want, and it doesn't matter.

In a not-quite post-scarcity society, they are still useful, and so long as they are popular enough, probably they could get by with just producing content. Not so popular folks might have to do other things. Probably all of them would be part of the rotating janitor team (everyone takes a turn).

[ckaihatsu]

In a post-scarcity society art would be considered a basic human need / right, first and foremost -- on par with education / self-realization / self-actualization.

No one can develop their individuality and sense of self-worth in a vacuum, and so in the modern world we have schools that are able to expose students to a fairly wide sampling of what the world is about, *without* their having to take on all the risk of surveying the world themselves.

Education is a cultural activity like any other, and so is the creation of art. In many ways it's difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins because every intellectual effort, like writing an essay or doing research -- and even analyzing a book, critiquing music, or reflecting on a movie -- is a *creative* effort, and can be considered artwork in its own regard.

That which is conventionally considered as "artistic" is just a *different* type of creative effort, usually downplayed because of the bourgeois system's emphasis on their own financial / military / scientific / technical paradigm, which often approaches the rigidity of a religious dogma.

A post-capitalist, post-scarcity society would *prioritize* those activities that people are most interested in, while automated industries would *supply the resources* required for people to do the projects that they're most self-motivated to do.



Just as with any other kind of production we would expect to have the means of production for mass cultural / artistic projects fully in the public domain, to be as accessible for large-scale projects as reserving a book at the library is today.

If there arises any dispute or question as to scheduling or priority of one project versus another, it would necessarily be a political issue, but *not* a financing-economic one. I'd imagine that the overall budget for cultural projects would have already been decided at higher (more macro) political levels, and with the full abundance that a communist mode of production would enable.


Chris




--




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Bitter Ashes]

I've yet to meet any artists, or musicians who hate doing thier thing and are only in it for money. If anything, with the shorter working hours for essiential stuff, wouldnt that be like a free grant to practice thier arts nearly full time for all? I can imagine scientists and students feeling the same way too.
So, the arts would still be getting out, right? :)

[ckaihatsu]

I've yet to meet any artists, or musicians who hate doing thier thing and are only in it for money. If anything, with the shorter working hours for essiential stuff, wouldnt that be like a free grant to practice thier arts nearly full time for all? I can imagine scientists and students feeling the same way too.
So, the arts would still be getting out, right? :)


Some people consider human nature -- if it *can* be generalized over all the ages -- to be of creativity and compassion (thanks, TNC). On this premise *everyone* should be attending to their own creative and compassionate efforts, and any activities outside of these directions would be considered wayward or less-than-suitable.

I'm of the position that human nature is much more flexible that this, and so we have civilizations that confer more options and order -- (as well as wars and misery) -- than a human population of creativity-indulgers and compassion-givers could *ever* achieve.

Using materialism we can see *objectively* that *any* surplus value produced by a society -- anything above the minimum needed to keep the workforce alive and working, and reproducing future generations -- must either go into infrastructure / capital / assets / resources / surplus goods and services, or else it is consumed in leisurely, pleasure-seeking activities. And, once again, here's a diagram to illustrate this:


G.U.T.S.U.C. The Grand Unified Theory of Society Under C_______

http://tinyurl.com/2c252w


Once again, in a post-capitalist worker-run economy, *all* decisions over the creation and usage of surplus-labor-value-based materials would be conscious, mass political decisions.

[cenv]

how do you say who is and artists and is contributing to socity and one who is not?Transcending capitalism means moving beyond the idea that it's up to other people to judge a given person's contributions to society. Let's not forget that the political and economic transition to communism is about empowering the working class, so it's impossible to establish a communist society without abandoning the idea that there needs to be an authority with power over workers to determine whether or not they are "contributing to society." Communism implies greater responsibility, creativity, and autonomy in art and in everyday life.

Also, the title of the thread refers to 'other "unnecessary occupations."' I'm curious what these are. If you decide to purge art from society because it's "unnecessary," you are sliding down a slippery slope towards primitivism. If art is "unnecessary," what is really "necessary"? Are computers necessary? Is technology in general necessary? Are houses necessary? Is anything necessary? Maybe we should use a different criteria to evaluate things. :tt2:


I've yet to meet any artists, or musicians who hate doing thier thing and are only in it for money. If anything, with the shorter working hours for essiential stuff, wouldnt that be like a free grant to practice thier arts nearly full time for all?Totally... if you think about it, the structure of the music/arts industries and capitalism in general stifles a lot of creativity. This is one reason communism would probably usher in an era of unparalleled artistic creativity, not to mention a more blurred distinction between art and life.

[ckaihatsu]

Transcending capitalism means moving beyond the idea that it's up to other people to judge a given person's contributions to society. Let's not forget that the political and economic transition to communism is about empowering the working class, so it's impossible to establish a communist society without abandoning the idea that there needs to be an authority with power over workers to determine whether or not they are "contributing to society." Communism implies greater responsibility, creativity, and autonomy in art and in everyday life.


I have to reluctantly and respectfully raise a tangential difference with this point. In general I agree with you, and with the *spirit* of what you're saying, but I also have to remind everyone that a communist society would still be based on materialism, and *would* *necessarily* have to have some kind of workers-collective-based administration and enforcement. This thread has had a good discussion on this particular topic:


Why Centralization?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-centralizationi-t100696/index.html


Basically I think the material aspects in a communist economy could be summed up as: [+] assets and resources, goods and services, and [-] labor costs, administrative costs, and consumption. The following one-page diagram depicts these components:


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca

[scarletghoul]

Yeah, in a real classless, stateless society, we would be truly free and the arts would flourish. Also, the quality of art would be better in general, because it's creation would not be driven by profit, because we would already have enough wealth.

It will be a truly wonderful age, when man can appreciate the world in all it's beauty without worrying about his financial situation.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm sure artists can be supported by the workers who like their art. The same goes for writers and other in the humanities.


This part is problematic. The provision of materials for the creation of art *needs* to be a societal / economic concern, and *not* only done on a patronage or ad hoc basis. As this thread discussion has covered, the very idea of production *of anything* -- even thought -- is far from being an automatic or pre-determined condition. Both individually and societally we must *consciously* think and collectively decide what is *worth* producing and what is not.

I think we've gotten *used to* the idea of the economy being on automatic pilot, which it shouldn't be, especially if we really want to have communism. The alternative to conscious, creative planning and production is a sinking to the lowest common denominator, which is exactly what corporatism and profit-driven marketing are all about.





The public has always, and in every age, been badly brought up.
They are continually asking Art to be popular, to please their want
of taste, to flatter their absurd vanity, to tell them what they
have been told before, to show them what they ought to be tired of
seeing, to amuse them when they feel heavy after eating too much,
and to distract their thoughts when they are wearied of their own
stupidity. Now Art should never try to be popular. The public
should try to make itself artistic. There is a very wide
difference.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/slman10.txt

[Oneironaut]

The great majority of artists I know are workers. The two are not exclusive now nor will they be a communist society. On that note, artists will still be required to give the minimum amount of work necessary in accordance with human needs to receive societal benefits, just like everyone else. Artists, athletes, musicians etc. are not exempt from providing use-value for society through working.

[ckaihatsu]

The great majority of artists I know are workers. The two are not exclusive now nor will they be a communist society.



On that note, artists will still be required to give the minimum amount of work necessary in accordance with human needs to receive societal benefits, just like everyone else.



Artists, athletes, musicians etc. are not exempt from providing use-value for society through working.


After seeming to be diplomatic about the commonality across artistic endeavors (art, athletics, music, etc.) and conventional work roles in your first sentence, you then take on a patronizing and condescending tone in your second sentence, thereby destroying your initial approach of diplomacy and conciliation.

Finally, in your third sentence, you come full blast in separating the meaning of work into that which is conventional ("providing use-value for society"), and that which you present to be auxiliary, or peripheral -- art.

Consider those roles which are in the middle of the continuum between routine, repetitive, cog-in-the-machine-type work roles and the trailblazing, pushing-the-envelope, avant garde visionary (of whatever). Will you attract specialized labor, like engineers, with your conventional, dismissive attitude? How about storyboard artists or other types of art gruntwork roles, for the production of much-enjoyed entertainment?

You glibly delineate art-work as being separate, different, and *not* productive of use-value from everything else that is "work", according to your conception of it. Your prejudiced characterization is downright shocking, actually -- I'll ask you to reconsider the general role of artisitic / pioneering endeavors in society, and in their production of use-values.

[Oneironaut]

After seeming to be diplomatic about the commonality across artistic endeavors (art, athletics, music, etc.) and conventional work roles in your first sentence, you then take on a patronizing and condescending tone in your second sentence, thereby destroying your initial approach of diplomacy and conciliation.

Finally, in your third sentence, you come full blast in separating the meaning of work into that which is conventional ("providing use-value for society"), and that which you present to be auxiliary, or peripheral -- art.

Consider those roles which are in the middle of the continuum between routine, repetitive, cog-in-the-machine-type work roles and the trailblazing, pushing-the-envelope, avant garde visionary (of whatever). Will you attract specialized labor, like engineers, with your conventional, dismissive attitude? How about storyboard artists or other types of art gruntwork roles, for the production of much-enjoyed entertainment?

You glibly delineate art-work as being separate, different, and *not* productive of use-value from everything else that is "work", according to your conception of it. Your prejudiced characterization is downright shocking, actually -- I'll ask you to reconsider the general role of artisitic / pioneering endeavors in society, and in their production of use-values.

I did not mean to come off as condescending. Believe it or not, I consider myself an artist more than anything and have been playing guitar now for many years. But I have also worked all along that time. This is the case for nearly all artists. It isn't like the equipment we use is too cheap or anything. This is what I meant by the first two sentences.

I am merely stating that people will have to be contributing some "use" to society in that they will be working towards satisfying a human need. I think we are at a point in society where human needs extend beyond industrial labor and we also need aesthetic and audio pleasure. In all reality, I don't think there is much practical purpose to the question itself. It seems to me to be a non-issue. But excuse me for my condescending attitude.

[ckaihatsu]

I did not mean to come off as condescending. Believe it or not, I consider myself an artist more than anything and have been playing guitar now for many years. But I have also worked all along that time. This is the case for nearly all artists. It isn't like the equipment we use is too cheap or anything. This is what I meant by the first two sentences.

I am merely stating that people will have to be contributing some "use" to society in that they will be working towards satisfying a human need. I think we are at a point in society where human needs extend beyond industrial labor and we also need aesthetic and audio pleasure. In all reality, I don't think there is much practical purpose to the question itself. It seems to me to be a non-issue. But excuse me for my condescending attitude.


I think the mix-up comes not so much from any attitude on your part as much as it stems from a temporal factor. This thread of discussion has been about a possible, feasible future communist society. You're entering the discussion from the standpoint of the here-and-now, in which artistic endeavors, like your guitar playing, are indeed ghettoized and made to seem as personal afflictions rather than what they rightly are: de facto, uncompensated contributions to the social fabric.

Much of the discussion on this thread has been about what "use" is to society. You've acknowledged the human need for aesthetic pleasures, including music. So, putting the two together, shouldn't we be pushing and fighting for an economy and society in which one's efforts at music (or creative pursuits in general) are *encouraged* and *rewarded* as steps in the right direction, that is, towards the possible or eventual production of use-values?

It is the status quo, commodity-oriented capitalist economy that artificially divides self-motivated creative efforts from that which can be readily commodified as "work", when in fact we should be consciously planning the economy as a whole so that it supports nascent efforts through a longer term, in anticipation of a future reward to society. Capitalism is patently incapable of doing this because investors are looking for as stable and quick a turnaround on their investments as possible -- this precludes providing a wide base of material support for an array of creative efforts, since many of them will never be commodifiable -- that's too much of a business risk.

This business and commodity mentality is too much of a risk to the rest of us who wish society to be a humane entity with material support for free-flowing ideas and creative efforts. The emergence of the Internet only begs the question to infinity since digital goods and services -- products of creative efforts -- are now providable, * en masse *, with virtually no effort required for distribution -- like this discussion, for example. So, from a materialist standpoint, supporting artistic efforts just got a whole lot easier, and yet capitalism won't enable the basic level of material support that would allow aspiring artists to simply do their thing, with the fruits only a step away from being instantly and widely available to the public (depending on the medium).

Labor's self-control over industry (the means of mass production) is of paramount importance in this regard because we have to ask where artists will get resources from -- should they have to build their own guitars by hand, or else pay severely marked-up prices for them with a capitalist-controlled currency? Same thing for computers, art supplies, living supplies, housing, transportation, and anything else I may have missed.