Writers in a Post-Revolutionary Society

[mel]

I realize that any question about the inner operation of a communist society is going to have speculative answers, but this issue has been nagging me for a while.

How might a communist society deal with somebody who, for instance, wanted to be a poet or a novelist? In a capitalist society it is almost impossible for somebody to take up this line of work. My question is, in a communist society, would people be able to forgo "productive" work in order to write novels? Should only people who are decent writers be able to be kept away from productive work? If not, and anybody can decide to be a novelist, what is to keep somebody from just saying that they want to be a poet, writing a haiku every morning, and not working? Should people have to do productive work in addition to writing?

In a gift economy these questions are slightly easier to deal with, as nobody has to work anyway, but in an economy where labor vouchers or some other type of incentive are used to ensure that people work, how would we go about paying authors? Obviously while a system such as royalties ensures to a degree that authors are compensated for popularity (which to a certain degree ensures that authors are also compensated for quality writing, although this is by no means to a great extent) it is wholly inappropriate as a means of compensation in a communist society because a popular author could make an absurd amount, and an economic disparity can arise (which exists in any method of paying entertainers based on popularity). Granted that labor vouchers wouldn't command the same sort of power as money does, it still seems to me that this is a bad situation to get into. Compensating authors is particularly difficult because it is very difficult to quantify exactly what activities constitute writing, which makes paying by the hour difficult, and an author of brilliant short stories should be compensated fairly even if it takes him or her the same amount of time to write a 10 page story as it does a novelist to write a 1,000 page book of mediocre quality.

I believe anybody who wants to be a writer should be given the opportunity, but I don't see how we can avoid abuse of the system without setting up barriers to entry, word/page quotas, or simply requiring authors to work normal jobs and write in their free time...but none of these situations are ideal, is there something obvious I'm missing?

Any ideas?

[JimmyJazz]

I've wondered a lot about freedom of artistic and literary expression in a communist society as well. Both in terms of freedom from censorship (can you allow Ayn Rand to write novels?) and freedom from work (equal liability of all to work is a central demand of socialism, but if exceptions are to be made, how does a society decide which people are talented enough to spend their time making art?). I don't have any really concrete answers, but there are a couple things you could read...

Oscar Wilde's The Soul of Man Under Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/index.htm) talks about it.

Trotsky's Literature and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/index.htm) seems to be about this, or at least about related issues of art in a revolutionary society; if you read it you can tell me how it was.

You could also try and find some reading material on Proletkult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletkult) in the USSR. I only know the little bit I read about it in Richard Pipes, but it was basically a movement to give working class people the opportunity to produce art. Pipes admits that Proletkult art was far from the only art being produced in the USSR in the early years. He admits, grudgingly, that there was still freedom of expression early on.

For myself, I think freedom of expression is non-negotiable. To me it's just a question of practical application and working out the kinks of having artistic freedom of expression alongside a political-economic dictatorship of the working class.

Also I think an important part of socialism/communism is an end to the extreme division of labor between mental and physical labor. In communist society, ideally, "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." So everyone should have the leisure time to follow artistic pursuits. This goes hand in hand with the fact that a reduction of working hours has always been a central demand of organized labor (like the movement for the eight hour day). Everyone should also have access to culture (museums, etc.), to an education in how to produce culture and art themselves (art lessons, etc.), and the materials necessary to produce art (time in a studio, paints and easel, etc.). Art and culture will not be commodities available only to the rich, and neither will the means of creating art and culture.

Edit: And as for allowing Ayn Rand to write novels, the only reason her tripe makes any sense or has any appeal to anyone is because of the fact that the capitalist class, with its monopoly on culture, and the capitalist state, with its near-monopoly on education, have been preaching Great Man nonsense to us since the day we were born, under the guise of "individuality". Ayn Rand simply won't be dangerous in a society where people get a proper education and understand that history is not made by "great" individuals.

[ckaihatsu]

Perhaps the most important principle to keep in mind about the functioning of a communist society is that * exchange-based relationships would be over *. The ending of commodity production would bring about the end of the "this-for-that" mentality -- maybe a decent approximation, for thinking about it, would be the "gift economy"....

There's a good thread that covers this topic in the broader context of art:


Art in a Communist society

http://www.revleft.com/vb/art-communist-society-t78626/index.html


Basically I would say that the "cost" of the writer's craft would be relatively "cheap", compared to that of a landscape artist, or to an artist who works in precious metals, rare materials, etc.

The amount of material goods and services that the larger society would have to make available to the writer (artist) for their satisfaction, in order to do their work, would not be very great, on the whole, compared to the needs of the average person. It's only when the artist / scientist makes greater material demands on the larger society that the issue would then become politicized since more would be at stake.


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. --

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

I believe creative works made for the intellectual consumption (or hiding holes in the wall) of others would be a hobby. If there were 6 hour work days, there could be another 2 (cumulative) hours devoted to eating, 6 to self-expression and another 10 for sleep. Of course, jiggle those numbers around as you want, but writing for entertainment isn't necessary to life as much as say, agriculture, but it is still needed for a higher standard of living. So it would have a set aside time.

[scarletghoul]

Do you mean classless stateless society or the proletarian socialist state? If it's the latter, then you can just look at the real examples. The arts recieved funding from the state.
If its the former, ideal communism, then yeah as someone else said art would not be in the economic sphere, it wouldnt be a job. Just something done in spare time.

also as a side note

If there were 6 hour work days
Im pretty sure we could reduce working hours significantly more than that, with proper use of technology and everyone working

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

Do you mean classless stateless society or the proletarian socialist state? If it's the latter, then you can just look at the real examples. The arts recieved funding from the state.
If its the former, ideal communism, then yeah as someone else said art would not be in the economic sphere, it wouldnt be a job. Just something done in spare time.

also as a side note

Im pretty sure we could reduce working hours significantly more than that, with proper use of technology and everyone working

Yeah, we could live at a subsistence level, where we produce just what we need, but it's always nice to have a surplus. You know, in case of emergencies/parties.;)

[x359594]

It's worth noting that the Beat writers were blue collar workers who worked at jobs that were seasonal or allowed for saving money. For example, Gary Snyder, Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac worked merchant marine jobs for 6 months to a year, collected their pay at the end of the voyage and spent the the rest of their time writing until necessity forced them back to paying jobs. Kerouac, Snyder and Philip Whalen worked two month jobs as fire lookouts, and when they were paid off wrote until their money ran out. Diane di Prima worked as an artist's model, waitressed and taught school as necessary and wrote when she wanted to.

It seems to me that artwork is productive necessary labor, on a par with manufacturing and agriculture. There was never a time in human history that was without art, from the paleolithic on, in all parts of the world and in every conceivable form of society.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I agree with mmmeee0. As he said we will reduce work to a seriously minimised level, therefore each individual will have plenty of time for their own methods of self expression and of course each person will have access to the utensils needed for each persons craft or hobby. Also a Communist society means the mind will be liberated from capitalist propoganda, pop culture, media etc. Therefore we can expect people to reach their true creative potential in the free society so art will be richer and vaster.